Category: Apartheid

June 16th, 1976; fire and ash riddle the air, smothering the masses, the physical suffocation however, is insignificant in comparison to the oppression endured by those who suffered the trials of the apartheid regime. This marks the day the oppressed youth of Soweto took a stand, sacrificing the little they had to ensure a greater future for all South Africa – signifying the beginning of the end of the apartheid. The realization of a brighter future dawned upon the youth; a life where racial segregation, unjust education and general inferiority failed to exist. A burning desire for a better life consumed them and compelled the youth to rebel against the inhumane discrimination. The rebellion was intended to take the form of a simple boycott and mass protest to a local stadium. The South African police however, broke up the march using dogs, batons, tear gas and, ultimately, gunfire [1]. The brutality ensured that confrontations with the police left hundreds of students dead and more than a thousand injured. The events of this day ignited a nationwide uprising, subsequently making Soweto a symbol of the anti-apartheid movement, placing the apartheid education system in the spotlight, and flagged the role of youth in the nation’s political struggle [1].

The legacy left behind by those of the Soweto uprising is intended to fuel the youth with a desire for a better future and encourage them to be a part of uplifting the broken education system, making it a just and equitable.

Much of the inequalities can be attributed to the racial policies formed in the colonial era, and thereafter cemented once the apartheid government came into power (1948). The apartheid government utilised a prejudiced education system as a driving force for the propagation of their beliefs [2]; the four schooling systems possessed blatant inequalities. According to the system – ‘White’ schools were heavily funded and provided the best education possible, it was also mandatory for whites to receive an education. Schools for ‘Indian’ and ‘Coloured’ people (also compulsory) were better off than those for ‘Africans’ but incomparable to the education provided to the ‘whites’. Lastly the education provided to the ‘Africans’ was poor and was not made mandatory. The educational resources were disproportionately distributed between the races. This applies to teacher qualifications, teacher-pupil ratios, per capita funding, buildings, equipment, facilities, books, stationery and level of education. Each designated ethnic group possessed its own education infrastructure [2].

1953 – the Minister of Native Affairs, Mr. Hendrick Verwoerd pronounced “I would rather see South Africa White and poor than to see it rich and mixed”. These words gave rise to the formation of the Bantu Education Act which was implemented on January 1st, 1954 [2]. This was essentially an inferior education system (specifically targeted at the Black population), which stated that Blacks were to be demoted to the segregated occupational structures and excluded from all job categories except that of unskilled laborers as well as from access to an educational system that would enable them to participate with the white population [2]. This demeaned the black population and stripped them of having the possibility of a better future, the ripple effect of this system can still be seen in South Africa today.

When reflecting on the horrid educational history of South Africa, there is glaring evidence that the educational system was ravaged by the apartheid regime. A period of 40 years exists between the implementation of the Bantu education Act and the abolishment of the apartheid – this is 4 decades of injustice; compared to the meagre 20 years of democracy in which the government tries to fix the innumerable wrongs of the past. The youth (including the ‘born free’ generation) of today may still suffer due to the legacy of the Apartheid as inequality is something that has stained the country. Many government schools provide a poor education and parents are unable to send their children to private schools due to poverty – this is where the cycle begins. The unfortunate life cycle caused by the apartheid needs to be broken – in order to do so, South Africa still needs to heal from the wounds of the apartheid and establish a strong foundation for basic education.

The apartheid system served to plant seeds of inequality, hatred, bias and inferiority in the minds of the non-white youth, one may speculate that the apartheid government was driven by fear and intimidation – rightfully so, the minds of the youth (irrespective of race) are powerful, transformative and evidently capable of changing the future.

References

1. New Learning, ‘Apartheid Education,’ 2000. [Online]. Available: http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-5/apartheid-education. [Accessed 4 March 2019].
2. South African History Online , ‘South African History Online,’ 2000. [Online]. Available: https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/bantu-education-boycott. [Accessed 2 March 2019].

