'Non-racialism' : Botswana, Lesotho and SwazilandS. B. Ngcobo1.7The newly independent states of Botswana,Lesotho and Swaziland have adopted constitu-tions, which are said to be race and colour-blind, and a policy of non-racialism in thatlegislation ignores differences of race andcolour among the people within their states. Anegative definition of non-racialism is containedin a speech by the Vice-President of Botswana,Dr Q. K. J. Masire, delivered to the expatriatecommunity in Francistown:Non-racialism means what it says. Itmeans that minorities, whatever theircolour, will be protected from oppres-sion. But it certainly does not mean thatminorities can be permitted to preservein independent Botswana the pattern ofsocial and economic discriminationwhich obtained in colonial days andwhich still obtains in neighbouring coun-tries which have not yet achieved major-ity rule. If we permit racialist attitudesto go unchecked in an avowedly non-racial society the majority of our peoplewill lose faith in non-racialism, and ourhopes of achieving a permanent climateof tolerance, harmony and unity willbe dashed. Such a climate is requirednot only to fulfill our national principles,but also to achieve the stability necessaryfor successful development in the in-terests of all our people.1Before analysing the constitutions of thesestates, let me try to indicate why the leadersof the governments of these states have thoughtit prudent or necessary to adopt non-racialism,2and what the dimensions of this policy are.CONCEPTSFrom time to time certain conceptual termsor expressions have been adopted to indicatethe relationships between the rulers and theruled in several African countries. In this con-nection I am thinking of such concepts orterms as guardianship, wardship, trusteeshipand segregation, which were subsequentlyfollowed by white racial supremacy, apartheid,multiracialism and non-racialism. According toguardianship and wardship the white rulersregarded themselves as the guardians of theAfrican population, and the terms were occa-sionally used by the minister of what used tobe called the Native Affairs Department inSouth Africa, my home country. Trusteeshipbecame popular from the time of the foundingof the League of Nations when certain territo-ries, such as South West Africa, were describedas a sacred trust of civilisation; I remember amember of the South African Native AffairsCommission (now the Bantu Affairs Commis-sion) who proudly described the South Africanpolicy as being based on trusteeship, whichterm subsequently found its way into several53legislative enactments in South Africa, Segrega-tion does not need detailed explanation, forwe all know more or less what it means inpractice in Rhodesia. These conceptual terms,guardianship, wardship, trusteeship, segregationneed no further elaboration on my part be-cause they are no longer in current usage. Butthe terms, white supremacy or white racialsupremacy, apartheid, multiracialism and non-racialism are still very much with us. Forexample, the students at WitwatersrandUniversity are thinking of running their societieson a basis of multiracialism by which they meanmixed participation by all the students of differ-ent racial groups or racial categories. Thepoint that 1 want to make about these termswith the'r shorthand means of describing thebasis or the essence of the political relationshipsbetween those who rule the country, mainlythe Whites, and those who arc ruled, mainlythe black Africans, is that they have been thesubject of discussion and debate by Africanpolitical leaders and movements.For example, in South Africa in 1949 therewas a break-away movement from the AfricanNational Congress under the leadership ofRobert Sebukwe called the Pan-Africanist. TheAfrican National Congress was said to adhereto a policy of multiracialism. The Pan-Africanist on the other hand wanted a policyof the Africans going it alone on the groundsthat the whole weight of apartheid, segregationor separation was borne by the Africans; andin the course of that controversy in South Afri-ca it became possible to define what the policyof white supremacy and segregation, subsequen-tly apartheid, meant to the African leaders.Here in Rhodesia there was the debate aboutmultiracialism and partnership; further norththere v/as the debate about colonialism and im-perialism, and in that way the African leaderselucidated for themselves, their followers andthe rest of the country, what they objected toand what they stood for, and more importantlythe direction of policy which they would takeif and when they came into power. It wasPrime Minister J. G. Strydom who articulatedin 1953 the doctrine of Witbaaskop (whitesupremacy) in South Africa:Our policy is that the Europeans muststand their ground and must remainthe Baas [Master] in South Africa. If wereject the Herrenvolk idea and theprinciple that the white man cannot re-main Baas, if the franchise is to be ex-tended to the non-Europeans, and ifnon-Europeans are given representationand the vote and the non-Europeans aredeveloped on the same basis as theEuropeans, how can the European re-main Baas. Our view is that in everysphere the European must retain theright to rule the country and to keep itwhite man's country.3This strong desire among Europeans to ruleAfrica also reflects itself, according to Ndaba-ningi Sithole, in the lack of universal Africaneducation. Various European powers adminis-tering different parts may not have expressedthemselves so