No Union of South Africa

Japhy · May 22, 2008

Following the (Second) Boer War the Union of South Africa was created by uniteing Transvaal, Orange River Colony, Natal, and the Cape Colony together, for the most part because of what British Administrators wanted to do it. So what Im asking is, and I really dont know anything about the subject myself, what happens if the London Colonial Office types keep their four colonies seperate?

EvolvedSaurian · May 22, 2008

I'd guess you'd end up with a Cape-Natal Anglo state and a Transvaal-Oranje Boerstaat. Cape-Natal would probably go for majority rule reasonably soon, but Oranje-Transvaal would probably be more intransigent about it.

Just my thoughts.

Matthais Corvinus · May 22, 2008

I don't have that much faith in the Anglos- look at Rhodesia.

Billi the Axe · May 22, 2008

I'd guess you'd end up with a Cape-Natal Anglo state and a Transvaal-Oranje Boerstaat. Cape-Natal would probably go for majority rule reasonably soon, but Oranje-Transvaal would probably be more intransigent about it

This does seem a likely outcome,As for trusting Anglos to go for majority rule, Sooner or later it would happen more than likely to the detriment of the people in both states. Concerning Rhodesia ,Have you seen the mess that place is even for Africa.Idepndence followed by majority self rule hasn't always had a happy ending.

Tyr · May 23, 2008

Billi the Axe said:
This does seem a likely outcome,As for trusting Anglos to go for majority rule, Sooner or later it would happen more than likely to the detriment of the people in both states. Concerning Rhodesia ,Have you seen the mess that place is even for Africa.Idepndence followed by majority self rule hasn't always had a happy ending.

That's a recent development. During the 80s Zimbabwe was OK.
It's only really during the last 10 years that Mugabe went crazy.

At the time the Cape already allowed equal voting rights to non-white people.

mtg999 · May 23, 2008

Matthais Corvinus said:
I don't have that much faith in the Anglos- look at Rhodesia.

Have to agree with you. However in a comparative sense the racism would be far less under Anglo rule in the Cape-Natal areas. Anglo South Africans (as a rule) are usually considered as less racist than most Afrikaners.

Under Anglo rule (as in Rhodesia) discrimination would be more de facto (income tests on voting so as to exclude most blacks) rather than de jure discrimination. I think Anglos would tolerate giving voting rights to the black elite moreso.

Marius · May 23, 2008

Natal was as reactionary and racist as the Afrikaner republics. The Cape was far more liberal, but not all non-whites had the vote, it was a qualified franchise. And the Cape has a fair amount of Afrikaners (Stellenbosch, close to Cape Town is considered the intellectual heartland of Afrikanerdom), and post-1948, it was an even split between PM and Presidents from the TRansvaal and the Cape.
Malan was from the Cape
Strijdom from the Transvaal
Verwoerd studied at Stellenbosch University and spent his childhood in Rhodesia
Vorster was from the Transvaal
Botha was from the Cape
De Klerk was from the Transvaal

You may see a Transvaal-OFS republic, but this is not a given, and I think the likelihood of Natal staying independent from the Cape is rather good. And there were a lot of Anglos in the Transvaal as well, especially Johannesburg. Wits University in Joburg, along with the University of Cape Town were probably the two most liberal universities in SA during apartheid.

In short, just because somebody is English-speaking means they're going to be any less racist than the Afrikaners. As a South African, Afrikaners are in general more racist than white English South Africans, but this is definitely not set in stone. I have met many open-minded Afrikaners, and many disgustingly racist Anglo South Africans

Grey Wolf · May 23, 2008

Britain would have a lot harder time ruling the suppressed Transvaal-Orange River states without being able to offer their elites involvement in a unitary authority. It can hardly offer them self-rule since it just fought a bloody nasty war to crush this. It is going to have to rule the place as a crown colony, which is going to look in sharp contrast to dominion status for the Cape.

