South Africa restores the monarchy after Apartheid

[Sarthak]

Apparently this was given extreme serious thought but was dropped so as to not hurt the status quo. The Blacks, and Anglo population of SA was extremely in favor of the monarchy otl, which Mandela back in 1961 even calling the republic an unwanted one.

So what if in 1994 when South Africa returned to the commonwealth, it did so as a Commonwealth realm with Mandela as 'Minister-President' or 'Prime Minister' of South Africa. What would be the effects of this? Global reactions worldwide?

 

[Dr Dee]

An interesting area totally out of my knowledge so just some questions:

1. Would bringing back the monarchy seriously piss off the Afrikaaners? And therefore needlessly endanger the democratisation process?
2. Would a return to the monarchy need to have a stronger, more politically meaningful and integrated Commonwealth (we're back to that again!)
3. Would a return to the monarchy undermine South Africa's profile among other African nations?
4. If the black population were pro monarchy in the 60s, was that really still the case by the 90s?
5. Would the ANC of the 1990s really want a return to a monarchy that was based in London?

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Apparently this was given extreme serious thought but was dropped so as to not hurt the status quo. The Blacks, and Anglo population of SA was extremely in favor of the monarchy otl, which Mandela back in 1961 even calling the republic an unwanted one.

So what if in 1994 when South Africa returned to the commonwealth, it did so as a Commonwealth realm with Mandela as 'Minister-President' or 'Prime Minister' of South Africa. What would be the effects of this? Global reactions worldwide?

I've never heard of this before.
If South Africa wanted a monarchy wouldn't the logical thing be to seek the King of Lesotho become monarch?

 

[Gokbay]

Likelihood of restoration I am not sure about. But I would be interested in what the results of a hypothetical "Should we restore the Windsor monarchy?" after the end of Apartheid.

 

[Sarthak]

1. Would bringing back the monarchy seriously piss off the Afrikaaners? And therefore needlessly endanger the democratisation process?

That depends. The Cape Afrikaaners would be pissed off. However the Oranje were ambivalent to the diea

2. Would a return to the monarchy need to have a stronger, more politically meaningful and integrated Commonwealth (we're back to that again!)

That depends on the reactions of the UK and the rest of the commonwealth realms

3. Would a return to the monarchy undermine South Africa's profile among other African nations?

nah don't think so. Tanzania otl even advised the South Africans to return to monarchy in 1993, calling it a return to pre-apartheid era.

4. If the black population were pro monarchy in the 60s, was that really still the case by the 90s?

That much is unclear in the books i have read sorry to say

5. Would the ANC of the 1990s really want a return to a monarchy that was based in London?

The party was split between opinions regarding this according to Legacy of Liberation

I've never heard of this before.
If South Africa wanted a monarchy wouldn't the logical thing be to seek the King of Lesotho become monarch?

I am mostly basing my info out of the Collapse of Apartheid by Mathew Graham. No, Lesotho was not raised up.

Likelihood of restoration I am not sure about. But I would be interested in what the results of a hypothetical "Should we restore the Windsor monarchy?" after the end of Apartheid.

me too. I don't think it impossible or even unlikely, but on the overall scale it is most probably not going to happen, but the effects of a restoration has such interesting consequences, that i can't help but ask it

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

That depends. The Cape Afrikaaners would be pissed off. However the Oranje were ambivalent to the diea

That depends on the reactions of the UK and the rest of the commonwealth realms

nah don't think so. Tanzania otl even advised the South Africans to return to monarchy in 1993, calling it a return to pre-apartheid era.

That much is unclear in the books i have read sorry to say

The party was split between opinions regarding this according to Legacy of Liberation

I am mostly basing my info out of the Collapse of Apartheid by Mathew Graham. No, Lesotho was not raised up.

me too. I don't think it impossible or even unlikely, but on the overall scale it is most probably not going to happen, but the effects of a restoration has such interesting consequences, that i can't help but ask it

That's really interesting. I think the only recent example would be Papua New Guinea which decided to keep the Queen after independence from Australia in 1975, to the surprise of many including the Queen it seems.
According to the biography by Robert Lacey she was delighted to accept. I think it would be the same case here, especially given the timeframe (mid 90s). The Queen's reputation amongst black Commonwealth leaders of that era was always very positive, no one sucked up to her more than Robert Mugabe.
I suppose the only reticence the Queen or UK government might have is if it looked as if the monarchy was being imposed on a majority black population without popular support - a referendum which supported restoration may be a pre-requisite.

