What led to them creating a new constitution in 1997?
From the 70s to '97 martial and enabling laws were put in place as part of De Strijd. The new constitution simply officialized the developed dictatorship into the fundamental laws of the republic.

Was it an attempt to strengthen the Boer regime?
That's it: banning of non-Boer parties, militarization of the political offices (fusion of political and military roles in the middle-bottom bureaucracy), stripping the Natives from the little rights they retained and basicly turning them into slaves, freeing the ZARP from judicial restraints and turning it into a repression apparatus, etcetera.

I see on the democracy index that the Orange Free State is slighter better off than Transvaal, but is it still pretty similar?
It is slightly better because it's not militarized (to such an extent...), uitlander parties are allowed, due process is mostly respected and in general it functions as a parliamentary republic. However, it is expressly defined as a Boer national homeland in its constitution and as such actions deemed aimed at changing it are a crime, immigration and naturalization are severily restricted, most Natives were expelled to Lesotho in the 1920s...; in general, Bloemfontein 2021 feels very like Alabama 1950.


Also, are any other contemporary regimes considered "Totalitarian"?
China and Paragua;, there are more dictatorships but those three are the only ones seen as totalitarian.


Nice work though! I am glad your timeline is willing to address the problems that arise in a world that hasn't given up colonialism.
Thanks! I'd like to think that OTL's decolonization, while not perfect by any measure, is not a given, and that in other circumstances those horrors could remain more entrenched and difficilt to excise, and so I want to explore those implications. For example, the South African situation doesn't pop up in British news sources because the UK has a vested interest in status quo in the region, having beneficial deals with the ZAR and not wanting a refugee crisis.

Uh oh apartheid time..
It's much worse than Apartheid.
 

Deleted member 77383

What other wars had occurred in the late twentieth century? In the era of the Cold War without the Cold War? And what’s civil unrest like in the US and Texas relating to minorities struggles and such?
 
What other wars had occurred in the late twentieth century?
I'm afraid I cannot give a comprehensive list, but I can name the Central African War (already covered), the final phase of the Chinese Civil War, the Indonesian National Revolution/Independence War, the Indochina War(s), the Greek Schism, the Ottoman-Egyptian War, the Russian Invasion of Georgia, the Yugoslav Liberation War or the Argentinian Intervention(s) in Brazil.

In the era of the Cold War without the Cold War?
Yes, there's no single identifiable 'ColdWar', the world is much more multipolar than ours, more similar to the 19th century.


And what’s civil unrest like in the US and Texas relating to minorities struggles and such?
The main struggles in the US are in the South, where TTL has lagged bis a bis OTL. There was a Civil Rights Movement in the 60s and 70s but the more decentralized situation has given the states more way to bypass the legislation. In the north and west the main minority (once late 19th-early 20th century white ethnics more or less assimilated to the mainstream) are recent-arrival Slavic Americans mostly from Russia.

In Texas, Hispanics from other countries are quite indistinct from Texans and the main minority are Americans who don't have much complaint.
 
Cape of Good Hope
If the ZAR is TTL's North Korea, the Cape could very well be considered South Korea.​

1621956101216.png


dekabjg-d34c0520-871e-47d2-8498-fd9ba6166d7c.png

 
Last edited:
So Yugoslav business is starting up? I know a decent amount about Yugoslavia & have been told I'm not bad at being unbiased so if you want to ask questions, feel free.
 
Feel free to DM me, though I will say that I'm not always active here so if I do see it I'm happy to help (& you're at risk of me dropping a wall of text).
 
What happened to the Philippines after the collapse of the Empire of the Americas and the Indies?
The local authorities remained loyal to the Bourbon dynasty so the archipielago remained a Mexican possesion. Due to the First Republic being later proclaimed, the Philippine governor declared a regency for queen Isabella and began acting autonomously even when the monarchy was restored in Mexico City. When a Second Republic was established after the Mexican Revolution, the regency was finally declared an independent kingdom under the governor's dynasty.
 
Honestly, I find it dubious. Nationalism was just in its infancy, and the "big" / "cultured" ones were in a clear priority - at that time they did not care about the "small nations" at all. In addition, the emergence of an independent Basque State on the other side of the Pyrenees can whip up the French Basques, which Napoleon does not need at all.
 
Top