Hmm...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Marius · May 23, 2008

Grey Wolf said:
Britain would have a lot harder time ruling the suppressed Transvaal-Orange River states without being able to offer their elites involvement in a unitary authority. It can hardly offer them self-rule since it just fought a bloody nasty war to crush this. It is going to have to rule the place as a crown colony, which is going to look in sharp contrast to dominion status for the Cape.

Hmm...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I don't know about that. I think a hypothetical Transvaal-Free State united state could be offered dominion status. And as I said before, and I think it bears repeating, Johannesurg is English-dominated, and English South Africans would have quite alot of influence in a Transvaal state.

Another question is, would each of the provinces been viable as independent countries? Transvaal and the Cape definitely, and probably the OFS and Natal too.

Grey Wolf · May 23, 2008

Marius said:
I don't know about that. I think a hypothetical Transvaal-Free State united state could be offered dominion status. And as I said before, and I think it bears repeating, Johannesurg is English-dominated, and English South Africans would have quite alot of influence in a Transvaal state.

Another question is, would each of the provinces been viable as independent countries? Transvaal and the Cape definitely, and probably the OFS and Natal too.

I don't see how it could happen on the same timescale as for the Union in OTL ? But I quite happily admit I am no expert, and am often running on quite old memory.

How would the change-over from war with hold-out commandoes and concentration camps to offering self-government to the defeated leaders go?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Marius · May 23, 2008

Grey Wolf said:
I don't see how it could happen on the same timescale as for the Union in OTL ? But I quite happily admit I am no expert, and am often running on quite old memory.

How would the change-over from war with hold-out commandoes and concentration camps to offering self-government to the defeated leaders go?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, both the OFS and the Transvaal had been given self-government by about 1907, if I'm not mistaken. If there were 4 separate countries, they may have received dominion status later than in OTL, but it would still have happened.

However, I think because of economic considerations, the creation of a Union was possibly inevitable. A more likely POD would be if South Africa had opted for a more federal system, such as Canada and Australia went for. This was the option favoured very strongly by delegates from Natal.

mtg999 · May 23, 2008

Marius said:
Natal was as reactionary and racist as the Afrikaner republics. The Cape was far more liberal, but not all non-whites had the vote, it was a qualified franchise. And the Cape has a fair amount of Afrikaners (Stellenbosch, close to Cape Town is considered the intellectual heartland of Afrikanerdom), and post-1948, it was an even split between PM and Presidents from the TRansvaal and the Cape.
Malan was from the Cape
Strijdom from the Transvaal
Verwoerd studied at Stellenbosch University and spent his childhood in Rhodesia
Vorster was from the Transvaal
Botha was from the Cape
De Klerk was from the Transvaal

You may see a Transvaal-OFS republic, but this is not a given, and I think the likelihood of Natal staying independent from the Cape is rather good. And there were a lot of Anglos in the Transvaal as well, especially Johannesburg. Wits University in Joburg, along with the University of Cape Town were probably the two most liberal universities in SA during apartheid.

In short, just because somebody is English-speaking means they're going to be any less racist than the Afrikaners. As a South African, Afrikaners are in general more racist than white English South Africans, but this is definitely not set in stone. I have met many open-minded Afrikaners, and many disgustingly racist Anglo South Africans

Have to agree with you mostly. I would say however that a lot of Anglo racism was more of the defacto kind, ie income test that almost no blacks could meet. Basically most racist Anglo S Africans were in a way more hypocritical than the Afrikaners and liked to disguise their racism by avoiding the stark racial categorisation that occurred under apartheid. A lot of Anglos would have would have 'justified' their racism more in terms of whether blacks were significantly 'civilised' or 'Anglicised' to vote etc.

Not that this is necessarily any better, its just an interesting difference.

mtg999 · May 23, 2008

Marius said:
Well, both the OFS and the Transvaal had been given self-government by about 1907, if I'm not mistaken. If there were 4 separate countries, they may have received dominion status later than in OTL, but it would still have happened.

