1948 SA Election: Smuts Wins. What next?

The 1948 South African election is often seen as one of the more important elections of the 20th century, in at least that it led creation of the formal apartheid system after the unseating of the victorious wartime ministry of Jan Smuts. Then of course everything else past that.

The results (see below) in essence gave the NP/AP alliance 79 seats to the UP/LP's 71. In total, totting up all other seats, a majority of 5 to the Alliance. Not a huge majority but more than enough to do whatever they wanted to do.

Let us say that there is no major POD and the UP / LP wins just enough to retain power, but the NP/AP makes substantial advances as per OTL. So, the UP has enough to govern, but the NP alliance has enough to be a plausible alternative/win the next election. As contrasted to a substantial, solid UP win. If there is no major POD, just slightly better performances by the UP candidates in at least 5 seats, then they win. Let us say they win slightly more than that, so they have more seats than the NP by themselves and a couple of seats majority at least, just enough that there is no prospect of the NP alliance sneaking through with minor defections.

So what happens next?

1. What is the UP's plan for the 48-51 term?
2. Do they liberalise any of the racial provisions, whether voting, economic, land or otherwise?
3. Do they take any steps to change things to make it more likely they will win in future? Say working on the rural/urban weighting, more immigration, etc
4. Smuts - I take it he leaves, but who replaces? Hofmeyer? Note, he may die as per OTL in 1948

Further

Now, as most of us are aware on this forum anyway, racial politics and law in South Africa had been pretty discriminatory prior to this point for various reasons and the United Party/or moderates generally had some responsibility for this as well. Race being a constant electoral issue in the Union from 1910 onwards. A United Party/Smuts victory does not necessarily mean much in the way of progress for non white voters, but it is at least better than the alternative.

So, as to the point of the thread. Well, the key question is, what does the Smuts led United party do in the case of a victory? Let us assume that it is a narrow victory at best and so they must consider a new election could be called before the end of the term in 1951. Specifically, racial issues and immigration (I'm quite aware there was far more to the 48 election than this).

Does the UP actually liberalise voting rules, does it loosen other restrictions, etc? Or does it introduce new restrictions, milder than the NP plans, but still a detriment? Regardless, were there any concrete plans here? I am aware Hofmeyer had various liberal ideas on this matter.

Which leads onto the next point, what happens to the UP and Smuts? Does Smuts go? Does Hofmeyer take over? If not, who? Does this help the UP prepare for the next election?

What happens to the NP/AP alliance? Do they merge/collapse?

What happens to Labour?

Apologies in advance, as this topic does come up often, sort of!

Background election information

National 70 45.75 401,834 37.70
United 65 42.48 524,230 49.18
Afrikaner Party 9 5.88 41,885 3.93
Labour 6 3.92 27,360 2.57
Independent 3 1.96 70,662 6.63

Registered Voters - 1,337,534

Total Votes (Voter Turnout) - 1,073,364 (80.2%)

Invalid/Blank Votes - 7,393

Total Valid Votes - 1,065,971

NP/AP alliance marginals: 3 seats under 100, 5 seats under 200, 11 under 500

9th Delimitation Commission – eliminated 8 seats, 6 of which were UP, 2 NP/Alliance. NP won 6/8, UP 1, LP 1. It has been posited that if they had not been eliminated, the UP would have retained at least 2 plus possible 1-3.


I've largely pulled the numbers from the book below, which I found after a brief search

Afrikaner Politics in South Africa, 1934-1948
By Newell Maynard Stultz
 

abc123

Banned
2. Do they liberalise any of the racial provisions, whether voting, economic, land or otherwise?
3. Do they take any steps to change things to make it more likely they will win in future? Say working on the rural/urban weighting, more immigration, etc


What happens to the NP/AP alliance? Do they merge/collapse?

2. Probably yes, but not much. Increased black immigration in cities. No bantustans.
About voting, I presume that Cape coloured franchise remains.

3. Probably yes. More equal distribution between city and village votes to ensure their victory on next elections.

Probably much more white immigration, primarly from Britain, but really, from anywhere...

