Affects of South Africa voting No to a Republic in 1960?

Czar Kaizer

Banned
So in 1960 South Africa held a referendum as to whether it should become a republic, the vote was extremely close IOTL with almost 48% of of the electorate voting no, so if the referendum had failed what might some of the effects be? Would South Africa still be expelled from the commonwealth?
 
Interesting question.

I don't think SA will be kicked out of the Commonwealth immediately, but there will certainly be tensions between SA and the rest of the member countries.

If the Cape votes yes (which is the most likely) what are the odds of seeing Afrikaner nationalists pushing for the secession of Transvaal and the OFS, and letting the Cape and Natal remain as a smaller Union of South Africa, with the former two forming a republic? ASB?
 
Losing the referendum may also make the Nats lose some of their electoral momentum. They won't lose the 1961 election but perhaps their parliamentary majority is cut from the two-thirds of seats they had in OTL, to something under 60%. This could have butterflies going forward.
 
Did they broadcast the Queen's Speech in South Africa? They might be interesting in the 1970s and 1980s if she was still Monarch of South Africa.

If remaining a monarchy didn't bring a faster end to Apartheid I think the The Queen would eventually abdicate from the South African throne in protest. If she didn't I can see most of her Caribbean realms becoming republics by the end of the 1970s because they would't want to share a head of state with Apartheid South Africa.
 

Czar Kaizer

Banned
Interesting question.

I don't think SA will be kicked out of the Commonwealth immediately, but there will certainly be tensions between SA and the rest of the member countries.

If the Cape votes yes (which is the most likely) what are the odds of seeing Afrikaner nationalists pushing for the secession of Transvaal and the OFS, and letting the Cape and Natal remain as a smaller Union of South Africa, with the former two forming a republic? ASB?
I really doubt that there were would be any attempts at secession, the Nats are still firmly in control so there's no impetuous for any kind of secession movement. But it would still be a huge blow to Verwoed, could he perhaps step down? Perhaps if the referendum fails we might see an earlier split in the National party, with those who accept the status quo against those who favor Afrikaner independence? If this were to happen perhaps we could see the United Party take control of government if it hurts the Nats bad enough. This could possibly lead to an earlier end of Apartheid but I imagine that the United Party would take a gradual approach but I would be interested know how they might interact with the ANC and other black organizations.
 

Czar Kaizer

Banned
Did they broadcast the Queen's Speech in South Africa? They might be interesting in the 1970s and 1980s if she was still Monarch of South Africa.

If remaining a monarchy didn't bring a faster end to Apartheid I think the The Queen would eventually abdicate from the South African throne in protest. If she didn't I can see most of her Caribbean realms becoming republics by the end of the 1970s because they would't want to share a head of state with Apartheid South Africa.
If the queen remains Queen of South Africa it would definitively put Britian in an awkward position, could this force the british government to actually put more pressure on South Africa to change earlier?
 
I really doubt that there were would be any attempts at secession, the Nats are still firmly in control so there's no impetuous for any kind of secession movement. But it would still be a huge blow to Verwoed, could he perhaps step down? Perhaps if the referendum fails we might see an earlier split in the National party, with those who accept the status quo against those who favor Afrikaner independence? If this were to happen perhaps we could see the United Party take control of government if it hurts the Nats bad enough. This could possibly lead to an earlier end of Apartheid but I imagine that the United Party would take a gradual approach but I would be interested know how they might interact with the ANC and other black organizations.

Natal secession was a real possibility after World War II, don't discount it. Who knows what kind of butterflies a no vote in the referendum will cause, with regard to that.
 
I expect the answer to be no, but would the Queen have had the power to subvert the policies of the SA Government. I'm not saying that she would, but could she have given political prisoners royal pardons or appoint a Governor-General who wasn't white. I presume not.
 
I expect the answer to be no, but would the Queen have had the power to subvert the policies of the SA Government. I'm not saying that she would, but could she have given political prisoners royal pardons or appoint a Governor-General who wasn't white. I presume not.

I strongly doubt it.

The dominions were sovereign states, and the Queen had zero de facto or (probably de jure power in them.
 
I strongly doubt it.

The dominions were sovereign states, and the Queen had zero de facto or (probably de jure power in them.

The closest I've heard to the Queen intervening in partisan politics was when the Liberals were trying to use their majority in the Canadian senate(unelected) to block the passage of the Tories' Goods And Services Tax, early 90s some time.

The Prime Minister had his representatives in London ask the Queen for permission to expand the senate by a few extra seats, to be filled by Tory appointments. Permission was granted.

In a way, the Queen was intervening in politics to give an advantage to one party over the other. On the other hand, the Liberals WERE using the senate in a manner that, by the late 20th Century, was regarded as highly unorthodox.
 
