WI: No Apartheid

Presumably the POD involves the United Party defeating the National Party? Semi-educated guess: the Coloured end up about as rich as the whites and Indians are (in OTL, they're poorer than whites/Indians and richer than blacks), lack of sanctions and post-apartheid chaos leaves the country richer than in OTL. Inequality probably stays about the same or is only somewhat lower, and AIDS still wrecks life expectancy in the 1990s, but average income may be comparable to Southern Europe.
 
Presumably the POD involves the United Party defeating the National Party? Semi-educated guess: the Coloured end up about as rich as the whites and Indians are (in OTL, they're poorer than whites/Indians and richer than blacks), lack of sanctions and post-apartheid chaos leaves the country richer than in OTL. Inequality probably stays about the same or is only somewhat lower, and AIDS still wrecks life expectancy in the 1990s, but average income may be comparable to Southern Europe.

Also a LOT more white South Africans if you go with that POD. The United Party was very much in favor of immigration and had even assembled a fleet of ships to take Europeans to the country. I remember reading that if their policies had been implemented South Africa probably would have been 25% white instead of 16% when they were at their demographic height in the 1970s.
 
Also a LOT more white South Africans if you go with that POD. The United Party was very much in favor of immigration and had even assembled a fleet of ships to take Europeans to the country. I remember reading that if their policies had been implemented South Africa probably would have been 25% white instead of 16% when they were at their demographic height in the 1970s.

Presumably there would still be white flight as black political empowerment led to black-run governments...
 
Presumably there would still be white flight as black political empowerment led to black-run governments...

Some but not a mammoth amount. Most of the white flight that took place OTL was caused by post-Apartheid chaos. Butterflying that resolves a lot.
 
Some but not a mammoth amount. Most of the white flight that took place OTL was caused by post-Apartheid chaos. Butterflying that resolves a lot.

What post-apartheid chaos? I don't remember all that much chaos post-1994.

Back to the OP it all depends how we avoid apartheid.

Is the non-white franchise secured at Union? Does Rhodesia join the union in 1922? Does the UP manage to win in 1948?

Whether or not formal apartheid is avoided, there will certainly be some level of racial discrimination though.

A qualified franchise may see white parties dominate the legislature, but black parties would at least have some representation. However, as the decolonisation process gathers steam there will be further agitation for full political rights for black people. There may not be the levels of unrest we saw in OTL in the 1980s, but there will certainly be some sort of civil disobedience etc.
 

As I recall there was a really big spike in the crime rate in most South African cities after Apartheid ended and black economic empowerment caused some issues (not that apartheid wasn't evil and that it ending wasn't an unmitigated good thing). People were also scared of going from total white rule to majority rule in a short period of time; it was perceived as a cliff, although it wasn't.

Apartheid never existing, social change being significant but gradual, and there generally not being significant, sudden night and day shifts (at least to the same extent) butterflies most of that.
 
Last edited:

ben0628

Banned
As I recall there was a really big spike in the crime rate in most South African cities after Apartheid ended and black economic empowerment caused some issues (not that apartheid wasn't evil and that it ending wasn't an unmitigated good thing). People were also scared of going from total white rule to majority rule in a short period of time; it was perceived as a cliff, although it wasn't.

Apartheid never existing and the gap not being as wide butterflies most of that.

Could it potentially end up like Zimbabwe though? We're there any black politicians in SA comparable to Mugabe that could have used race problems to wreck the country?
 
Could it potentially end up like Zimbabwe though? We're there any black politicians in SA comparable to Mugabe that could have used race problems to wreck the country?

Yes, easily. That came very close to actually happening. The Inkatha and the ANC fought an undeclared war in the early 1990s that killed more people than Apartheid did from 1948-1989.

That this went as well as it did is almost entirely attributable to Mandela and Tutu. If Mandela had had a literal or fake accident in prison, if Tutu had been killed at an anti-apartheid rally, if they had died in a car/plane crash together, there's a real chance it might have turned into the Balkans except a million times worse. This was a state that had nuclear weapons and a substantially capable military and a whole lot of potential conflict minerals to fuel conflict.
 