Yes, I presume that NP/AP merge, to unite Afrikaner front against UP. But no collapse, they have a stabile voting base, no collapse.
 
2. Probably yes, but not much. Increased black immigration in cities. No bantustans.
About voting, I presume that Cape coloured franchise remains.

3. Probably yes. More equal distribution between city and village votes to ensure their victory on next elections.

Probably much more white immigration, primarly from Britain, but really, from anywhere...

Yes, I presume that NP/AP merge, to unite Afrikaner front against UP. But no collapse, they have a stable voting base, no collapse.

Sure, but I guess my questions are more on specifics 48-51, the term following the election. I know you've an interest in the topic from previous threads, but did you have any thoughts on specific policies?

Relating to your points - voting - so no change with Cape franchise in a negative sense, but what about expansion to include more people?

Distribution - Agreed but how?

As I see it there are two ways to deal with both: the first is to play with redistribution - control appointments/drag things out (which apparently was considered by the UP cabinet but vetoed by Smuts, in early 48), the second is to pass a generous law that expands the Cape Franchise. The constitutional provision would not stop an expansion, just a removal/retrenchment.

I'm not sure if I'm reading the constitution correctly, but it seems that only the Cape Franchise is protected by the 2/3rds rule at this point. Anything else can be changed by ordinary act.

So possibly the UP, if it has the numbers, could do all sorts of things, if so minded. I would imagine that it would be hard for it to expand franchise though.

152. Parliament may by law repeal or alter any of the provisions of this Act:

Provided that no provision thereof, for the operation of which a definite period of time is prescribed, shall during such period be repealed or altered: And provided further that no repeal or alteration of the provisions contained in this section, or in sections thirty-three and thirty-four (until the number of members of the House of Assembly has reached the limit therein prescribed, or until a period of ten years has elapsed after the establishment of the Union, whichever is the longer period), or in sections thirty-five and one hundred and thirty-seven, shall be valid unless the Bill embodying such repeal or alteration shall be passed by both Houses of Parliament sitting together, and at the third reading be agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of both Houses. A Bill so passed at such joint sitting shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament.
https://media.law.wisc.edu/s/c_8/jzhy2/cbsa1.pdf

Regarding white immigration, British or otherwise, I don't know if that would help too much in short term, despite Afrikaner fear. It is likely that the immigrants would cluster in urban areas where the UP was strong, or English areas where the same is true. Longer term, maybe this would help, given the small sizes of the seats. The UP would need to redistrict somehow I would think as well, which would be massively controversial.
 
take the edge off

I know there were proposals to expand colored franchise to Split off mixed race from Africans. The Fagin commission wanted to improve African living conditions, and reduce the color bar in industry. No apartheid, but non an integrated society at all, What Div graaf called A race federation
 
I know there were proposals to expand colored franchise to Split off mixed race from Africans. The Fagin commission wanted to improve African living conditions, and reduce the color bar in industry. No apartheid, but non an integrated society at all, What Div graaf called A race federation

Good point, I had quite forgotten about that. Here is quick summary from a third party (in lieu of the report itself):

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpress...2&chunk.id=s1.2.9&toc.id=s1.2.9&brand=ucpress

Report of the Native Laws (Fagan) Commission (1948)