 

[Dr Dee]

Tanzania otl even advised the South Africans to return to monarchy in 1993, calling it a return to pre-apartheid era.

Really?! That's fascinating. Yet another reason why I adore this forum - I learn new things all the time!

 

[Dan1988]

Potential problem - while there may have been talk about that, ultimately the ANC were big on not rocking the boat too much in terms of institutional setup, outside of getting rid of the more obvious bits of apartheid. The ANC was basically keen on having control of the same levers of power the NP had. That's why, for example, it still has the fused President from the Tricameral Constitution days, or the de facto unitary state model from the apartheid era, despite some reservations. Restoring the monarchy would be a deviation from that - not to mention the general principle that monarchies who become republics usually (not always, but usually) do not revert back. It would also basically deny the ANC another potential lever of power the NP had with concentrating power in the executive.

I also find this:

nah don't think so. Tanzania otl even advised the South Africans to return to monarchy in 1993, calling it a return to pre-apartheid era.

a bit weird since the fundamental basics of apartheid were constructed while South Africa was a monarchy, both during the 1948-1961 period and even prior, while it was still colonies, and Britain was a big investor in apartheid-era South Africa. So even if the Republic was unwanted, it was certainly embraced post-apartheid.

As for addressing the OP - honestly, there would be very little effect at first, not to mention much in the way of global reaction (apart from a few perplexed Americans) since much of the focus of the anti-apartheid effort was on the ANC, not the restoration of the monarchy. Once revelations start coming out about what was really happening inside the Royal Family, on top of ZA's economic difficulties, there would be pressure to get rid of the British monarchy altogether and revert back to a Republic. That pressure would probably successfully work, and hence would be the end of that.

 

[Sarthak]

Potential problem - while there may have been talk about that, ultimately the ANC were big on not rocking the boat too much in terms of institutional setup, outside of getting rid of the more obvious bits of apartheid. The ANC was basically keen on having control of the same levers of power the NP had. That's why, for example, it still has the fused President from the Tricameral Constitution days, or the de facto unitary state model from the apartheid era, despite some reservations. Restoring the monarchy would be a deviation from that - not to mention the general principle that monarchies who become republics usually (not always, but usually) do not revert back. It would also basically deny the ANC another potential lever of power the NP had with concentrating power in the executive.

It certainly would disrupt the constitution, but according to Mandela himself, it could have been amended within a week or two at most, especially during the laxish days of the transition. The ANC likewise was split down the middle according to Fall of Apartheid regarding the topic, it wouldn't really take much to tip a small majority over to the side that wants to restore the monarchy.

I also find this:
a bit weird since the fundamental basics of apartheid were constructed while South Africa was a monarchy, both during the 1948-1961 period and even prior, while it was still colonies, and Britain was a big investor in apartheid-era South Africa. So even if the Republic was unwanted, it was certainly embraced post-apartheid.

Natal almost seceded over the republic vs monarchy issue with politicians threatening it well into the 80s. It wasn't really embraced. also the Tanzanians were largely talking about the British Monarchy's anti apartheid stance after George VI died. Not the fact that Britain invested into Apartheid SA. UK between 1960 - 1993 remained SA;s third largest trading partner but did oppose apartheid simultaneously after all.

As for addressing the OP - honestly, there would be very little effect at first, not to mention much in the way of global reaction (apart from a few perplexed Americans) since much of the focus of the anti-apartheid effort was on the ANC, not the restoration of the monarchy. Once revelations start coming out about what was really happening inside the Royal Family, on top of ZA's economic difficulties, there would be pressure to get rid of the British monarchy altogether and revert back to a Republic. That pressure would probably successfully work, and hence would be the end of that.

I am not to sure. Mandela is basically like god in SA. Not even his controversial workings are criticized there. If Mandela endorsed the restoration, like he almost did anyways otl, then i doubt the SAs would go against it, also considering the QEII had refused to journey SA in and after 1954 citing apartheid.

 

[Sarthak]

That's really interesting. I think the only recent example would be Papua New Guinea which decided to keep the Queen after independence from Australia in 1975, to the surprise of many including the Queen it seems.
According to the biography by Robert Lacey she was delighted to accept. I think it would be the same case here, especially given the timeframe (mid 90s). The Queen's reputation amongst black Commonwealth leaders of that era was always very positive, no one sucked up to her more than Robert Mugabe.
I suppose the only reticence the Queen or UK government might have is if it looked as if the monarchy was being imposed on a majority black population without popular support - a referendum which supported restoration may be a pre-requisite.