“Great lines of patient people snaking through the dirt roads of towns and cities, old women who had waited half a century to cast their vote, saying they had felt like human beings for the first time in their lives, White men and women saying they were proud to live in a free country at last…, it was as though we were a nation reborn” – Nelson Mandela, ‘Long Walk to Freedom’.

The inauguration of South Africa’s democracy, 25 years ago, brought about with it the promises of a better future for everyone. The 1994 democratic elections, saw the African National Congress (ANC) winning by a 62 percent vote margin against the National Party that only garnered 20 percent of the total vote (Brynes, 1996:167). This was a long awaited victory by the millions of marginalized South Africans, who were oppressed along a racial divide that benefitted the white minorities under the apartheid banner (Gillomee, Myburgh and Schlemmer, 2001:166). Key and urgent on the new dispensation government, was the repealing and undoing the negative influences and impact of the apartheid policies, towards an all inclusive developmental objective (Michie and Padayachee, 1998:623).

The Medium-Term Strategic Framework breaks the 2030 National Development Plan (NDP) down into a five-year span from 2014 to 2019, with targets, roles and timeframes (Anyanwu, 2014:468). According to Krukowska (2019:105) there are 14 outcomes that focus on aspects such as rural development, land reform, job creation, inclusive growth and social services. In 2014 the government announced Operation Phakisa, an economic development programmes designed to fast-track NDP implementation. However, Vickers (2012:538) argues that these objective although theoretically feasible are still yet to be attained in South Africa, more than 20 years later into her young democracy and the impetus of this body of work, is to identify both the internal and external factors that have impeded the achievement of this fundamental objective and explore possible solutions towards a recourse that can assist South Africa overcome these negative influences.

Notably, by first understanding South Africa under the vice of the apartheid regime can we be able to begin to unpack these existing factors that have indelible halted and derailed the goals set forth, those many years ago, when South Africa first had her taste of democracy.

South Africa and Apartheid

The system in South Africa (Apartheid) that racially segregated and discriminated the blacks in favor of uplifting the political and economic dominance that catered for the white minority was initially formalized in 1948 (Tempelhoff, 2017:189). According to (Leibbrandt, Woolard and Woolard, 2007:1), South Africa has a long and infamous history of high inequality with an overbearing racial footprint to this inequality. The segregationist policies that were enforced on the marginalized black majorities of South Africa, were the epitome of this period of time with limited interaction and contact between the whites and blacks (Breetzke, 2012:297). Lemon and Battersby-Lennard (2009:532) points out that it took over 50 years for these policies to be repealed even under serious opposition from relevant stakeholders. Notably, many have seen the emergence and persistence of this inequality to be the major unifying theme of the country’s twentieth century economic history. Importantly, the question of inequality has continued to take precedence in the new dispensation landscape, as the current ruling government, the African National Congress (ANC) battles to mitigate these long lasting and reaching negative legacies (Christopher, 2001:450). Certainly, this is the key context to understanding why the issue of inequality has continued to dominate the post-apartheid landscape. There are two indicators of the post-apartheid political economy that have attracted special attention in this regard. The first is whether the evolving character of the post-apartheid economy and the policy efforts of the post-apartheid government have been able to start to lower these very high aggregate levels of inequality. Then, there is the related question of the composition of this inequality; specifically, whether the blunt racial footprint undergirding this inequality would start to grey and be replaced by new social strata and subtler socioeconomic dynamics.

Post-democratic breakthrough South Africa

The transition from apartheid to democracy is the most important turning point in South Africa’s history (Gibson, 2006:90). Tomaselli (2000:247) points out that the end of the apartheid regime in 1994 for the people of South Africa, marked the beginning of a better prospective future for all within the social and economic context. Christopher Sauder’s in his book chapter titled ‘Negotiation, Transition and Freedom – the Transition in Context’ argues that the Interim Constitution of 1993, which took effect at the time of the first democratic election on 27 April, 1994 (Lodge, 1995:498), perhaps underscores clearly the gross violations that existed prior to South Africa gaining her democracy (Gibson, 2002:548). Importantly, one of the key socio-economic objective that was identified, was the reduction and eradication of abject poverty in the country and electrification for all (Binns and Nel, 2000:23). This presented the South African people, with a tangible affirmation of the existence of a past that was never to be forgotten and at the same time illuminated the rise and recognition recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful co-existence and development opportunities for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief or sex (Harrison, Todes and Watson, 2007:424). In his 2019 State of the Nation Address, President Cyril Ramaphosa, reaffirmed the governments priorities post apartheid, that included job creation and economic transformation, reliable and quality basic services, spatial integration, social cohesion among other goals (Ramaphosa, 2019:53). One can argue, that South Africa has been well away to creating the perfect Utopian society devoid of all the dystopian analogies of a previous repression regime, However the reality is the total opposite, as many factors both internal and external played a critical role in derailing the envisaged goals and objectives set by the newly democratically elected ANC government, as discussed below.

