If they granted certain tribes "honorary white status" and the lands of other tribes in return for helping hold other blacks down it might last for decades.
How long could Apartheid South Africa last
- Thread starter thatsbunkers
- Start date
Easily 'til present day.
Warning: slightly long story to illustrate a stark point:
Recently, WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) concluded a business deal with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The details of the deal are fuzzy. But one of the most obvious parts of the deal was that WWE would promote a show in Saudi Arabia. Given Saudi "stances" on gays, women, Jews and, ya know, everyone else they frown upon, it raised an eyebrow or twelve. Now, the dirty little secret is that WWE has been doing shows in KSA for the last four-five years, never much publicized, and on those shows they only let men wrestle and made sure they did nothing that is verbotten (there is allegedly a 50 bullet point list outlining the don'ts in KSA for wrestlers and other WWE staff). But this show was to be promoted, and I mean, truly promoted. Coming on the heels of the biggest show of the year for WWE (WrestleMania), it was still much ballyhooed and given ample time on their broadcasts. The show was scheduled to commence at local primetime on the WWE Network (on-line subscription service). West Coast folks in United States saw the show on Friday at 9 AM. The show had a lineup of the biggest stars in WWE and even had retired wrestlers brought in, at the behest of the men financing the arrangement (though that resulted in some curious and high-larious things, such as the local money man asking for Yokozuna to be featured on the show, unaware said Samoan wrestler portraying a Japanese sumo was long dead, so WWE instead brought in a no-name random former sumo wrestler, because Potemkin Villages are fun!)
The show itself was a North Korean worthy pageant of propaganda with a side of a tape of a hostage reassuring their loved ones they are all right. Clearly uncomfortable WWE commentators and hosts (all male, none Jewish or even Jewish looking [one commentator is not Jewish, but "looks" Jewish and was left at home just in case]) talked about great KSA hospitality and how vibrant and progressive the KSA cities are and how well they have been treated and what great things they saw. You could see them wince as they recited these lines fed into their headsets. There were literally pauses in their commentary as they listened to their instructions and repeated them as woodenly as possible. And then to drive home the point, during a scheduled break in the proceedings, an actual KSA propaganda film aired during the show showing kids skateboarding and Arab women talking about how well things are in KSA.
I howled with laughter and thought everyone would see it for what it was and how awful the whole thing appeared.
Then I went online. And wouldn't you know it, gobs of WWE fans and people who really should know better said how this was making progress. How WWE was respected KSA culture (said culture involves stoning gay people to death, by the way), and then lectured those who opposed it as saying WWE was helping KSA make progress and inroads through engagement. It was word for word the shit I read about the 80s South African sponsored propaganda (by the way, pro-wrestling tours were done to South Africa as well during the height of apartheid, including rare matches featuring stars from rival promotions brought together by South African money men to dazzle the crowds with sights forbidden even to US and UK fans).
Now, KSA is not South Africa (SA). I get that. And there is the whole oil thing. Yes. But intellectual arguments being marshaled in 2018 to defend what is in 2018 indefensible for KSA were virtually identical to the arguments made about how it helps no one to "hurt" SA, and how the sanctions are pointless and etc.
SA could have continued, crippled and pariah, but continued, and could have even thrived due various changing political climes. But in the world where North Korea exists, KSA is praised for letting women drive cars, Putin's style of tyrannical government is called ever softly and ridiculously a "Presidential republic" - why not a surviving apartheid SA?
