Nelson Mandela played and major role in bringing about a peaceful transformation of power in South Africa but what if he wasn't there? Suppose the judge in the Rivonia trial had passed the death sentence? Would the transfer of power have been peaceful?
No Nelson Mandela?
- Thread starter Andrew Hudson
- Start date
As I recall there was a lot of violent protest during the last years of apartheid and something would have given eventually. To avoid civil war you needed someone of Mandela's status working towards a peaceful end of apartheid. Without him I can't think of anyone else to fill his place. Without Mandela South Africa would go down like other African countries such as Rhodesia or Angola except bigger.
Certainly an assassination of Mandela (though, ironically, being in prison perhaps saved his life - if he'd been out publicly campaigning every day I shudder to think how many scumbags would have tried to kill him) in the later period of Apartheid would have led to some degree of unrest that could spiral into civil war.
If he is killed in the 1960s, however, for all we know someone else could have taken his martyred place and gone on in his memory. On the other hand, he could serve as a message for 'this is what happens when we don't fight hard enough'.
If he is killed in the 1960s, however, for all we know someone else could have taken his martyred place and gone on in his memory. On the other hand, he could serve as a message for 'this is what happens when we don't fight hard enough'.
If there's no Nelson Mandela, South Africa will experience a very bloody armed conflict, which will lead to its possible division (just my own personal opinion)
Okay, Nelson Mandela was huge, no doubt about that, but to suggest that without him that the nation would have convulsed into a bloody civil war is just a bit too simplistic. Besides Mandela there were also other leading moderate figures in the ANC and related liberation movements like Oliver Tambo( lived until 1993 and the co-founder of the ANC) and Steve Biko( I believe he was murdered in the 1970s however) who would have largely taken the same conciliatory approach.
The Apartheid regime mainly fell due to two factors, firstly the fact that the cold war signalled the end of Soviet/communist funding for the ANC, which managed to remove the assertion that they were socialists who would destroy the entire afrikaner capitalist edifice. Secondly, the fact that sanctions had finally started to bite, which largely meant that by the time the ANC even managed to ascend to the seat of government all their lofty social welfarist plans were dashed just due to the basic insolvency of the government.
Those two factors largely still would have been in play in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and as the ANC's militant campaigns were largely for the whole ineffective and the moderate center still somewhat in play, I predict that even with a Nelson Mandela death, we still reach, albeit a bit tricker, a ANC victory.
However if you remove the fall of the iron curtain, no way this ends in 1990 and it definitely persists all the way into the 21st century.
The Apartheid regime mainly fell due to two factors, firstly the fact that the cold war signalled the end of Soviet/communist funding for the ANC, which managed to remove the assertion that they were socialists who would destroy the entire afrikaner capitalist edifice. Secondly, the fact that sanctions had finally started to bite, which largely meant that by the time the ANC even managed to ascend to the seat of government all their lofty social welfarist plans were dashed just due to the basic insolvency of the government.
Those two factors largely still would have been in play in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and as the ANC's militant campaigns were largely for the whole ineffective and the moderate center still somewhat in play, I predict that even with a Nelson Mandela death, we still reach, albeit a bit tricker, a ANC victory.
However if you remove the fall of the iron curtain, no way this ends in 1990 and it definitely persists all the way into the 21st century.
A: South Africa still under Apartheid, or B: a very, very bloody civil war, with Nuclear bombs.
A "like OTL but slower" scenario isn't really in the cards IMO.
Because if the old regime clings on for several years longer, the effects of Mugabes reign in Zimbabwe is going to become evident. That will scare A LOT of whites - probably a lot of non-whites as well - from what will happen under a majority rule South Africa.
The best case IMO would be a peaceful partition, which leaves the Whites in charge of part of what used to the South Africa and the rest of the country holds together under majority rule. Sort of like the India-Pakistan situation. Problem is they were most probably too arrogant to see, that that's the best they could hope for in the absence of a Mandela.
More likely case IMO would be:
Civil War, which the whites sorta don't actually loose, but wrecks the economy to make any victory essentially pointless and the old South Africa irrevocably gone. Leading to a Balkanisation-scenario. Poor countries divided amongst "tribal" lines hating each other.
Middle Case:
More peaceful Balkanisation sort of like the fall of the USSR. Some bloodshed before partition, but not outright former-Yoguslavia-style war.
Because if the old regime clings on for several years longer, the effects of Mugabes reign in Zimbabwe is going to become evident. That will scare A LOT of whites - probably a lot of non-whites as well - from what will happen under a majority rule South Africa.