Probably. For the sake of the scenario let's say a referendum does happen and it passes.

Really?! That's fascinating. Yet another reason why I adore this forum - I learn new things all the time!

thanks. Yeah it was surprising to me too.

 

[Dan1988]

It certainly would disrupt the constitution, but according to Mandela himself, it could have been amended within a week or two at most, especially during the laxish days of the transition. The ANC likewise was split down the middle according to Fall of Apartheid regarding the topic, it wouldn't really take much to tip a small majority over to the side that wants to restore the monarchy.

And not just the ANC - most of the other anti-apartheid organizations did not really challenge the Republic, and probably would have preferred its maintenance. So even if the ANC wanted it, there would be others - including the SACP - who would have thought otherwise. So it would be more than just tipping a small majority.

Natal almost seceded over the republic vs monarchy issue with politicians threatening it well into the 80s. It wasn't really embraced.

By then, IIRC, Natal was basically irrelevant and any talk of monarchy there was basically in KwaZulu thanks to Buthelezi and the IFP (supported, in part, by the NP). Furthermore, AFAICT, the republic vs. monarchy issue was way down on the list of issues that needed addressing; if it was brought up, that would have stalled the transition because the NP wouldn't go for it, and to make the transition work required the cooperation of the NP and Buthelezi (who would have preferred the Zulu monarchy over a British one), as well as the ANC's partners in the Communists (leaving aside the overlap in membership).

So that gives it a couple of years under the interim constitution and the Government of National Unity where South Africa remains a republic, leaving it to the 1996 constitution to resolve that - and by that point, whatever interest there was in the monarchy was gone. It would have needed more than a week to amend it, and probably addressing quite a bit of opposition - which would be more acute as this would come around the same time as problems within the Royal Family itself and the first stirrings of talk over its abolition. A couple of years later would have been Australia's 1999 referendum on abolishing the monarchy - which could have been won by a majority if the republican formula chosen was different. Once Australia goes, then so too would NZ and a bunch of other Commonwealth realms. South Africa would stick out like a sore thumb if it reverted, not to mention there would be earlier, stronger talk of abolishing the monarchy which would become more popular.

also the Tanzanians were largely talking about the British Monarchy's anti apartheid stance after George VI died. [. . .] also considering the QEII had refused to journey SA in and after 1954 citing apartheid.

Understood. But I don't think that would play into South Africans' consciousness, since most of the other organizations were also pretty republican (although admittedly also more hardline in their socialist thinking and all that - and for understandable reasons).

I am not to sure. Mandela is basically like god in SA. Not even his controversial workings are criticized there. If Mandela endorsed the restoration, like he almost did anyways otl, then i doubt the SAs would go against it,

They probably would have assumed that on that one bit he was probably crazy and it would be quietly dropped around the transition. If not, then once Mandela leaves there could be stronger talk of abolishing it - particularly with a successful Australian referendum leading to another wave of abolition.

 

[Sarthak]

not just the ANC - most of the other anti-apartheid organizations did not really challenge the Republic, and probably would have preferred its maintenance. So even if the ANC wanted it, there would be others - including the SACP - who would have thought otherwise. So it would be more than just tipping a small majority.

The SACP were a part of the ANC and still are. The other parties such as the DP and IFP mentioned support for the proposal in 1993.

then, IIRC, Natal was basically irrelevant and any talk of monarchy there was basically in KwaZulu thanks to Buthelezi and the IFP (supported, in part, by the NP). Furthermore, AFAICT, the republic vs. monarchy issue was way down on the list of issues that needed addressing; if it was brought up, that would have stalled the transition because the NP wouldn't go for it, and to make the transition work required the cooperation of the NP and Buthelezi (who would have preferred the Zulu monarchy over a British one), as well as the ANC's partners in the Communists (leaving aside the overlap in membership).