Warning: slightly long story to illustrate a stark point:
Recently, WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) concluded a business deal with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The details of the deal are fuzzy. But one of the most obvious parts of the deal was that WWE would promote a show in Saudi Arabia. Given Saudi "stances" on gays, women, Jews and, ya know, everyone else they frown upon, it raised an eyebrow or twelve. Now, the dirty little secret is that WWE has been doing shows in KSA for the last four-five years, never much publicized, and on those shows they only let men wrestle and made sure they did nothing that is verbotten (there is allegedly a 50 bullet point list outlining the don'ts in KSA for wrestlers and other WWE staff). But this show was to be promoted, and I mean, truly promoted. Coming on the heels of the biggest show of the year for WWE (WrestleMania), it was still much ballyhooed and given ample time on their broadcasts. The show was scheduled to commence at local primetime on the WWE Network (on-line subscription service). West Coast folks in United States saw the show on Friday at 9 AM. The show had a lineup of the biggest stars in WWE and even had retired wrestlers brought in, at the behest of the men financing the arrangement (though that resulted in some curious and high-larious things, such as the local money man asking for Yokozuna to be featured on the show, unaware said Samoan wrestler portraying a Japanese sumo was long dead, so WWE instead brought in a no-name random former sumo wrestler, because Potemkin Villages are fun!)
The show itself was a North Korean worthy pageant of propaganda with a side of a tape of a hostage reassuring their loved ones they are all right. Clearly uncomfortable WWE commentators and hosts (all male, none Jewish or even Jewish looking [one commentator is not Jewish, but "looks" Jewish and was left at home just in case]) talked about great KSA hospitality and how vibrant and progressive the KSA cities are and how well they have been treated and what great things they saw. You could see them wince as they recited these lines fed into their headsets. There were literally pauses in their commentary as they listened to their instructions and repeated them as woodenly as possible. And then to drive home the point, during a scheduled break in the proceedings, an actual KSA propaganda film aired during the show showing kids skateboarding and Arab women talking about how well things are in KSA.
I howled with laughter and thought everyone would see it for what it was and how awful the whole thing appeared.
Then I went online. And wouldn't you know it, gobs of WWE fans and people who really should know better said how this was making progress. How WWE was respected KSA culture (said culture involves stoning gay people to death, by the way), and then lectured those who opposed it as saying WWE was helping KSA make progress and inroads through engagement. It was word for word the shit I read about the 80s South African sponsored propaganda (by the way, pro-wrestling tours were done to South Africa as well during the height of apartheid, including rare matches featuring stars from rival promotions brought together by South African money men to dazzle the crowds with sights forbidden even to US and UK fans).
Now, KSA is not South Africa (SA). I get that. And there is the whole oil thing. Yes. But intellectual arguments being marshaled in 2018 to defend what is in 2018 indefensible for KSA were virtually identical to the arguments made about how it helps no one to "hurt" SA, and how the sanctions are pointless and etc.
SA could have continued, crippled and pariah, but continued, and could have even thrived due various changing political climes. But in the world where North Korea exists, KSA is praised for letting women drive cars, Putin's style of tyrannical government is called ever softly and ridiculously a "Presidential republic" - why not a surviving apartheid SA?
Gandhi was never considered white and in fact the racial discrimination he faced in South Africa would heavily shape the rest of life.
ASUKIRIK
Banned
Obviously not that
Well, but Gandhi did written about Muslim Pakistanis who had Arab/Persian descent with white skin actually could pass as White there as long as they had good enough English
History Learner
Banned
To the present day at the least. SADF had internal security sufficiently achieved, the end of Communist meant the Pro-Soviet states were to lose their patron with all that entails, and the rise of China meant there would be a large market hungry for South African resources and not really caring about their own system as long as said resources flowed. Post-Soviet Russia would also be a useful ally to acquire, in that they would be willing to sell arms without regard to Apartheid and would also serve as a power interested in protecting South Africa to a degree as result; that a strong Russian emigre community could be fostered is a bonus.
The issue with the Apartheid state was not that it could not defend its borders or defeat any homegrown insurgencies. It could do so easily. Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, was a pitiful force, probably the least capable of national liberation armed movements in Africa during the era. MPLA, SWAPO, and ZANU-PF could not penetrate the northern border for that matter, even if they all tried to do so simultaneously.