strongly as Strydom, but theyhave felt the same way; hence the differenteducational policies in a European-ruled coun-try. Sithole then points out, as indeed nearlyall the other leaders do, that a policy of whitesupremacy means of course in reverse a policyof African subjection; and on that ground theAfricans both in South Africa and elsewherein Africa have come to reject this policy asentirely unacceptable. Verwoerd and others,as you heard from Professor Olivier, substitutefor the policy of white racial supremacy thatof apartheid which means in short a policyof opportunity for every man within his ownrace group and in racially reserved areas. Inorder that we may appreciate the significanceof apartheid as a policy, let me refer you tothe late R. F. A. Hoernle who described twoconcepts of liberty: the liberty of the individualand the liberty of the group. When we talkabout the liberty of the individual we thinkin terms of the individual rights and privileges,but the matter is different when we talk aboutthe liberty of the group, and in referring toSouth Afr'ca in particular he said the whitegroup enjoys independence and self-determina-tion. It, and it alone, determines its status, itsrights, its powers and its privileges withoutreference to any other group in the country.The non-white groups, as Hoernle describedthem at that time enjoy such rights, privilegesand status as are given them by the white group.They are un-free in the sense that they are notallowed to decide for themselves where theyshall exercise the rights they are given by thewhite group, when they may exercise thoserights and how they may exercise those rights.4They are also un-free in the sense that theyhave no part in the decision-making process,J54and so we should remember these words ofHoernle when we try to understand the limita-tions, from the black man's point of view, ofa policy of apartheid, a policy of opportunityfor every man but only within his own racegroup and in a racially reserved area, both ofwhich are being defined by the white group.The next concept that i would like to drawyour attention to is that of multiracialism. Apublication of the United Nations says: 'Thissituation obtains in countries inhabited bypeoples of different racial and cultural stockconstituting more or less separate and distinct-social and economic and even political sub-units within the same state,'5 Now as the state-ment stands it seems to be unobjectionable inthe sense that it conforms with what I mightcall everyday experience and everyday observa-tion: different countries are as a matter of factinhabited by peoples of different cultural andracial stock, who for the most part live inseparate areas voluntarily and maintain social,economic and even political separation amongthemselves. Sithole examines this concept ofmultiracialism (in chapters 3 and 4 of AfricanNationalism) and he says that multiracialism asa political policy is better of course than whitesupremacy and it is certainly better than apar-iheid. For it endeavours to provide for participa-tion in the Central Parliament where decisionsof importance are made by the various racialgroups on a basis of racial equality, more orless. But he comes to the conclusion that multi-racialism is also unacceptable to the Africanleaders and the African community, because itmeans that policies are based on racial linesin practice; and he regards multiracialism asa policy of by-passing universal adult suffrage,and comes to the conclusion that it is a policywhich operates on the basis of group rights,group participation and avoids or denies in-div'dual citizen rights.The African leaders in Rhodesia were muchmore concerned with what was described bySir Godfrey Huggins as a policy of partnership,and unfortunately in trying to define partner-ship some very unfortunate analogies betweenthe horse and the rider were used; and theAfrican leaders fastened on these unfortunateanalogies in order to reject in part the policyof partnership which meant, on the best in-terpretation, that the white man was to retainthe leadership or to keep Government in whatwas termed civilized and responsible hands,while the African was to be brought upgradually and trained for higher political res-ponsibilities.NON-RACIALISMI suggest then that the first reason whythe African governments of Botswana, Lesothoand Swaziland have adopted a policy of non-racialism is because they have rejected thealternative policies based on white supremacy-apartheid and multiracialism, and as far asmultiracialism is concerned you have heardfrom. Professor Olivier that it has now becomea swearword in South Africa. As a matter offact multiracialism was rejected as far backas 1912 when General Hertzog broke awayfrom General Botha and Smuts to form thefirst Nationalist party in South Africa. GeneralHertzog rejected Bantu partnership in a com-mon multiracial South African fatherland, buthe accepted the partnership of the Afrikanerand the English-speaking South Africans. Animportant reason for the rejection of multi-racialism by whites is that in order to becarried out on a fair or equitable basis multi-racialism would have to accord an equalnumber of representatives of each of the racegroups in the Central Parliament. It was DrVerwoerd with his devastating logic who oftenpointed out that it was no use giving the Afri-cans four Members of Parliament, or six, oreight, because once the principle of parliament-ary representation on the basis of their numberwas