However, I think because of economic considerations, the creation of a Union was possibly inevitable. A more likely POD would be if South Africa had opted for a more federal system, such as Canada and Australia went for. This was the option favoured very strongly by delegates from Natal.

I agree with this. By the way what were the reasons S Africa never developed a federal system, it would seem to be a fairly obvious candidate for such a system.

Marius · May 23, 2008

mtg999 said:
I agree with this. By the way what were the reasons S Africa never developed a federal system, it would seem to be a fairly obvious candidate for such a system.

Not too sure really. It was a good candidate, as you say, for a federal system, rather than the unitary system with federal elements we ended up with.

Perhaps it was felt that the scars of the Boer War were still too fresh, and reconciliation between English and Afrikaans South Africans could be better served by creating a unitary system.

Admiral Canaris · May 23, 2008

Leej said:
That's a recent development. During the 80s Zimbabwe was OK.
It's only really during the last 10 years that Mugabe went crazy.

That was because the British pumped in aid and Mugabe wasn't ready to crush the country, not being safe enough in the administration. It was still a dictatorship though, with massive racketing and voter intimidation.

mtg999 · May 23, 2008

Marius said:
Not too sure really. It was a good candidate, as you say, for a federal system, rather than the unitary system with federal elements we ended up with.

Perhaps it was felt that the scars of the Boer War were still too fresh, and reconciliation between English and Afrikaans South Africans could be better served by creating a unitary system.

True. It reminds me a little bit of the differences between Australia and Canada's federal systems.

Australia has in its Constitution a very decentralised structure, however it in practise is highly centralised (more so than some European unitary states).

Canada meanwhile has a rather centralised Constitution but in practice is very decentralised (more than the USA).

Apparently the reason for Canada's greater decentralisation is of course the Quebec issue. However, the Canadian Fed Govt maintains greater control (in theory) because of this very issue (in any time when it looked like the nation could fall apart the Fed Govt could step in easily).

I assume this may be why S Africa became a unitary state. I've read than in the early 1990's when S Africa was moving to post-apartheid it was suggested by some that there should be federalism (I think it was particularly in relation to Zulu concerns vis-a-vis domination by the Xhosa dominated ANC). It always struck me (and I don't profess to know that much about SA politics) that having a few major states based loosely on historical boundaries of the major tribes would have been a good idea for a diverse nations like SA; on the other hand other people say that rather than quelling seperatist feelings it would inflame them.

Marius · May 23, 2008

mtg999 said:
I've read than in the early 1990's when S Africa was moving to post-apartheid it was suggested by some that there should be federalism (I think it was particularly in relation to Zulu concerns vis-a-vis domination by the Xhosa dominated ANC). It always struck me (and I don't profess to know that much about SA politics) that having a few major states based loosely on historical boundaries of the major tribes would have been a good idea for a diverse nations like SA; on the other hand other people say that rather than quelling seperatist feelings it would inflame them.

The Zulus were the guys pushing the hardest for a federal model for a post-apartheid South Africa, and in the 1980s, there were serious suggestions of creating a Swiss-inspired canton model for South Africa.

I personally don't know if federalising the country into ethnic based states would have been such a good idea. South Africa has probably been one of the African countries most successful at creating a common nationhood, a "South Africanism" and I think this could have been undermined by ethnic based sub-national divisions.

Although the ANC is Xhosa dominated, alot of the top officials are not Xhosas. Zuma is a Zulu for example. The ANC always made one of its principles that it was a party for all South Africans, not just Xhosas, or blacks, or whatever the case may be. That is also why you see this infighting in the party, with leftists vs social demcrats vs liberals vs Zulus vs Sothos vs Marxists etc. The ANC is actually a broad political church.

Back to ethnicity in the country, most South Africans are proud of their ethnic heritage, but I think you'll find many will descrivbe themselves as South African first, and then only as a Zulu, Pedi, Venda, Afrikaner, Indian etc.