Arguably the most liberal official document produced in the segregation era, the report of the Fagan Commission took off where Smuts’ dour lament that “segregation has fallen on evil days” left off. The report captured the liberal disillusionment with segregationist policies immediately after World War II by emphasizing two broad issues.[9] First, the report insisted that the differentiation of the urban African population into settled and migrant communities should be accepted and expressed in a benign policy that merely regulated but did not retard African urbanization. It rejected the policy of total territorial segregation as “utterly impractical” and brushed aside the allied view that “migratory labour should therefore be regarded as normal and the only desirable form of Native labour in the urban areas.” The report advocated an “elastic policy” of transitional segregation premised on a less rigid pass system, which would gradually be relaxed to a point where race would be eroded as an organizing principle in South Africa’s socioeconomic structure. “Labour stabilisation” in the urban areas therefore dominated the recommendations put forward in the report.
The second broad issue that undergirded the report’s recommendations was a call for the rationalization of urban administrative structures, principally through the establishment of a centralized system of labor bureaus. However, this structure would be implemented on a voluntary basis, since its function would be merely to “guide and regulate the labour stream,” not to “direct” labor across the economy. Nevertheless, the report noted that administrative arrangements could indeed be used to distinguish “the settled, well-known Native” from “other Natives” whose transience in urban areas made the evasion of law and authorities easier.[10] In the interests of efficiency, the report recommended that the central state—more specifically, either the Department of Labour or the DNA—should control the centralized pass system. The net emphasis on only a moderate degree of state intervention to balance the numbers of permanent and migrant workers in urban areas accorded well with the labor needs of industry and commerce in the urban areas. Since the report studiously excluded the mining industry from its recommendations, agriculture stood to lose most from the liberalization of the pass system.
Thus, the Fagan Commission report was in keeping with the liberal distrust of extensive state involvement in the economy, the creed vindicated in the war against fascism and communism. The tenor of the official view on the matter had actually been set by the influential report of the Industrial and Agricultural Labour Requirements (or van Eck) Commission. Arguing that the role of state planning should ideally be restricted to rationalizing the “highly compartmentalized” state bureaucracy to increase economic and administrative efficiency, the report specifically condemned what it called “directive” forms of state intervention in “totalitarian countries,” and in words that must have appalled farmers, it specifically rejected agrarian demands for stricter controls of African workers: “The most essential consideration in framing state measures should be that they must protect and build up the grazing and arable land.” [11] The Fagan Commission report—which Verwoerd relished in describing as the “political Bible of the United Party”—unequivocally identified itself with this position. Still, in the area of urban administration, the report provided fodder for Verwoerd’s strategy in the 1950s. According to the report, “it is, therefore, a disturbing thought that in accordance with a policy we have inherited from pre-Union days when the problem had not yet assumed this aspect…the regulation of the contacts in the towns is not in the hands of the central Government, but in the hands of the hundreds of municipalities. It is they who have to handle the explosive situations.” [12]
However, “explosive situations” within the United Party were generally dealt with by deciding to “leave it to the Oubaas [‘Old-master’, i.e., Smuts].” [13] But the Oubaas attached an overweening importance to the commission he had appointed in 1946 and so deferred all questions about Native affairs. The result was that the year-long investigation weakened Native administration even before its report was published. Smuts’ appointment of the Oxford-trained, ineffective Piet van der Byl to succeed Denys Reitz as MNA did not help matters. (D. L. Smit’s opinion was that the appointment harmed the department, to which he was intensely devoted.)[14] W. J. G. Mears, then Under- Secretary, had also replaced Smit as SNA in 1944; although Smit retained his interest in Native affairs by accepting Smuts’ nomination to the Native Affairs Commission (where he joined E. H. Brookes), a keen liberal voice was removed from administrative circles. Like Smit, Mears was also a “liberal” very much concerned with “uplifting” Africans, principally through education. But he lacked the drive for which Smit was noted, and his strengths, in any case, lay in administration of the reserves.[15] At a time when urban administration was resting on shaky institutional supports, confronting a volatile urban black population, and raising the anger of white farmers, political leadership within the department entered the doldrums and did nothing to reverse the government’s image as “a government of expediency…unable to formulate a long-term legislative programme.” [16] Instead of energizing the government, the Fagan Commission’s disavowal of state interventionism consolidated the UP’s reputation as “the party of ‘drift.’” [17]
 
A plausible POD to re-elect the Smuts government in 1948 would be increased British immigration to South Africa immediately after WWII (also making the country more attractive to Jewish immigrants) and fast-tracking the citizenship laws to allow these new immigrants to vote just in time for the election.
 

abc123

Banned
I presume that Smuts would try some gerrymandering to get districts with large cities having more MPs while small cities and villages having smaller number of MPs.