conceded, then the Africans would con-tinually want increased representation. And Ithink that behind the rejection by the whiteelectorate of the present race federation policyof the United Party in South Afr'ca is thisvery fear that once you concede the basis ofrace representation on a federal basis then youmust concede equality of representation. Onthe other hand the policy of multiracialism isrejected by and large in South Africa (andI think the same would be true of Rhodesia)on the basis that it means mixing by individualsof different races on a footing of equality.The second reason for which, I think, non-racialism has been embraced by the Africangovernments of Botswana, Lesotho and Swazi-land is that the race problem does not exist inthese three countries. A race problem emerges insituations where the different racial groups arepresent, not necessarily in equal numbers butin sufficient numbers to be significant either55from the point of view of their culture oreconomically or even politically. This is thesituation in South Africa where the differentracial groups of Coloured and Asians, as wellas Africans, are sizeable and have separate, orat least identifiable, cultures and communityinterests, and where significant economicpower and political and administrative controlare in the hands of the white group, whichalthough in a minority as far as numbers areconcerned is nevertheless definitely the rulinggroup. In Rhodesia the size of these differentracial groups is not as proportionally great asin South Africa. But they are more significantthan is the case in Botswana, Lesotho andSwaziland, where they are minute; for exampleaccording to the 1966 census of Lesotho theWhites were 0,2 per cent and the Asians were0,009 per cent of the total population. So theadoption of non-racialism could be said to bean easy matter.The third reason why this policy has beenadopted is a psychological one, which came tothe forefront with the attainment of independ-ence. In the colonial era when each of thesecountries was under British rule a certainamount of race differentiation or race dis-crimination was practised in regard to jobs,salaries, housing and school facilities; but withthe attainment of independence each of thegovernments of these three countries hasthought it proper to repudiate the race differ-entiation and race discrimination which waspractised in their own countries and to asserta policy of non-racialism. Psychologicallytherefore non-racialism is a repudiation of whatSir Seretse Khama has called a legacy of colo-nialism.6Fourthly, and very importantly in this res-pect as far as present day politics are concerned,non-racialism is without doubt a rejection ofthe racial policies and racial structures ofsociety as found in the Republic of South Afri-ca; and it should not be forgotten that the Pre-sident of Botswana, the Prime Minister ofSwaziland, and some Cabinet Ministers andseveral top civil servants in these countries wereeducated in South Africa and have firsthandknowledge and experience of the applicationand effects of its race policies. Labourers fromthe three countries continually go to work orlive in the Republic for short or long periods.In this manner they have direct experience ofinflux control, labour bureau systems, job op-portunities, the difficulties of obtaining housingand school facilities according to ethnic group-ing in the urban areas and other aspects ofrace or ethnic differentiation in the Republic;and to be added to this knowledge and ex-perience is that which is passed on by muchlarger numbers of Swazi, Sotho and Tswanapeople permanently domiciled in the Republicof South Africa but in constant touch with theirkinsmen in Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana.Fifthly, non-racialism is based on thegeneral conclusion of a much larger numberof Africans than is commonly appreciated bywhite governments or the white electorate, thatthe race policies of South Africa and to someextent Rhodes;a bring more hardship and dis-advantages to the Africans than advantagesor benefits.Sixthly, there is the demonstration effect ofnon-racialism, as epitomised by Sir SeretseKhama who is a more vocal, articulate andaggressive enunciator of non-racialism than theleaders in Swaziland or Lesotho:Our principal aspiration is to make acontribution to the victory of democracy,dignity and self-determination through-out Southern Africa. This ambition mustbe fulfilled by the only means availableto us, namely the development ofBotswana as a viable non-racial democ-racy whose unity and independence isbased on social and economic justice forits people regardless of race, colour ortribe. By demonstrating within SouthernAfrica that what unites men is more im-portant than what divides them we hopewe can assist in undermining philoso-phies which seek to deny dignity and self-determination on grounds of colour andrace. We are determined to demonstratethat placing irrational and artificialbarriers between human beings is notonly immoral but wasteful.7Finally, there is the consideration that ifthese countries had not adopted non-racialism,but had applied instead a policy of apartheidin reverse they would not be able to attractdevelopment funds from abroad, nor to obtainthe services of technical and professional per-sonnel from overseas, national governmentagencies and the United Nations and its severalagencies; for overseas governments and theUnited Nations are unwilling to operate on thebas's of policies based on race