TheMann · May 23, 2008

Marius said:
The Zulus were the guys pushing the hardest for a federal model for a post-apartheid South Africa, and in the 1980s, there were serious suggestions of creating a Swiss-inspired canton model for South Africa.

I personally don't know if federalising the country into ethnic based states would have been such a good idea. South Africa has probably been one of the African countries most successful at creating a common nationhood, a "South Africanism" and I think this could have been undermined by ethnic based sub-national divisions.

Although the ANC is Xhosa dominated, alot of the top officials are not Xhosas. Zuma is a Zulu for example. The ANC always made one of its principles that it was a party for all South Africans, not just Xhosas, or blacks, or whatever the case may be. That is also why you see this infighting in the party, with leftists vs social demcrats vs liberals vs Zulus vs Sothos vs Marxists etc. The ANC is actually a broad political church.

Back to ethnicity in the country, most South Africans are proud of their ethnic heritage, but I think you'll find many will descrivbe themselves as South African first, and then only as a Zulu, Pedi, Venda, Afrikaner, Indian etc.

That fact, IMO is why South Africa didn't shred itself in 1994. Lord knows we heard enough dire predictions of it.

Most African countries - and Zimbabwe is no exception, ZANU (PF) has always been Shona dominated - formed much of their politics based on tribes. Zimbabwe, Kenya and Rwanda showed why this is not a good idea. Rwanda turned into open genocide between Hutu and Tutsi, Kenya has the problem of not wanting anything but a Kikuyu as President, hence Kibaki and Odinga's clash got violent quickly. Having South Africa with its system being split according to tribal and background differences (you'd almost have to group all the minorities together in such a system) would lead to problems all over the place. Having the IFP is enough.

South Africa works best as a unitary state, trying to push aside the tribal differences. It doesn't hurt that SA (along with Namibia and Botswana) are by a margin the most developed states on the continent, as people mixing tends to beat down the tribal differences. I think the fact that the early 1990s tribal battles, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal, died down quickly is largely thanks to Mandela's concilliation policies.

mtg999 · May 24, 2008

Marius said:
The Zulus were the guys pushing the hardest for a federal model for a post-apartheid South Africa, and in the 1980s, there were serious suggestions of creating a Swiss-inspired canton model for South Africa.

I personally don't know if federalising the country into ethnic based states would have been such a good idea. South Africa has probably been one of the African countries most successful at creating a common nationhood, a "South Africanism" and I think this could have been undermined by ethnic based sub-national divisions.

Although the ANC is Xhosa dominated, alot of the top officials are not Xhosas. Zuma is a Zulu for example. The ANC always made one of its principles that it was a party for all South Africans, not just Xhosas, or blacks, or whatever the case may be. That is also why you see this infighting in the party, with leftists vs social demcrats vs liberals vs Zulus vs Sothos vs Marxists etc. The ANC is actually a broad political church.

Back to ethnicity in the country, most South Africans are proud of their ethnic heritage, but I think you'll find many will descrivbe themselves as South African first, and then only as a Zulu, Pedi, Venda, Afrikaner, Indian etc.

Would have to agree with you mostly. Another good example of both ways of dealing with ethnic diversity and the pitfalls is Fiji (I use this example as I know quite a bit about it as I'm half Fijian). Due to its mix of indigenous, Indian and other ethnicities Fiji has a 'consociationalism'(I think that the right term) where there is a rule by group sort of system. There are communal electoral rolls whereby people elect MPs based on ethnicity in proportion to the population ratios.

Am I correct in saying that this was suggested by some in S Africa in the early 1990's?

Proponents of this system say by recongising potential conflicts it mitigates them (people feel comfortable that their ethnic group is being represented). On the other hand, opponents say it paralyses ethnic fragmentation and frames all policy debates in terms of ethnic group and their interests.

I suppose you could say the proof is in the fact that S Africa has since 94 a better record for democracy than Fiji. However I would still say that in many ways Fiji has a greater underlying stability and less potential for probmels down the track, basically a 'nicer' place to live. Of course I am aware that those last statments are VERY subjective and biased!