About expansion of Cape franchise, I'm not sure. Not big expert on that issue...
It seems to me that he could expand the franchise of Coloureds in cape, but I'm not sure would he be willing to do it, even at the risk of losing the elections...

Smuts was not some kind of liberal that wanted to give political rights to black population in SA, at least not in some meaningful way. If I'm wrong, I would gladly hear where...
 
A victory for the United Party I would not say butterflies apartheid. One must remember that by 1948 the division between Afrikaners and the British was very much complete, the animosity between them very real (still remains to large extent today) and the Afrikaners were rallying themselves around an idea. If Malan and Strijdom and Verwoerd fail in 1948, they are still going to be a tough, loud, angry force for Smuts (and whoever his successor is) to deal with. Being able to get new immigrants and expanding the franchise to limit the ability of the Afrikaners to vote as a bloc and take advantage of gerrymandering would be a way of saving them, but its also quite likely to get more Afrikaners angry, which is probably more dangerous than alienating African communities in 1950s South Africa.
 
South Africa in the 1950s would be an interesting place, given the potential for conflict between the vocal militant Afrikaners and the Smts government.
 
2. Do they liberalise any of the racial provisions, whether voting, economic, land or otherwise?
IIRC there had been proposals in the recent past to expand the number of representatives for blacks that met the limited franchise, the representatives were all white of course, from four seats to ten. From a purely self-interested position I could see the United Party passing that since the representatives would never likely side with the National Party whilst being potential allies of theirs.

Unlike the National Party they won't tighten the immigration restrictions on Commonwealth citizens, mostly British, that were moving to the country in large numbers at the time with the passing of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949. Under the old, or in this timeline current, rules it only required two years residence for them to be considered South African and be able to vote. Since IIRC they were on average more likely to lean towards the United Party than the National Party if and when any changes to the electoral laws and likely concurrent boundary changes take place it moves the National Party further away from being able to gain power.


3. Do they take any steps to change things to make it more likely they will win in future? Say working on the rural/urban weighting, more immigration, etc.
Highly likely I would say. They can legitimately point out that advances such as railways, newspapers, wireless and growing car ownership have effectively removed the conditions that created the need for weighting in the past. The fact that it would help cement their grip on power would be purely incidental. :) Does anyone know whether South Africa at the time had any conventions or laws on the statute books like the UK currently has with regards to electoral changes that only allow them to come into effect after the next election so that governments can't unfairly rig things in their own favour?


Now, as most of us are aware on this forum anyway, racial politics and law in South Africa had been pretty discriminatory prior to this point for various reasons and the United Party/or moderates generally had some responsibility for this as well. Race being a constant electoral issue in the Union from 1910 onwards. A United Party/Smuts victory does not necessarily mean much in the way of progress for non white voters, but it is at least better than the alternative.
As you say racial restrictions were already in place and an electoral issue so it's not going to become the Rainbow nation straight after the election, the United Party at least appear to have talked about changing things for the better. At least things won't get any worse since I can't see them introducing 'grand apartheid' like the National Party started doing in 1950 but more maintain what I've seen described as the 'petit apartheid'. Best case scenario is a very slow reform with things like an increase in the number of black representatives to ten, income and educational criteria that need to be met for individual black voters which are slowly widened over time etc.
 
A victory for the United Party I would not say butterflies apartheid. One must remember that by 1948 the division between Afrikaners and the British was very much complete, the animosity between them very real (still remains to large extent today) and the Afrikaners were rallying themselves around an idea. If Malan and Strijdom and Verwoerd fail in 1948, they are still going to be a tough, loud, angry force for Smuts (and whoever his successor is) to deal with. Being able to get new immigrants and expanding the franchise to limit the ability of the Afrikaners to vote as a bloc and take advantage of gerrymandering would be a way of saving them, but its also quite likely to get more Afrikaners angry, which is probably more dangerous than alienating African communities in 1950s South Africa.