No. Natal was not irrelevant. The Oranje had massive stakes in Natal and the Bantusian system relied heavily on the natal elites. It was not irrelevant. The SA regime.continued to feed money desperately to the criers of secessionists every time they demanded monarchy or secession and brought the proposal to parliament in faux attempts to please them. Anyways according to After Mandela Buthlezi apparently told Mandela he would be amenable to a Windsor monarchy.

that gives it a couple of years under the interim constitution and the Government of National Unity where South Africa remains a republic, leaving it to the 1996 constitution to resolve that - and by that point, whatever interest there was in the monarchy was gone. It would have needed more than a week to amend it, and probably addressing quite a bit of opposition - which would be more acute as this would come around the same time as problems within the Royal Family itself and the first stirrings of talk over its abolition. A couple of years later would have been Australia's 1999 referendum on abolishing the monarchy - which could have been won by a majority if the republican formula chosen was different. Once Australia goes, then so too would NZ and a bunch of other Commonwealth realms. South Africa would stick out like a sore thumb if it reverted, not to mention there would be earlier, stronger talk of abolishing the monarchy which would become more popular.

They probably would have assumed that on that one bit he was probably crazy and it would be quietly dropped around the transition. If not, then once Mandela leaves there could be stronger talk of abolishing it - particularly with a successful Australian referendum leading to another wave of abolition.

Why would the referendum even happen in the first place? The restoration in South Africa would embolden the monarchists massively and would radically change Australian and New Zealander politics and foreign diplomacy in that regards. A Scottish referendum was not guaranteed in 2008 and neither was an Aussie referendum in 1993. This ATL my friend, butterflies need to be taken into account.

Understood. But I don't think that would play into South Africans' consciousness, since most of the other organizations were also pretty republican (although admittedly also more hardline in their socialist thinking and all that - and for understandable reasons).

Partially yes. Partially no. Many organizations remained ambiguous on the topic throughout the 80s.

Nonetheless a Grenada and Papua New Guinea situation is very possible in SA. The monarch is kept/restored and the population is too apathetic to do anything in regards to it.

Nonetheless for the sake of the scenario I am asking a scenario in which the monarchy is restored with a majority of the political mandate and it's consequences internationally and domestically not how possible it was. I agree it was unlikely, but it was not impossible considering the proposal was given a lot of thought and Mandela personally thought about endorsing it along with the cabinet.

They probably would have assumed that on that one bit he was probably crazy and it would be quietly dropped around the transition

I don't think we're talking about the same SA populace. This is the same populace that forgave Mandela for terror attacks at both whites and blacks, directly supporting tinpot dictators in Africa and militarizing the country again and laying the foundations for the future economic inequality problem in SA as well as the corruption problem.

 

[Dan1988]

The SACP were a part of the ANC and still are. The other parties such as the DP and IFP mentioned support for the proposal in 1993.

Though the IFP would have preferred their own monarch instead.

Anyways according to After Mandela Buthlezi apparently told Mandela he would be amenable to a Windsor monarchy.

Now, if he had made that public, that does change the equation as far as the IFP goes. Still doesn't change the intransigence of the NP, who was still the ANC's primary negotiating partner for the transition. If the NP said no to restoring the monarchy, then the proposal would have to be withdrawn - and the ANC needed to keep the NP on side to prevent things escalating even further than it could have been, especially with the far-right and the cries for a Volkstaat.

Why would the referendum even happen in the first place?

For reasons specific to Australia, such as the constitutional crisis in the '70s, the Australia Act in 1986 (of which becoming a republic would be the icing on the case), plus Keating (a republican) as Australian PM around the time of the South African transition. Butterfly effect application would probably dictate, if Keating doesn't screw things up, that the ALP would probably win another general election and would follow through on their promise to make Australia into a republic by 2001 (which may or may not need a referendum, but I would assume some popular consultation would be needed because Keating promised such a referendum would take place). Even without a referendum (or at least, not the specific conditions that brought John Howard to power, the 1998 Constitutional Convention, and all that), republicanism was a major issue all throughout the 1990s in Australia because it was perceived that the retention of the monarchy was a hindrance, on top of the broad waves of change that were loosening or even dropping the ties to the monarchy (the 1993 Australian citizenship oath dropped all mention of the Queen and replaced it with allegiance to Australia and its people, for example). There was also a pretty good amount of support in Australia for such a change (the main reason for the defeat of the referendum was that the chosen model was not one which all republic supporters wanted - the preferred option was direct election of the President, probably à la Ireland).

South Africa reverting back wouldn't really change the equation all that much when there were other issues specific to Australia pertaining to the monarchy that needed to be dealt with - and, because of NZ's relationship with Australia, as well as a stronger, though more pragmatic, crypto-republican sentiment going on there, if Australia becomes a republic, NZ would, too. Even the royal family was expecting Australia and New Zealand would become republics. So, South Africa would not be as much of a boon to monarchists as it would be assumed.