The issues was rather that after the 1985 foreign investment cutoff, the writing was on the wall and the bureaucracy and governing class, which previously had been a relatively clean one (I think it was Vorster who used to reimburse the state for the stamps he used), started to loot, and did so with a fury that would make even the Guptas and their cronies blush. This doomed the regime in the long run, as their bonds tumbled towards junk as international opposition and domestic indicators got worse and worse, and the labor unions and churches started getting involved in civil protests. The debt load in 1993 was over $14 Billion USD, and was getting worse and worse as the security situation unraveled.
I think it could have held on for another few years before total fiscal collapse and default on pension obligations unraveled the system from within.
They had the force to keep it going indefinitely. The opposition never really got it together in terms of building a military force, outside of KwaZulu Natal where gang wars with the Inkatha Movement forced the local ANC to adapt.
But they would have run out of money and that would have been the end of the regime, in whatever form that regime's end took hold.
It might have seen some kind of coup by military officers who saw the writing on the wall and wanted to negotiate a climbdown. Constand Viljoen, who led the AVF in 1994, and later formed the Freedom Front Party, has stated that others in high command of SADF wanted a reform of Separate Development as early as in 1978 when the realities of the Border War started presenting themselves. It would be easy to see a situation in which some reformist putschist movement takes over once the army pensions start having problems.
South Africa has for a long time been dependent on foreign investment to support its mineral based economy, and without FI, it is hard to keep things together. Now, if international opposition stops, or some rogue actor starts engaging with SA markets again, its hard to say what happens next.
The issues was rather that after the 1985 foreign investment cutoff, the writing was on the wall and the bureaucracy and governing class, which previously had been a relatively clean one (I think it was Vorster who used to reimburse the state for the stamps he used), started to loot, and did so with a fury that would make even the Guptas and their cronies blush. This doomed the regime in the long run, as their bonds tumbled towards junk as international opposition and domestic indicators got worse and worse, and the labor unions and churches started getting involved in civil protests. The debt load in 1993 was over $14 Billion USD, and was getting worse and worse as the security situation unraveled.
I think it could have held on for another few years before total fiscal collapse and default on pension obligations unraveled the system from within.
They had the force to keep it going indefinitely. The opposition never really got it together in terms of building a military force, outside of KwaZulu Natal where gang wars with the Inkatha Movement forced the local ANC to adapt.
But they would have run out of money and that would have been the end of the regime, in whatever form that regime's end took hold.
It might have seen some kind of coup by military officers who saw the writing on the wall and wanted to negotiate a climbdown. Constand Viljoen, who led the AVF in 1994, and later formed the Freedom Front Party, has stated that others in high command of SADF wanted a reform of Separate Development as early as in 1978 when the realities of the Border War started presenting themselves. It would be easy to see a situation in which some reformist putschist movement takes over once the army pensions start having problems.
South Africa has for a long time been dependent on foreign investment to support its mineral based economy, and without FI, it is hard to keep things together. Now, if international opposition stops, or some rogue actor starts engaging with SA markets again, its hard to say what happens next.
I agree that those countries would probably be most likely to offer them a hand. However, the end of Apartheid was put in place by de Klerk's reforms in 1990. You have to negate that and hold on long enough for the government to do some kind of dirty deal with Yeltsin or Zemin.
One thing apartheid did was unite South Africa's ethnic groups. Only a handful of ethno-based parties really arose (such as Inkatha) and he worked with the ANC, initially, to undermine the apartheid regime. He refused independence for KwaZulu for example.
We can also see the very low turnout in the houses of Delegates and Representatives for coloureds and Indians, where people stayed away from the polls in solidarity with black people who couldn't vote.
So,no, that isn't what would happen.
And tribe is a mildly pejorative term these days, rather speak of ethnic groups.
Maybe South Africa could adopt some form of Juche the North Korean ideology? Or perhaps a Albanian or Romanian style isolationism would do the trick?
Apartheid would have ended with Botha still in charge, just maybe a bit later. Botha also saw the writing on the wall, and had gotten rid of lots of the 'petty' apartheid legislation. Botha and Mandela had also met in about 1986 where Mandela was offered conditional release, which he rejected.