This is in line with my thoughts too, I also don't think the UP has the stomach for a grand gesture. They know it'll aggravate their base and hurt their election possibilities.

But small gestures or omissions are different. A mild gerrymandering effort could slip through, pre 48 election.

If the Fagan Commission has time to bed in, for 3 years, without counter report and grand apartheid the reality on the ground could make it harder for any following government.

At a certain point grand apartheid must become impossible to implement. But when?
 
A victory for the United Party I would not say butterflies apartheid. One must remember that by 1948 the division between Afrikaners and the British was very much complete, the animosity between them very real (still remains to large extent today)

Alan Paton once referred to "the great racial divide in South Africa", meaning this.

...and the Afrikaners were rallying themselves around an idea. If Malan and Strijdom and Verwoerd fail in 1948, they are still going to be a tough, loud, angry force for Smuts (and whoever his successor is) to deal with.
OTOH, to what extent was Afrikaner consciousness and solidarity extended and supported state policy after 1948, when Afrikaners controlled the government? I don't know, but strongly suspect that the National government gave a lot of patronage to Afrikanerdom - encouraging or requiring the use of Afrikaans, funding Afrikaans in education, state jobs for Afrikaners (the Broederbond would be very important in that); possibly even Afrikaner-nationalist propaganda in Afrikaner-language schoolbooks.

If the Afrikaner-nationalists don't control the state, they don't get all that reinforcement for their program. They also don't get the support of opportunistic Anglos looking for a slice of the state melon.

Being able to get new immigrants and expanding the franchise to limit the ability of the Afrikaners to vote as a bloc and take advantage of gerrymandering would be a way of saving them, but its also quite likely to get more Afrikaners angry, which is probably more dangerous than alienating African communities in 1950s South Africa.

But... with more immigration, with equitable districting shifting seats into the cities, with continued Cape Coloured voting, with continued (and perhaps enlarged) black representation, the Afrikaner bloc may be unable to win any elections for a long time. Moderate and opportunist Afrikaners would drift over to the UP. Smuts was himself an Afrikaner, after all.

The NP/AP block and its supporting clique may be radicalized as the relative moderates (and the office-seekers) drop away. They may even try extralegal methods, which could cost even more support.

Over the next generation, a substantial portion of Afrikaners could be assimilated to Anglo culture. Use of Afrikaans would diminish. By 1970 or so, Afrikanerdom could be a decaying relic.
 

John Farson

Banned
But... with more immigration, with equitable districting shifting seats into the cities, with continued Cape Coloured voting, with continued (and perhaps enlarged) black representation, the Afrikaner bloc may be unable to win any elections for a long time. Moderate and opportunist Afrikaners would drift over to the UP. Smuts was himself an Afrikaner, after all.

The NP/AP block and its supporting clique may be radicalized as the relative moderates (and the office-seekers) drop away. They may even try extralegal methods, which could cost even more support.

Over the next generation, a substantial portion of Afrikaners could be assimilated to Anglo culture. Use of Afrikaans would diminish. By 1970 or so, Afrikanerdom could be a decaying relic.

If the Afrikaners feel increasingly marginalized, might the more radical elements begin an insurgency/terrorist campaign a'la Northern Ireland or ETA in Spain?
 
The source I linked in the first post posited that the NP/AP alliance vote share was as much a return of voters who had previously supported the predecessor parties in previous elections, as opposed to any great realignment of party politics in SA over race.

Which leads weight to the proposition that a victorious UP likely expects to win back those voters in rural Afrikaner dominated seats in future elections and so will not want to take steps that would radically alienate such voters.
 
Sorry to repeat myself but does anyone know if any laws passed by a victorious United Party would come into effect straight away or would they only become official after the next general election in 1953 for the 1958 one? IIRC and it's the latter then I could see them not making any real changes to any laws regarding apartheid as it currently was or minority voting, whether they think chancing their arm on equalising the sizes of the rural and urban constituencies is worth it or that it might alienate too large a part of the electorate is I would say the main question. On the one hand it would help the United Party keep power since the urban areas generally leaned towards them, if they expected to win back moderate Afrikaner voters in the future though it might be seen as more risky.
 