and colour56differentiation or discrimination.CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONSThe constitutions of Botswana, Lesotho andSwaziland,7 then, are non-racial or colour-blind. They all protect the individual's rightto freedom from discrimination on grounds ofrace or colour. For example, Section 15 of theSwaziland constitution, which corresponds tosimilar sections in the constitutions of the othertwo, provides that:1. Subject to the provisions of sub-sections 4, 5, 6 and 9, no law shall makeany provision that is discriminatory,either of itself or in its effects.2. Subject to the provisions of sub-sections 7, 9 and 10, no person shall betreated in a discriminatory manner byany person acting in the performance ofany public function conferred by anylaw or otherwise in the performance ofthe functions of any public office or anypublic authority.3. In this section the expression 'dis-criminatory' means affording differenttreatment to different persons attribut-able wholly or mainly to their respectivedescriptions by race, tribe, place oforigin, political opinion, colour or creed,whereby persons of one such descriptionarc subjected to disabilities or restric-tions to which persons of another suchdescription are not made subject, or areaccorded privileges or advantages whichare not accorded to persons of anothersuch description.Such then is the essence of the fundamentalhuman rights which are protected in the con-stitutions of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland.There arc, however, certain exceptions tothe general pos'tion as above outlined wherebypersons may be lawfully discriminated against,such as non-citizens, subjects of customary law,public officers; but even here the discriminationcannot be based purely or solely on race orcolour. Furthermore citizenship is open to anyperson in these countries who fulfills the re-quirements laid down in the constitution, orprovided by Parliament in the legislation. Thesame applies to voting rights. Thus in eachof the countries under consideration there areWhite, Coloured and Asian voters.APPLICATION IN PRACTICE;,The existence of different racial groups andthe need for their mutual accommodation can-not just be taken, and is not being taken, forgranted in these countries. For example, inSwaziland, the Government and the people arewell aware that there are White and that thereare Swazi, each with different modes of living,and social and economic interests. The Gov-ernment of Swaziland finds it necessary fromtime to time to exhort its Swazi people toaccept the Whites because they are there tostay as permanent residents or citizens andthey are also needed for the development ofthe country and the running of its financial,banking and economic services. The people arefurther exhorted not to resent the Asians be-cause they too have a useful role to play inthe commercial life of the country.In Lesotho on the other hand, the Whitesare concentrated mainly in Maseru and arereadily accepted, but the Asians who wereoriginally concentrated in the north-easterndistricts and are now begining to spread to otherdistricts in the country, are regarded with somejealousy and are somewhat discouraged. Aslong as their basic economic interests and theirmode of life are not interfered with. Whitesand Asians accept black rulers and their policyof non-racialism. Whites and Asians now sendtheir children to the same schools as arc at-tended by the African children or else sendtheir children to schools of their choice in theRepublic. Most Asians still import their wivesfrom outside and most Whites marry white girlsfrom within or without the borders of tiiesccountries.A few black and white inter-marriages takeplace each year, and although allowed by lawand the Government and probably tolerated bymost people such marriages are, however, notvery popular. Furthermore, some of the con-sequences of miscegenation, namely colouredoffspring, legitimate or illegitimate but notproperly provided for by their white fathers,are now becoming realised by the black gov-ernments. The Swazi Government has nowadopted measures to discourage clandestine sexrelations between white men and Swazi girls,and further to require that a Swazi girl whowishes to marry a white man should first obtainofficial approval.Non-racialism is also viewed as the elimina-tion of petty apartheid or the breaking down of57white resistance to the intrusion of Blacks intotheir societies or clubs; and all three govern-ments are concerned with stamping out dis-criminatory practices in shops, restaurants,hotels, cinemas, bars and clubs. In this connec-tion the attitude of the Botswana governmentto the situation in Francistown is summed upin the words of the Vice-President:I have so far dealt with a field inwhich the abuses are relatively clearand easy to pinpoint. I now turn to thesocial field where discrimination and pre-judice are somewhat harder to define.It is nevertheless, an important fieldand one in which government has againmade its policy quite clear.His Excellency the President hasstated more than once that racial intol-erance will not be accepted in Botswana.Yet when examining social relationshipsin Francistown, it is clear that socialadjustment has been delayed far toolong. No one will deny his neighbour theright to choose h:s own friends and leadhis own private life. These are matterson which it is neither wise nor practicalto legislate. But if an expatriate can findno Motswana with whom he is preparedto associate, if he goes further and ac-tually devises an institution as a refugeagainst the possibility of meeting a Mo-tswana then we are forced to ask our-selves if he might not be happier some-where else. It is likely that expatriateswith this attitude would be reluctant torespond positively to requests for co-operation in the employment field.He went on to express appreciation of thefact that the Francistown Club which hadhitherto remained exclusively white had nowchanged its rules, regulations and fees and wasnow prepared to accept Botswana as members:Some organisations in Francistownperiodically give receptions for businesspurposes, to which many guests areinvited. The organisers of these recep-tions go to undue lengths to secure theattendance of white guests and it is alltoo noticeable that Africans, even thoughthey be Members of Parliament, Coun-cillors, senior government officials andbusinessmen are not considered suitablefor such functions, although for the sakeof appearances a token handful may beinvited. I suggest to you that such func-tions would be more worthwhile andmore truly reflect the image of Botswanaif the guests were more representativeof the community in which we live.In many Francistown shops it is takenas a matter of course that Africansshould wait until all white people havebeen served. Indeed, some white shopassistants Š who may well be keepingBotswana out of jobs Š will, in manycases break off their business with a Mo-tswana customer in order to attend toa newly arrived white customer. I askthat all shopkeepers should give strictinstructions that customers should beserved with courtesy on a first-come-first-served basis regardless of their colouror social position . . . the basic aim ofGovernment for the planning of the newFrancistown is that it should providefor non-racial development. Therefore inadopting a strategy for Francistown de-velopment Government is guided by itspolicy aim which will be reflected in de-cisions regarding housing, industry,schools, playing-fields and other ameni-ties. But here again community attitudesare crucial for the success of our plans.The Vice-President went on to discuss un-favourable employment practices, unfavourablefrom the point of view of the black population,and the policy of the Government:The practice whereby white expatriateswho have no qualifications or previousexperience are employed simply to avoidemploying Botswana, is widespread.Botswana workers are widely stigmatisedby many white employers as dishonestor lazy and therefore denied promotionon merit or experience. But at the sametime we find employers making noeffort to screen applicants or to providetraining for their African staff. Too fewprospects are held out for the honest anddiligent African or Botswana. All overFrancistown one can find cases of pre-ference being given to unqualified non-Africans even for the simplest jobs.Sometimes as a concession to the non-white susceptibilities, coloureds in theSouth African or Rhodesian sense, maybe employed as middle-rank supervisorsbut never or rarely an African.58In order to provide a corrective to theseproblems, the Government of Botswana hasenacted legislation governing labour relationsand made policy statements setting out guide-lines for employers and managers in commercialand industrial enterprises such as are found inFrancistown and elsewhere. The Botswana gov-ernment now insists that expatriates shouldonly be employed in those jobs which cannot befilled by African citizens. This is the stand-point also of the Lesotho and Swazi govern-ments and it applies to white expatriates andAfricans from outside the borders of thesecountries, such as black South Africans Šmuch to their disappointment for they tendto think that a policy of non-racialism in thesecountries meant that these countries were opensocieties, which they are not. In order togive effect to its labour policies, non-citizensbe they white or black, who seek entry intothese countries for work purposes and resid-ence, are now first required to obtain residenceand work permits before entering these coun-tries. On the other hand in the upper levels ofemployment, in technical and professionalfields, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland stillrely on expatriates, whereas most of the ad-ministrative posts have become localised.According to the manpower study of April 1971in Lesotho, for example, 55 per cent of theexpatriates are British and they enjoy thehighest rungs of the salary scale; for example,47 per cent of the British expatriates were onwhat is called the super-scale and 37 per centon the so-called A scale.RELATIONS WITH SOUTH AFRICAThe three newly independent states of Bo-tswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are well awareof the fact that their non-racial policy is op-posed to, and virtually a challenge to, the racialpolicies of South Africa and to some extentof Rhodesia. They are also aware of the con-straints and limitations to their policy andcomplete freedom of action arising from theirgeographic relationship to South Africa, Rho-desia and Mozambique; and of their weakerpolitical and administrative organisations, andof their lack of military strength. They are alsovery much aware of their long established trade,financial and monetary ties with South Africa,labour and employment opportunities for theirpeople in South Africa, as well as flows oftourists, exports and imports through the portsand along the rail-routes possessed by thewhite-ruled states of Southern Africa. Becauseof this situation the government and leaders ofthese countries have to accept co-existence andeconomic co-operation with South Africa. Forexample there is close collaboration and co-operation in the South African Customs Union,first created in 1910 and revised as recently as1969. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland arealso members of the South African MonetaryUnion. Botswana receives a monetary con-sideration for the lease of land covered by therailway line between the Republic of SouthAfrica and Rhodesia. Lesotho accepts financialand technical aid from the South African Gov-ernment, but Botswana does not. All threecountries accept private investment from SouthAfrica provided it helps to develop thesecountries according to their development priori-ties and also helps to diversify their economies.Despite these close relations, however, thesethree countries maintain no diplomatic or con-sular representation in South Africa, At presentdiplomatic contacts amount to no more thanoccasional ministerial meetings and exchangesbetween top civil servants from South Africa,on the one hand, and those from Botswanaor Lesotho or Swaziland, on the other hand,over particular matters. South Africa and Leso-tho, it has recently been reported, are toestablish physical consular representation intheir respective countries, but Botswana refusesto do this until South Africa can fully guaran-tee that her representatives will in all respects,at all times and in all places be treated in thesame way as diplomats from other countries.9The governments of the three countriesrepudiate the charge that is sometimes madethat by their relations with South Africa, theycondone the evils of racial discrimination andapartheid. On the contrary they have oftenindicated their opposition (Botswana being fore-most and Swaziland being least prominent inthis respect) to the theories and practices ofapartheid and at the same time expressed adesire for a change of policy in South Africaby fiscal means and negotiation. But they alsorecognise that the principle of non-interferencein the internal affairs of South Africa must bemaintained and that force or violence will notbring about the desired solution of the problemof apartheid.1059FOREIGN POLICYJust as the policy of the three countries,Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, towardsSouth Africa is essentially an extension of theireconomic interest and non-racial policy, thesame is also true of their foreign policy. Foreconomic reasons the governments of the threecountries value their connection with the WorldBank, the International Monetary Fund, theUnited Nations Conference on Trade and De-velopment, and the Commonwealth FinanceMinisters Conference. Through these agenciesinfluence can be exerted for obtaining an in-creasing flow of aid and investment funds andfor changing commodity prices as well as worldtariff structures in a manner that is going tobe favourable towards the economic circum-stances of developing countries. Membershipof the United Nations is valued as recognition oftheir newly enhanced status of sovereignindependent states. It is also valued for itsprotection of the special interests of smallstates and as a forum for keeping in touchwith international opinion while at the sametime affording opportunities for articulatingviews against racial and colonial policies inthose parts of Africa where they are said stillto exist. As with other African governments,the governments of Botswana, Lesotho andSwaziland also value membership of the Com-monwealth as an organisation that cuts acrosslines of race and colour. Another valued con-nection for these three countries is with theOrganisation for African Unity. According toSir Seretse Khama, who is the most articulateand vocal in explaining these matters, theOrganisation of African Unity is regarded as aforum for the co-ordination of tactics andstrategy for the ending of racialism and colo-nialism in Southern Africa, or in what theseAfrican governments call white-ruled minoritygovernments in Southern Africa.Finally there is their attachment to whatis called the Lusaka Manifesto whereby theyindicated to the governments of Rhodesia,South Africa and Mocambique that they be-lieve in negotiation towards the establishmentof self-determination, human dignity and betterrelations between all the people in these coun-tries.REFERENCES^Community Relations in Botswana, with Special Reference to Francistown, Gaborone, Government Printer, 1971.zSee speech of welcome by the President of Botswana Sir Seretse Khama, to the Vice President of KenyaDr Daniel Arap Moi, in July 1970 at Gaborone as contained in Dr Moi in Botswana, Gaborone. GovernmentInformation Services, 1970.sQuoted in N. Sithole, African Nationalism, Cape Town, Oxford Univ. Press, 1959, p.47.*Race and Reason, Johannesburg, Witwatcrsrand Univ. Press, 1945, p.14; South African Native Policy and theLiberal Spirit, Cape Town, Univ. of Cape Town for Phelps-Stokes Fund, 1939, p.123.sEconomic Commission for Africa, Economic and Social Consequences of Racial Discriminatory Practices1963, p.4.eDr Moi in Botswana.'Address to the Foreign Policy Society in Copenhagen, 13.xi.1970.eLesotho and Swaziland have suspended their constitutions by the declaration of a State of Emergency, butthese non-racial aspects have not been affected.sSee also Seretse Khama's address to the General Assembly of United Nations, September 1969tolbid.60