Nonetheless for the sake of the scenario I am asking a scenario in which the monarchy is restored with a majority of the political mandate and it's consequences internationally and domestically not how possible it was. I agree it was unlikely, but it was not impossible considering the proposal was given a lot of thought and Mandela personally thought about endorsing it along with the cabinet.

In that case, then the restoration of monarchy would not have much in terms of consequences internationally and domestically, apart from being another line item in the government's budget, seeing as for the most part there's basically not much for the monarch/GG to do WRT being a head of state, as well as the potential for violence from the expected quarters. So the restoration would be seen as something sui generis that is just for South Africa, although a bit weird, and would not have much impact elsewhere.

 

[Gokbay]

For reasons specific to Australia, such as the constitutional crisis in the '70s, the Australia Act in 1986 (of which becoming a republic would be the icing on the case), plus Keating (a republican) as Australian PM around the time of the South African transition. Butterfly effect application would probably dictate, if Keating doesn't screw things up, that the ALP would probably win another general election and would follow through on their promise to make Australia into a republic by 2001 (which may or may not need a referendum, but I would assume some popular consultation would be needed because Keating promised such a referendum would take place). Even without a referendum (or at least, not the specific conditions that brought John Howard to power, the 1998 Constitutional Convention, and all that), republicanism was a major issue all throughout the 1990s in Australia because it was perceived that the retention of the monarchy was a hindrance, on top of the broad waves of change that were loosening or even dropping the ties to the monarchy (the 1993 Australian citizenship oath dropped all mention of the Queen and replaced it with allegiance to Australia and its people, for example). There was also a pretty good amount of support in Australia for such a change (the main reason for the defeat of the referendum was that the chosen model was not one which all republic supporters wanted - the preferred option was direct election of the President, probably à la Ireland).

South Africa reverting back wouldn't really change the equation all that much when there were other issues specific to Australia pertaining to the monarchy that needed to be dealt with - and, because of NZ's relationship with Australia, as well as a stronger, though more pragmatic, crypto-republican sentiment going on there, if Australia becomes a republic, NZ would, too. Even the royal family was expecting Australia and New Zealand would become republics. So, South Africa would not be as much of a boon to monarchists as it would be assumed.

Even with the Referendum still happening, what makes you think that a referendum that has failed in OTL will somehow pass now?

You yourself said restoration in South Africa would not matter much for Australia. So how does the Republic option win now when in real history it failed to do so?

 

[walmart]

Given the history of British imperialism in South Africa, lack of connection with Britain among the black population, and having a white monarchy in a country that just left a white ruled government coupled with sheer time since South Africa become a republic . I don't see why a restoration of the monarchy would be on the table .

 

[walmart]

That much is unclear in the books i have read sorry to say

If I recall correctly. In the 1961 referendum, non-white support for the monarchy was based on the idea that monarchy could be a safeguard against the further erosion of rights by the National party .

 

[marktaha]

It certainly would disrupt the constitution, but according to Mandela himself, it could have been amended within a week or two at most, especially during the laxish days of the transition. The ANC likewise was split down the middle according to Fall of Apartheid regarding the topic, it wouldn't really take much to tip a small majority over to the side that wants to restore the monarchy.

Natal almost seceded over the republic vs monarchy issue with politicians threatening it well into the 80s. It wasn't really embraced. also the Tanzanians were largely talking about the British Monarchy's anti apartheid stance after George VI died. Not the fact that Britain invested into Apartheid SA. UK between 1960 - 1993 remained SA;s third largest trading partner but did oppose apartheid simultaneously after all.

I am not to sure. Mandela is basically like god in SA. Not even his controversial workings are criticized there. If Mandela endorsed the restoration, like he almost did anyways otl, then i doubt the SAs would go against it, also considering the QEII had refused to journey SA in and after 1954 citing apartheid.

Monarch / Governor - General as figurehead with PM running things. Idea - four Dominions each of the Queen's children Governor-General.

 

[Sarthak]

Though the IFP would have preferred their own monarch instead.

No they actually wouldn't have. Spokesperson Narend Singh stated that the IFP would support a non-partisan monarchy of the Windsor's if the IFP goal of devolution and federalism was achieved. Considering that SA did federalize properly after 1993, that was a promise all sides could keep.

if he had made that public, that does change the equation as far as the IFP goes. Still doesn't change the intransigence of the NP, who was still the ANC's primary negotiating partner for the transition. If the NP said no to restoring the monarchy, then the proposal would have to be withdrawn - and the ANC needed to keep the NP on side to prevent things escalating even further than it could have been, especially with the far-right and the cries for a Volkstaat.