Last edited:
As I recall there was a really big spike in the crime rate in most South African cities after Apartheid ended and black economic empowerment caused some issues (not that apartheid wasn't evil and that it ending wasn't an unmitigated good thing). People were also scared of going from total white rule to majority rule in a short period of time; it was perceived as a cliff, although it wasn't.

Apartheid never existing, social change being significant but gradual, and there generally not being significant, sudden night and day shifts (at least to the same extent) butterflies most of that.

There's a big difference between 'chaos' and a spike in crime rates. All societies in transition will see an increase in crime and some forms of civil unrest, Russia is probably a good example of that and I really don't think there was 'chaos'. I lived through the South African transition, but you may know better than me I suppose.

People weren't particularly scared of the change - after all nearly 70% of white South Africans voted to end apartheid in 1992.
 
Yes, easily. That came very close to actually happening. The Inkatha and the ANC fought an undeclared war in the early 1990s that killed more people than Apartheid did from 1948-1989.

That this went as well as it did is almost entirely attributable to Mandela and Tutu. If Mandela had had a literal or fake accident in prison, if Tutu had been killed at an anti-apartheid rally, if they had died in a car/plane crash together, there's a real chance it might have turned into the Balkans except a million times worse. This was a state that had nuclear weapons and a substantially capable military and a whole lot of potential conflict minerals to fuel conflict.

How can the IFP-ANC conflict have led to what Ben asked?

What could have happened is that the IFP never agreed to take part in the elections, which would have deligitimised the government in the eyes of many, and seen KwaZulu-Natal as a perpetually unstable part of the country (rather than the fairly prosperous province it is now).

Tutu's death would not have made such a difference - he played a role in ending apartheid, but I think outsiders overstate it.

There are a number of PODs for a bloodier end to apartheid.

- The 1993 coup goes ahead, with the army overthrowing the government, and ending negotiations. Civil war is the only outcome of that.

- Mandela handles the assassination of Chris Hani poorly, dividing the country instead if uniting it.

- The hardliners in the ANC (Peter Mokaba etc.) get more influence in the ANC and call for reparations and seizure of property at the end of apartheid.

- Going back further, the PAC isn't so poorly run in exile, and has more support when negotiations begin, meaning it's hardline anti-white message has more traction. Expect more massacres like the St James Church attack.
 
There's a big difference between 'chaos' and a spike in crime rates. All societies in transition will see an increase in crime and some forms of civil unrest, Russia is probably a good example of that and I really don't think there was 'chaos'. I lived through the South African transition, but you may know better than me I suppose.

People weren't particularly scared of the change - after all nearly 70% of white South Africans voted to end apartheid in 1992.

Alright, I defer to you. I was thinking in between the crime rates (everybody living in fortified homes means it's pretty serious), the downsides of black economic empowerment, and the thousands of people who were killed in the last few years of apartheid.

How can the IFP-ANC conflict have led to what Ben asked?

What could have happened is that the IFP never agreed to take part in the elections, which would have deligitimised the government in the eyes of many, and seen KwaZulu-Natal as a perpetually unstable part of the country (rather than the fairly prosperous province it is now).

Tutu's death would not have made such a difference - he played a role in ending apartheid, but I think outsiders overstate it.

There are a number of PODs for a bloodier end to apartheid.

- The 1993 coup goes ahead, with the army overthrowing the government, and ending negotiations. Civil war is the only outcome of that.

- Mandela handles the assassination of Chris Hani poorly, dividing the country instead if uniting it.

- The hardliners in the ANC (Peter Mokaba etc.) get more influence in the ANC and call for reparations and seizure of property at the end of apartheid.

- Going back further, the PAC isn't so poorly run in exile, and has more support when negotiations begin, meaning it's hardline anti-white message has more traction. Expect more massacres like the St James Church attack.

As is it killed like 14,000 of people. When two influential groups with strong paramilitary wings are fighting it out in the streets with those kinds of death tolls usually that means civil war is at least a distinct possibility. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

The rest of your POD's seem plausible. The one I'm curious about is the military coup; I've heard you talk on hear about how Constand Viljoen was planning something like that. What was going on there? How close did it come to actually going off?
 
Alright, I defer to you. I was thinking in between the crime rates (everybody living in fortified homes means it's pretty serious), the downsides of black economic empowerment, and the thousands of people who were killed in the last few years of apartheid.