What could possibly happen is have the Conservatives win an election - not sure how ASB that is, because nearly 70% of whites voted to end apartheid in 1992.
I am not really certain that China or Russia would be very open to South Africa. Russia and China had fought proxy wars with South Africa for decades, and both had more ties with the rest of Sub-Saharan-Africa. For example many Africans had studied in Russia and China. Russia and China would also probably be punished by other African countries for trading with South Africa, this means that they have more to lose than to gain be trading with South Africa. A continued Apartheid South Africa would instead probably result in anti western sentiment in Africa.
I don't know about that, lots of white SAns, had strong family links to Europe, not sure isolationism would work.
Maybe a political crisis could turn South Africa onto the road to isolationism? People would not see what was happening perhaps?
Last edited:
Not sure it's doable.
Afrikaners are also pretty individualistic and democratic (in their internal dealings, perhaps not with others) so I think any authoritarianism on the white population won't work.
That said, whites had fairly free political activity but certainly not one would expect in a proper open and free democracy. There were press restrictions, restrictions on association etc. But your average white SAn was far freer than a Communist bloc citizen, or an Argentine living under the military junta.
What would be the most likely or possible scenario for South Africa to become isolationist?
Doubtful, while most African countries were vocal critics of apartheid, once the cold war began thawing in the mid-80s and Soviet and American aid began to evaporate many countries in Africa were willing to trade with South Africa. South African trade statistics lumped trade with all of Africa together so as not to embarrass African countries, particularly as this was increasing steadily in the 1985-1991 period. By the late 80s even before the dismantling of apartheid countries like Zaire and Zambia even allowed South African Airways overflight rights (something they had not enjoyed since 1963).
By the 90s the economic situation of most African nations was dire as aid dried up and with many despotic regimes clinging to power, they would have welcomed any sort of trading or investment opportunities from South Africa. By 1989 there were stories of South African goods being sold openly in markets of countries like Ghana and Zaire.
The same can be said for Eastern Europe and the former Communist Countries as they established relations with South Africa by the late 1980s. While trade with the West remained stagnant, it rose with Romania, Poland, Hungary and particularly the People's Republic of China increasing. The irony of the situation is whereas Western Europe, the U.S. and Canada all were increasingly critical of apartheid and were trying to isolate South Africa, the formerly Communist countries along with African countries were opening up to South Africa.
This sort of shift is not as unusual as it would seem, particularly in the post-Cold War order where democracy and human rights were pushed by Western Countries. This new philosophy made “humanitarian intervention” a threat to any non-Western country and was a threat by many non-Western regimes. The bombing of Kosovo by NATO was an example of this Western intervention seen as arrogant and was vociferously criticized by both China and Russia. However, it was telling that countries like India, Namibia and Gabon were also critical of the intervention. The implementation of multilateral sanctions too was more often than not opposed by the non-Western countries as the leaders of non-democratic or at the very least corrupt regimes feared that they might be next.
After Tiananmen in 1989, China foreign policy has clung to the principal of what it called it’s “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence”. One of these is that China believes in “mutual non-interference” in other countries internal affairs. For China this has been economically beneficial as it has filled the vacuum left by Western Countries. Chinese investment and trade with Sudan and Myanmar are two of the more glaring examples. Putin’s Russia too has followed the same principles, but it has far less economic clout than China.
The end of the Cold War would have been a double-edged sword for South Africa where apartheid lasts. On the one hand, Western Europe, and the U.S. would have probably isolated the country even more at least economically. Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Israel would have been the only Western Countries where the status quo would have probably been maintained a bit longer. The flat-lining of international commodity prices such as gold, until around 2003 would have caused even more economic headaches.
This would have been alleviated somewhat by the cessation of military conflict with Angola. However, I have a suspicion that an isolated South Africa might use its military might to stir up conflict in Southern African to keep friendly regimes in power or to gain access to diamonds to sell on the black market or engage in other illegal activities. The Rhodesian Regime in its 1975-1979 period offers the best sort of blue print of what it might have looked like albeit on a larger scale.
Last edited: