The Theory of Apartheid: Nationalist Racial Policy in the Union of South Africa

• DOI: 10.1177/106591295100400104
• Published date: 01 March 1951
• Author: Eugene P. Dvorin
• Date: 01 March 1951
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE THEORY OF APARTHEID: NATIONALIST RACIAL
POLICY IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
EUGENE P. DVORIN
University of Chicago
EOPLE interested in the future of the so-called liberal-democratic
tradition are being made more aware today of an inner contra-
~
diction in nations which profess to uphold its principles. This
contradiction becomes most apparent in the racial relationships existing
in those nations which are characterized by a multiracial society. The
United States of America with its Negro problem is an example-democ-
racy which in actual practice has been limited, particularly in the South,
on the basis of race. The American problem pales into relative insignifi-
cance when compared with that of the Union of South Africa, a country
characterized ethnically by a minority of white persons and an overwhelm,
ing majority of non-whites-Coloreds, Natives, and Asiatics. In South
Africa the race problem has always been foremost, and it determines
the major characteristics of South African life today. In the Union of
South Africa the Nationalist party came into power after winning the 1948
general election on the apartheid platform.
What is apartheid? Most definitions of the term are nebulous, at best.
Its application is &dquo;something new under the sun&dquo; so far as Union politics
are concerned, yet the term has gained wide use in the Union as a sort
of catchword or political slogan to describe Nationalist non,European
policy. &dquo;Although not yet a dictionary word, it nevertheless won the last
election for the Nationalists.&dquo; 1
Broadly speaking, the theory of apartheid requires the social, eco-
nomic, and political segregation of persons on the basis of race and differs
from the pattern of segregation supported by the United party (the oppo-
sition) which had been previously enforced in the Union.
Apartheid theory is based on the belief that the country should be
divided into separate areas for black and white, each race to be paramount
in its own area. This is an effort on the part of the Nationalists to preserve
the cultural and racial unity of the Afrikaner or Dutch South African
people, and an attempt to preserve the continued supremacy in the
Union of the man of European stock over the man of non-European
stock.2
2
The concept of apartheid envisages the parallel development of
these two groups. The Nationalists contend that only by a parallel and
1
Sarah Gertrude Millin, "Fear in Africa," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 28 (October, 1949), pp. 102-103.
2 For the sake of convenience, the terms European and non-European will be used hereafter.
32

---

33
separate development of the races can either group attain its fullest
development. The Afrikaner fears the black man and the Asiatic because
he sees in them the greatest threat to his self-preservation.
Out of a total of roughly eleven million persons in the Union only
two and one third millions are European in origin. Of these, approximately
60 per cent are of Dutch stock, the remaining 40 per cent being of British
stock.
Of the 905,000 Coloreds in the Union counted in 1946, 813,000 lived
in the Cape Province and, therefore, may be considered the most rep-
resentative of their group.
The Coloreds-the third largest ethnic group in the population-
form a social entity. Historically, they have not developed a group con-
sciousness. Nevertheless, they consider themselves apart from the Native
population, and though they recognize themselves as distinct from the
Europeans, they &dquo;have always tended to identify their interests as closely
as possible with that of the European.&dquo; 3 They are descended from the
union of whites and blacks and are a mixture of the blood-proud Bantu
and the equally blood-proud European.
Because of the Europeans’ desire for racial purity and the preservation
of European culture and traditions, the Coloreds are kept in a socially and
economically inferior position. They are regarded by the Bantu as socially
apart also, and are likewise excluded from Native functions unless they
are willing to consider themselves unqualifiedly as Natives,~ which few are
willing to do. As a result, they are caught in a social pincers between
two blood-proud and numerically superior groups.
,
There are more than 282,000 Asiatics in the Union, most of whom are
East Indians. The Natives number nearly 8,000,000, and the majority of
them are Bantu. The Bantu, unlike the Cape Coloreds and the Indians,
are spread all over the Union. Because of their overwhelming numbers,
it is the Bantu, principally, who inspired the theory of apartheid.
The Nationalist sees himself as a European outnumbered by the non-
Europeans at a ratio of more than four to one by races which are alien to
his culture and have a far lower standard of living. The Boer-Nationalist
contends that liberal ideas on race have no place in this world; are in
conflict with the spirit of his people in their struggle for survival in a harsh
environment;5 and that to apply any other policy would lead to the end
of white dominance in the Union and result in virtual race suicide. To
grant non-Europeans the franchise would be to give them political suprem-
acy ; to confer upon them economic rights on a par with the Europeans
3
Alastair Matheson, The Colored People of the Cape (London: Public Relations Office, South Africa
House), p. 7.
4
R. F. A. Hoernlé, Race and Reason (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1945), p. 69.
5 Alexander Brady, Democracy in the Dominions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1947), p. 364.

---

34
would mean that cheap Native and Asiatic labor would soon replace
European labor where it is now used, and drag the European standard
of living down to that of the Native and Asiatic. Apartheid, then, is the
answer; and its chief spokesman, Dr. D. F. Malan, prime minister and
leader of the Nationalist party, has said:
It does not seem to be generally realized that the structure of the Union, in its
political and public system, in its cultural institutions and in its economic activities, is
basically and predominantly European.
In this respect the Union is unique in the world; and unless this fact is constantly
borne in mind it will be difficult, if not impossible, for an outsider properly to under-
stand the great problem facing the Union.
Agitations based on ideological concepts, with a total disregard for realities, directed
towards the attainment of full political rights for non-Europeans would, if successful,
inevitably lead to the ultimate political and economic suicide of the European com-
munity - a prospect which no government can view with equanimity.
Such an event would be a calamity also for the Native races, and would plunge
the southern portion of the African continent into tribal wars and chaos.’
Dr. Malan’s point is that abstract ethical allusions to equal freedom
and political rights are meaningless in relation to the realities of the
situation.
It should be noted that there is moral justification given for the racial
policies of the Nationalists-the prevention of race suicide. Racial inequality
is a cardinal point in the doctrine of the Dutch Reformed Church in
South Africa (a point, parenthetically speaking, which has developed a
theological schism between that church and others in the Union). The
prevention of race suicide by further strengthening the position of the
European over the non,European is, per se, the present-day justification
for apartheid. For the Malanite Nationalist, no other policy is politically
feasible (particularly at election time); and in the actual application of
apartheid, as it is now being attempted, no ethical considerations are put
forward. However, if pressed hard, the Dutch,Nationalist can always turn
to the Scriptures for ethical justification.
Apartheid claims to offer the non,European development in his own
sphere. It has been pointed out that there are, under the Nationalist
program, both a negative and a positive aspect of the theory.
The negative aspect seeks to restrict the Native in those areas in
which he would compete with the European. In its application, it has
practically unlimited possibilities: for example, the reduction of political
rights already attained by the non-Europeans; preservation of the present
restrictions and addition of further ones on areas of employment open to
non-Europeans; further restrictions on real property rights; increased
restriction of movement of non-Europeans; and repatriation of the Indian
6
South African Supplement, Continental Daily Mail, as quoted in Weekly Newsletter, State Information
Office (Pretoria), No. 486 (March 26, 1949), p. 2.

---

35
population. In short, it is any policy which holds the non-European
below what he is capable of attaining in competition with the European,
and reduces the area of competition by applying further restrictions.
The positive aspect of apartheid serves, in theory at least, as a counter-
balance to the negative. Its function is the replacement of those rights
taken away with &dquo;something better.&dquo; The present government has been
exceedingly generous in bestowing upon the non-European the dubious
benefits of the negative aspects, but regards the positive aspects as appli-
cable only in the future. The crude balance between negative and positive
has not yet come to be.
The role of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Union is of primary
importance in the present political scene. Any description of Nationalist
political thought or racial theory would be incomplete without further
reference...