As is it killed like 14,000 of people. When two influential groups with strong paramilitary wings are fighting it out in the streets with those kinds of death tolls usually that means civil war is at least a distinct possibility. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

The rest of your POD's seem plausible. The one I'm curious about is the military coup; I've heard you talk on hear about how Constand Viljoen was planning something like that. What was going on there? How close did it come to actually going off?

I agree with you re: the IFP-ANC, but you brought up in response to a question about whether a Mugabe-like figure could emerge in SA.

There was certainly a low-level civil war between the ANC and the IFP in KwaZulu-Natal and parts of Johannesburg, which could easily have erupted into a bigger conflict. Jacob Zuma, for all his faults, played a major role in bringing an end to the violence between the IFP and ANC.

The coup is an interesting one. Constand Viljoen has some different stories but there have been claims that he was a few phone calls away from mobilising his men and overthrowing the government.

http://mg.co.za/article/2001-03-26-sa-came-within-whisker-of-civil-war

A coup by hardliners in 1993 would have been a disaster for South Africa.
 
Whether or not formal apartheid is avoided, there will certainly be some level of racial discrimination though.
Yeah, you'd still have legal and unofficial social discrimination it simply wouldn't be as expanded or solidly legally codified as apartheid. Would Kenya perhaps give a rough idea of how things might have gone? South Africa of course was independent though.


A qualified franchise may see white parties dominate the legislature, but black parties would at least have some representation.
How achievable is that? One of the most frequents points of departure I've seen proposed in threads like these has been a United Party victory in the 1948 general election as already mentioned, however I don't really know enough about the parties or personalities involved to say. If the United Party had won, carried through on their immigration plans, the citizenship/voting laws not being changed like the National Party did, equalised the constituencies to do away with the in-built advantage rural ones had etc. once firmly established in power and with a growing white population would they have gone through with something like a qualified franchise?
 
How achievable is that? One of the most frequents points of departure I've seen proposed in threads like these has been a United Party victory in the 1948 general election as already mentioned, however I don't really know enough about the parties or personalities involved to say. If the United Party had won, carried through on their immigration plans, the citizenship/voting laws not being changed like the National Party did, equalised the constituencies to do away with the in-built advantage rural ones had etc. once firmly established in power and with a growing white population would they have gone through with something like a qualified franchise?

Remember, the Cape had a qualified franchise as long ago as the 1850s.

And coloured people were only completely removed from the voters' roll in the 1950s. So, I don't think it is such a leap to keep some form of qualified franchise.

I just bought a book on the first fights for non-white rights in South Africa at union in 1910. Once I've finished it I'll have a better handle on the qualified franchise at union and how it stood.
 
Remember, the Cape had a qualified franchise as long ago as the 1850s.

And coloured people were only completely removed from the voters' roll in the 1950s. So, I don't think it is such a leap to keep some form of qualified franchise.

I just bought a book on the first fights for non-white rights in South Africa at union in 1910. Once I've finished it I'll have a better handle on the qualified franchise at union and how it stood.

The Cape had slowly made it harder and harder for Blacks and Coloureds to vote even before Apartheid.

Anyways the United Party's platform included some vague things about racial integration. Had they won they probably would have implemented some slow reforms. There might have been a push towards enfranchisement (but not total equality) if the United Party felt that the Coloureds and Blacks would vote for them.
 
The Cape had slowly made it harder and harder for Blacks and Coloureds to vote even before Apartheid.

Anyways the United Party's platform included some vague things about racial integration. Had they won they probably would have implemented some slow reforms. There might have been a push towards enfranchisement (but not total equality) if the United Party felt that the Coloureds and Blacks would vote for them.

On your first point - well, quite. That doesn't take away from the fact that a qualified franchise existed in parts of South Africa for years, prior to union and the '48 disaster.

Coloured people generally voted UP. The UP was planning on extending the coloured franchise, according to Herman Giliomee, and if they had won in 1948 the number of coloured voters would have grown. A bigger coloured group of voters after '48 would have probably been enough to keep the Nats out for the foreseeable future, and who knows what kinds of butterflies that would have led to.
 
Top