Sorry to repeat myself but does anyone know if any laws passed by a victorious United Party would come into effect straight away or would they only become official after the next general election in 1953 for the 1958 one? IIRC and it's the latter then I could see them not making any real changes to any laws regarding apartheid as it currently was or minority voting, whether they think chancing their arm on equalising the sizes of the rural and urban constituencies is worth it or that it might alienate too large a part of the electorate is I would say the main question. On the one hand it would help the United Party keep power since the urban areas generally leaned towards them, if they expected to win back moderate Afrikaner voters in the future though it might be seen as more risky.

This was in part my reason for starting the thread, to try and at least establish what the plan was, legislative or more generally.

It may require looking at the United Party's archives!

http://www.unisa.ac.za/default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=11155
 
Sorry to repeat myself but does anyone know if any laws passed by a victorious United Party would come into effect straight away or would they only become official after the next general election in 1953 for the 1958 one? IIRC and it's the latter then I could see them not making any real changes to any laws regarding apartheid as it currently was or minority voting, whether they think chancing their arm on equalising the sizes of the rural and urban constituencies is worth it or that it might alienate too large a part of the electorate is I would say the main question. On the one hand it would help the United Party keep power since the urban areas generally leaned towards them, if they expected to win back moderate Afrikaner voters in the future though it might be seen as more risky.

I've thought about it further, now in NZ or the UK it is arguably practice that changes do not occur until after the next election. But it is not a legal requirement and can be rebutted by clear intention.

Looking at the South Africa Act, I don't see that the constitution itself expressly requires such provision either. So I would think an ordinary act of parliament would do it.

I'll note that in a comparable situation, the NZ Labour government in 1945 advanced the 1946 Census forward a year to 45, in order to help justify the abolishment of the Country Quota. The latter being a weighting in favour of rural seats, similar in outcome to the Afrikaner weighting. The government passed legislation in late 1945 to abolish the weighting, but I suspect the moving forward of the Census did not require legislation.

It was rather controversial at the time, as you would imagine and it took effect for the 1946 election, which Labour narrowly won. As late as 1989 National/Right wing MPs raised this constitutional/electoral fiddle !
 
Herman Giliomee, a South African historian, said that he believed that franchise would have been extended to all coloureds after a victory in 1948 for the UP. This would mean that it would be very difficult for the Nats to win any future election. We could thus see a very slow expansion of the franchise to other race groups, such as the Indians in Natal, and black people in other parts of the country.

There will definitely be greater white immigration to South Africa, which will further shore up the UP's position in future elections.

A successor to Smuts in the view of a UP victory is also very interesting. In OTL De Villiers Graaff succeeded Smuts as leader of the UP, no reason to think he wouldn't succeed him in this TL.

A longer-surviving Hofmeyr is an interesting POD in its own right too, he is widely considered to be one of the most brilliant men to have ever emerged out of South Africa. He would certainly have succeeded Smuts as UP leader and as PM in the event of a UP win in '48.
 
The NP/AP block and its supporting clique may be radicalized as the relative moderates (and the office-seekers) drop away. They may even try extralegal methods, which could cost even more support.

Over the next generation, a substantial portion of Afrikaners could be assimilated to Anglo culture. Use of Afrikaans would diminish. By 1970 or so, Afrikanerdom could be a decaying relic.

Oh nonsense. Remember Jan Smuts and many in the UP were Afrikaners, they have no interest in seeing Afrikanerdom become a 'decaying relic'. A good analogy would probably be Canada, with equal weight given to French and English. This was the situation in South Africa prior to 1994, and there is no reason to think the UP would not do the same in this TL.

And look at South Africa in the present day, Afrikaans is still a vibrant language, with Afrikaans TV channels, music, and books, still being enormously popular, and this in an environment where the government is at least ambivalent to the survival of Afrikaans, and sometimes outright hostile.
 
Top