The best case IMO would be a peaceful partition, which leaves the Whites in charge of part of what used to the South Africa and the rest of the country holds together under majority rule. Sort of like the India-Pakistan situation. Problem is they were most probably too arrogant to see, that that's the best they could hope for in the absence of a Mandela.
More likely case IMO would be:
Civil War, which the whites sorta don't actually loose, but wrecks the economy to make any victory essentially pointless and the old South Africa irrevocably gone. Leading to a Balkanisation-scenario. Poor countries divided amongst "tribal" lines hating each other.
Middle Case:
More peaceful Balkanisation sort of like the fall of the USSR. Some bloodshed before partition, but not outright former-Yoguslavia-style war.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Most likely. I shudder to think about how bad it would have been. As it is, for all its troubles, South Africa since the 1990s has been one of the world's biggest successes.
Flocculencio
Donor
There's an excellent historical novel by James Michener, Covenant, which covers South African history. Writing in the 1970s he did a lot of research into white opinion at the time and, allowing for the same of dramatic necessity, he does include some views in his book (in the chapter dealing with contemporary South Africa) of whites who felt that violent partition was inevitable with whites falling back to the Cape to form a white majority state.
How true this all is is, of course, debatable, but Michener was usually painstaking in his research.
How true this all is is, of course, debatable, but Michener was usually painstaking in his research.
We have to be careful here, to not give Mandela more credit than he is due.
Apartheid was ended peacefully by a wide range of actors, not just Mandela or the ANC. The decision by the South African Defence Force to support the reforms played a major part too. De Klerk, and even Botha before him, were important in ending apartheid relatively peacefully.
Without Mandela, there could well still be a relatively peaceful end to apartheid (in OTL a low-level civil war raged in KwaZulu-Natal and the 'townships' of Johannesburg between Inkatha, the ANC, and a 'Third Force' - probably the government security forces).
With no Mandela we may not see the party be as strong as it turned out to be, with greater support for possibly Inkatha. We may also see more factions (radical and conservative) break away from the ANC, leading to a weaker ATL party.
Apartheid was ended peacefully by a wide range of actors, not just Mandela or the ANC. The decision by the South African Defence Force to support the reforms played a major part too. De Klerk, and even Botha before him, were important in ending apartheid relatively peacefully.
Without Mandela, there could well still be a relatively peaceful end to apartheid (in OTL a low-level civil war raged in KwaZulu-Natal and the 'townships' of Johannesburg between Inkatha, the ANC, and a 'Third Force' - probably the government security forces).
With no Mandela we may not see the party be as strong as it turned out to be, with greater support for possibly Inkatha. We may also see more factions (radical and conservative) break away from the ANC, leading to a weaker ATL party.
It would depend on a lot of things.
How did the civil war start? How much support is there for the various factions? Does the Soviet Union still exist in ATL?
In general terms fullscale civil war is inevitable without some sort of deal by the mid 90's, the hatreds will be boiling over and once Mugabe turns zimbabwe into the clusterf**k it's inevitably going to become the whites have an object lesson in what they think majority rule will bring.
In terms of how a war goes I'd expect efforts to seize and "cleanse" the cape area of blacks, followed by a nasty partiation. If things get really bad then by 1990 SA already had half a dozen nukes, could build more and if things get really bad for the white's they could end up.being used... Either way no good ending for either side:-(
In terms of how a war goes I'd expect efforts to seize and "cleanse" the cape area of blacks, followed by a nasty partiation. If things get really bad then by 1990 SA already had half a dozen nukes, could build more and if things get really bad for the white's they could end up.being used... Either way no good ending for either side:-(
Firstly, white South Africans were well aware of what could happen in Africa once colonial or minority rule ended.
Mozambique, the Congo, Uganda, Angola, amongst others, had all already happened. Zimbabwe going south wouldn't change much.
Secondly, a full-scale civil war in South Africa in the 1990s may well butterfly away Mugabe's excesses.
There may be a greater will on the part of the international community to ensure Zimbabwe doesn't become an economic basketcase.
Or exaggerate them. After all, if he has the evil white supremists next door to use as a strawman, painting all whites with the same brush, who in Zimbabwe is going to stand up and tell him to stop? The MDC would be targeted as enemies of the state.
Who outside of Zimbabwe could stand up to him without being called a Colonialist, White Supremist, Slave owner or a myriad of other insults?
It would be marginally safer to do nothing politically.
As for South Africa, a white state around the cape and that would be that, both it, and the new South Africa would be pretty fucked for a while despite having billions of dollars worth of natural resorces.