REVIEW                                               TRANSFORMATION 11 (1990)
             UNDER THE SPELL OF APARTHEID
  Review of Hermann Giliomee and Lawrence Schlemmer From Apartheid to
  Nation-Building (Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 1989)
                                                              Rupert Taylor
   From Apartheid to Nation-Building is divided into two parts. Part One,
 'Apartheid and its Reforms', outlines the background, ideology and function-
 ing of apartheid and noting the shift from 'a missionary sense of purpose to
 a pragmatic functionalism', discusses the recent era of limited reform. Part
 Two, 'Towards Co-Existence' considers ways of moving to a genuine post-
 apartheid era and, through addressing the challenge of nation-building,
 offers a new framework for negotiating a unitary South Africa.
   Both the interpretation of apartheid and the proposed 'solution' rests on
 Giliomee and Schlemmer's reading of the salience of ethnicity in which they
 accept that the root cause of division lies not only at the level of opposing
 material interests. Drawing on the work of Walker Connor, Joseph Roth-
 schild and Donald L Horowitz, the emotional power of nationalism (rooted
 in ethnic identity) is seen to have an independent causal significance that in
 the South African situation has made for zero-sum conflict. Accordingly,
 they argue that the struggle between Afrikaner and African nationalism can
 only be resolved through providing political structures that recognize (at
least in the short term) the relative autonomy of these two main political
traditions.
   Hence their primary concern is to chart a middle way between apartheid
and democracy. Such a route could evolve, they say, through the National
Party's movement towards recognizing the concept of an 'open' political
group. They argue that having a voluntary open group alongside racially
defined groups creates 'a parallel form of political mobilization' which could
'become the constitutional vehicle through which the majority-based non-
racial organizations, such as the UDF and ANC, could enter the formal
political system' (1989:204).
   Rejecting the common society model which is committed to non- racialism
and democracy (in the form of one person one vote in a unitary South Africa)
on the grounds that it does not 'take into account the hard realities of South
African society" and is not 'likely to win decisive support from both sides of
                                       104


 TRANSFORMATION                                                             TAYLOR
the potential divide' (1989: 155) Giliomee and Schlemmer believe that
majority incorporation into the political system could be secured through
their proposed framework which is built around the idea of having a period
of transition with a government of national unity - a 'buffer phase' with no
sectional domination and 'a mutual acceptance of national dualism and
ideological pluralism' (1989:241) that would eventually lead to majority rule.
    Such a government of national unity, with a parity of power principle
operative 'for at least 10 years' (1989:227), would have two main power blocs;
whites with their own community alliance forming a group-based minority
faction and a non-racial alliance forming a majority faction. Provision would
be made for a non-aligned formation comprised of those not aligned to the
nationalist movements which would serve as the opposition and seek to build
a third principle that 'must involve a genuine attempt at nation-building and
seek to combine the best talents of all South Africans, regardless of their
ethnic background' (1989: 216).
   It is argued that for the transitional political system to work there must be
an acceptance of the limits of power, an acceptance of the two political
traditions, an abandonment of Westminster majoritarianism and a commit-
ment from both sides to control their radicals. Also suggested are some
intermediate policies to support transition - such as the elimination of the
remains of segregation, the expansion of urban opportunity and the creation
of a dual set of national symbols.
     Although presented as a fundamentally new approach in many ways
Giliomee and Schlemmer present little more than a reformulated consoci-
ational 'solution! riddled with basic problems around their understanding of
ethnicity.
    The work uncritically accepts the view that 'The main insight of recent
comparative studies of divided societies is that conflict in these societies are
not only about a clash of interests which can somehow be mediated' (1989:
162-63). What is important about an adherence to this school of thought
which accepts that the dynamics of ethnic identity can lead to zero-sum
conflict is that it guides the authors, whether they like it or not, close to
accepting a basic tenet of apartheid - namely that ethnic contact can lead to
conflict and friction. Recognition of this tenet informs the proposed frame-
work of conflict resolution, a 'buffer period' is argued for precisely because
it would avoid an 'unmitigated clash of interests and needs' (p 166). This is,
in the short term, to accept much of the argument that 'if mixed development
is to be the policy of the future in South Africa, it will lead to the most terrific
clash of interests imaginable'. The author of these words? H F Verwoerd
(1966: 24-25).
  What makes Giliomee and Schlemmer's position so suspect is their lack of
                                         105