De Klerk did support a return to monarchy. In 1993 he told Mandela that a return to monarchy would be a return to normalcy and would allow the nation to get past a horrid three decades. The rest of the NP is obviously republican leaning but considering their leader was in favour and that there was a free cross party vote, it does mean that the NP as a whole would not oppose it. Their power base had been reduced radically since 1991 and De Klerk was eager to get it back to shape. If the ANC supports the monarchy then the NP will.begrungdingly do it too.

For reasons specific to Australia, such as the constitutional crisis in the '70s, the Australia Act in 1986 (of which becoming a republic would be the icing on the case), plus Keating (a republican) as Australian PM around the time of the South African transiti

That makes his position even weaker as a Windsor restorations would happen under his premiership elsewhere. The hesitant republican which were the swing voters in the 1998 convention had a lot of members who voted very hesitantly for a republic. The monarchist sides would.be emboldened by the restoration and a lot of swing votes would go to the monarchists.

Australian PM around the time of the South African transition. Butterfly effect application would probably dictate, if Keating doesn't screw things up, that the ALP would probably win another general election and would follow through on their promise to make Australia into a republic by 2001 (which may or may not need a referendum, but I would assume some popular consultation would be needed because Keating promised such a referendum would take place). Even wi

The 1996 election was lost by Keating more due to Howard's sly tactics in the rural and suburban areas rather than Keating. Keating's ignorance of the rural areas did play a role however yes. But if we are to even assume that a 1996 election would be changed, the liberals would be even more.emboldened by the restorations and Keating's position discredited a bit. Considering there was a 45 seat difference I can't really see Keating doing better. His ignorance of the rural.poulation combined with a little discredit would make that gap even wider all things considered.

Even without a referendum (or at least, not the specific conditions that brought John Howard to power, the 1998 Constitutional Convention, and all that), republicanism was a major issue all throughout the 1990s in Australia because it was perceived that the retention of the monarchy was a hindrance, on top of the broad waves of change that were loosening or even dropping the ties to the monarchy (the 1993 Australian citizenship oath dropped all mention of the Queen and replaced it with allegiance to Australia and its people, for example). There was also a pretty good amount of support in Australia for such a change (the main reason for the defeat of the referendum was that the chosen model was not one which all republic supporters wanted - the preferred option was direct election of the President, probably à la Ireland).

The convention was bitterly divided otl which was they settled on a half arsed republican model. Swing voters going for the monarchists and the liberals position a little stronger and the labour position a little weaker means that the convention may not even vote in favour of a republican system. Anyways that Republic format had been labours plan since 1991. 8 years of tumultuous politics and one of labours greatest electoral defeats did not change the format I am.not seeing how a restoration would change it if a referendum even happens.

South Africa reverting back wouldn't really change the equation all that much when there were other issues specific to Australia pertaining to the monarchy that needed to be dealt with - and, because of NZ's relationship with Australia, as well as a stronger, though more pragmatic, crypto-republican sentiment going on there, if Australia becomes a republic, NZ would, too. Even the royal family was expecting Australia and New Zealand would become republics. So, South Africa would not be as much of a boon to monarchists as it would be assumed.

There were altogether 28 reps and senators in the convention who said that they would have voted for the monarchy in retrospect during the convention. restoration would certainly make a lot of those hesitant voters change sides.

 

[Sarthak]

Given the history of British imperialism in South Africa, lack of connection with Britain among the black population, and having a white monarchy in a country that just left a white ruled government coupled with sheer time since South Africa become a republic . I don't see why a restoration of the monarchy would be on the table .

But it was. And nearly happened according to Mandela himself.

If I recall correctly. In the 1961 referendum, non-white support for the monarchy was based on the idea that monarchy could be a safeguard against the further erosion of rights by the National party .

Partially. Mandela also called that there was genuine love for the monarchy during the referendum.

Monarch / Governor - General as figurehead with PM running things. Idea - four Dominions each of the Queen's children Governor-General.

A governor general is pretty much obvious.

 

[Sarthak]

Anyways, there was genuine support to restore the British monarchy is Sierra Leone, Gambia and Zimbabwe (after Mugabe). Could a South African restoration embolden them to try and restore the monarchy?