Originally Posted by NOMISYRRUC
I expect the answer to be no, but would the Queen have had the power to subvert the policies of the SA Government. I'm not saying that she would, but could she have given political prisoners royal pardons or appoint a Governor-General who wasn't white. I presume not.

I strongly doubt it.

The dominions were sovereign states, and the Queen had zero de facto or (probably de jure power in them.

That's what I thought. The Queen's power is exercised by the Governor-General, who by the 1960s will be appointed by the SA Government.
 
Although the Queen's position as Queen of South Africa was distinct from her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, in the minds of most English-speaking South Africans the two roles would have been intertwined along with their own identities and British and South Africans, not unlike the other English-Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders at least until the mid-1960s. However, the Labour Government of Harold Wilson particularly alienated English-speaking South Africans, and this in turn would have caused many to turn their backs on the monarchy. In 1964, Wilson upon coming to power ended arms sales to South Africa, and his imposition of sanctions against Rhodesia greatly alienated English-Speaking whites in South Africa. If a republic did not come come about in 1961, it is likely that the South African monarchy would have had its days numbered.

Keep in mind that the Queen never visited South Africa between 1952 and 1961. During that same period she had already made visits two the other three white dominions of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which included lengthy tours of each. Usually royal visits to the Dominions are made at the behest of the respective governments and coordinated with Buckingham Palace. King George VI had been invited to South Africa by the Malan government in March 1952, however this visit did not take place due to the king's health.

The question of course would be what would the Queen have done if she had been invited to take a tour of South Africa during the 1960s or 1970s. One could envision a scenario after the mid-1960s where the National government invites the Queen to South Africa as a propaganda coup to show that apartheid South Africa is not internationally isolated. Though Buckingham Palace could have deferred the tour due to scheduling, at some point it would have proven to be an embarrassment for the queen. For instance in 1972 she visited nearby Mauritius and could have extended her tour to include South Africa. On such a tour, she would have likely have been given a government-prepared speech to read before the South African parliament advocating "Separate Development". Keep in mind that for her to say no to her government would have sparked a constitutional crisis. In addition, any tour itinerary would have prepared by the South African government.

The question of a royal tour of South Africa by any member of the royal family would have become politicised. If the palace were to say no, it would risk offending the Queen's South African subjects and possibly sparking a constitutional crisis in South Africa by refusing to read government-prepared statements. If it says yes, then there is the issue of the Queen offending subjects in her non-white realms (Gambia, Sierra Leone), along with other African republics (ie Nigeria, Tanzania) in the Commonwealth. In effect, the Queen remaining head of state of South Africa could divide the Commonwealth.

Keep in mind that during settlement talks regarding Rhodesia in the late 1960s and early 1970s the British government did advise the Rhodesian government that it would be impossible for the Queen to become Queen of Rhodesia as it would put her in an embarrassing position, and that the country would not be accepted into the Commonwealth.

In 1961, the white governments of the "white dominions" were in favour of keeping South Africa in the Commonwealth. This was due to South Africa's wartime contribution. For instance a February 1961 Gallup Poll showed that 75% of New Zealanders favoured keeping South Africa in the Commonwealth. However, with the admission of Nigeria, the new Commonwealth members now outnumbered the old, and the African and Asian members were hostile to South Africa. Keep in mind that by the end of the decade 16 additional African/Asian/Pacific nations would join the Commonwealth, making the organisation even more uncomfortable for South Africa. This would culminate with the 1971 Singapore Declaration at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Singapore which denounced racist governments (Rhodesia, South Africa).
 
The closest I've heard to the Queen intervening in partisan politics was when the Liberals were trying to use their majority in the Canadian senate(unelected) to block the passage of the Tories' Goods And Services Tax, early 90s some time.

The Prime Minister had his representatives in London ask the Queen for permission to expand the senate by a few extra seats, to be filled by Tory appointments. Permission was granted.

In a way, the Queen was intervening in politics to give an advantage to one party over the other. On the other hand, the Liberals WERE using the senate in a manner that, by the late 20th Century, was regarded as highly unorthodox.

He didn't have to ask the queen. There was already a provision in the constitution that allowed him to expand the senate.

Plus, even if there wasn't, couldn't he have just asked the GG? They have all the queen's (theoretical) powers.
 
He didn't have to ask the queen. There was already a provision in the constitution that allowed him to expand the senate.

Plus, even if there wasn't, couldn't he have just asked the GG? They have all the queen's (theoretical) powers.

I seem to recall when this happened and having been told that the BNA/Constitution Act of 1867 said that the PM could expand the Senate but specifically required the Monarch's approval and not the GG's. My reading of Section 26 seems to indicate this.
 
Top