   TAYLOR                                                          TRANSFORMATION
   theoretical sophistication; the matrix of factors that actually work to hinder
   assimilation and crystalize distinctiveness are not specified nor are com-
   parative references to other divided societies sufficiently well drawn and no
   definitive truths relevant to ethnic conflict are given.
      To approvingly quote the position of Rothschild that 'the relationship
   between the emotional component and the interest component of politicized
   ethnicity is dialectical. Neither is a mere epiphenomenon of the other...and
   neither functions alone' (1989:163) is one thing; to unravel it quite another.
   If ethnicity has a significance independent of other variables what are its
   causal dynamics? And how is it that it can take on an intractable nature?
   Besides largely ignoring a whole range of theoretical literature on primor-
  diaUsm, plural society theory and uneven development the book does not
  begin to answer the key questions of how ethnic lines of division originate,
  endure and can be changed?
     In failing to provide any social scientific rigour From Apartheid to Nation-
  Building does not provide sufficient grounds for rejecting alternate premises
  which could lead to very different conclusions. It can in fact be asked why
  the notion of ethnicity has any real analytic validity at all? Neville Alexander
  has written that it is necessary to question 'the implication that 'ethnic groups'
  simply exist somehow ...It is simply assumed that something called 'ethnicity'
  makes the group cohere' (1987:137). Perhaps ethnicity does not in any trans-
 historical sense exist and is merely an 'invention'?
     What this suggests is that instead of accepting the a priori arguments of
 Giliomee and Schlemmer on ethnic identity and its exclusivity, the starting
 point for analysis should focus on how and why the South African state under
 apartheid has 'manufactured' ethnic identity through the structural and
 ideological re-ordering of society (as, for example, with Group Areas and
 Homelands, schooling and media control). This calls for relating ethnicity to
 broader issues of social organization through a thorough-going sociological
 approach that gives serious attention to an analysis of state power and class
forces. In this a central task should be to develop a framework to uncover
the social psychology of racial domination and to tease out the space for
strategies of emancipation.
   The position of the two South African authors seems beguiled by the spell
of the new order formed by apartheid which has created the belief that
ethnicity not only does exist but has 'unalterable' characteristics. In terms of
interpreting the book from a sociology of knowledge perspective this is
perhaps why the 'ethnic factor' is overplayed and there is a natural affinity
with the position of Connor, Rothschild and Horowitz.
  Not surprisingly the arguments that are employed to reject democracy are
extremely contestable. Not only do Giliomee and Schlemmer proceed from
                                          106


TRANSFORMATION                                                                        TAYLOR
judging the correctness of majoritarianism rather than from adopting the
democratic principle 'to create, develop, and protect, political institutions
for the avoidance of tyranny" (Popper, 1977: 125) but they fail to seriously
consider any forms of participatory democracy and democratic socialism.
Although it is argued that the lack of a widely shared sense of national identity
is a major obstacle to establishing democracy there is no critical investigation
of the preconditions for democracy in South Africa (as for example by
Stadler, 1988). Such a project represents one of the most important and
exciting areas for research and cannot simply be dismissed through the
authors singular view of democracy and controversial reading of the salience
of ethnicity.
   To see, as Giliomee and Schlemmer do, a democratic solution as unaccept-
able because it does not have the support of the white electorate is to
perpetuate the status quo. The issue should be recast to ask why people have
not connected more with democratic practices? What is more, they are
simply wrong in seeing the situation so much in terms of two exclusive
nationalisms. Apart from the 20% white support the Democratic Party,
committed to Western democracy, received in the 6 September 1989 election
it is, as Alex Boraine - Executive Director of IDASA, has argued 'incorrect
to equate white Afrikaner nationalism and black African nationalism - the
former is exclusive, the latter (at least the non-racial democratic position) is
inclusive and non-chauvinistic' (1989:3).
    Rather than taking such an apologetic and blinkered position what is
needed is a different theoretical structure with a new imaginative synthesis
of knowledge that can break the spell of apartheid and move South Africa
towards a democratic and non-racial future.
References
Alexander, Neville (1987) -'Race, ethnicity and nationalism in social science in Southern
                     Africa', in Sow the Wind, (Johannesburg: Skotavillc).
Boraine, Alex (1989) - 'Pitfalls of focusing on division in SA', in Democracy in Action,
                     August, editorial.
Popper, KR (1977) - The Open Society and its Enemies: Volume 1, The Spell of Plato
                     (LondoniRKP).
Stadler, AW (1989) - 'A contribution to the "Conditions of Democracy" debate: a working
                     paper', in International Affairs Bulletin, 12(3).
Verwoerd, HF (1966) - in AN Pelzer (ed) Verwoerd Speaks (Johannesburg: Afrikaanse
                     Pers Boekhandel).
                                               107