External Factors Impacting South Africa’s Developmental Objectives

The 2010 initiatives laid out in the National Planning Commission and the 2030 National Development Plan (NDP), identified the reduction of inequality, job creation, and inclusive growth for all as key developmental goals for the South African economy (Chilenga, 2017:100). To put things in perspective, the government identified the reduction of unemployment by creating 11 million new job opportunities by 2030 there by reducing the unemployment rate all the way down to about 6 percent (Anyawu, 2014:301). However, the external factors have played a significant role in delaying and negatively impaction on these set objectives and goals. New political legislations play a critical role in impacting the developmental objectives of the country (Swyngedouw, Moulaert and Rodriguez, 2002:550). Policies that benefit or affect the general populace take longer to be passed due to the differing influences of the existing active political parties within the South African government (Dalton, 2013:67). Additionally, economic downturns and increasing levels of unemployment caused by a myriad of pressures also negatively affect the set goals and objectives (Binns and Nel, 2002:21). Notably, the 2019 novel coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) and the subsequent national lockdown restrictions played a critical role in pushing back the developmental objectives of South Africa (Arndt, Davies, Gabriel, Harris, Makrelov, Robinson and Anderson, 2020:100410). The existing inequalities in the education sector continues to be a critical challenge in the development of the country. Furthermore, continued high poverty rates throughout the continent threaten to throttle the developmental goals set by the ruling ANC government, with more and more people falling deeper and deeper into abject poverty each day (Shabaya and Konadu, 2004:421). Lastly, climate change has created food insecurities and critically affected the countries developmental objectives (Schipper and Pelling, 2006:33).

Internal Factors Impacting South Africa’s Developmental Goals

The biggest internal factor impacting South Africa’s developmental goal, is rampart brazen corruption and bad governance (Doig and Riley, 1998:62). Pillay (2004:301) argues that the outrageous levels of corruption in the country continues to critical push back the developmental goals set and threatens to throw South Africa, deeper into poverty and economic stagnation. The uneven labor markets that still benefits the selected minority groups at the expense of the marginalized majorities also play a significant role in impacting the development of the country. Fundamentally, it must be understood and pointed out the previous apartheid policies, specifically identified and divided the labor market to benefit the white minority, this left a lasting legacy that still exists up to date, as key economic drivers are still controlled and run by the minority groups in South Africa. Importantly, there is existing evidence that implicates the internal factors that surrounds foreign direct investment, as playing a significant role in the development of South Africa (Moosa and Cardak, 2006:211). Furthermore, Simmons, Dobbin and Garrett (2012:799) contends that policies that underpin these FDI’s in many instances do little to improve on the set developmental goals but rather impact these goals in an incrementally negative manner. The abiding legacies of the previous apartheid policies also plays a significant role in contributing to the internal challenges that continuously affect the country. Additionally, income and consumption distribution are notably unequal. South Africa’s GINI coefficient, a measure of income inequality, is consistently highest or among the highest globally (Moosa and Cardak, 2006:211). There are also continues to be a significant regional, rural-urban, and racial socioeconomic and infrastructure disparities, that also add to the myriad of internal issues that impact the developmental goals that were set by the current ruling ANC led government.

Existing Recourse/Strategies Used to Overcome these Obstacles

There is no denying the fact that unless something drastic is done South Africa will continue to face severe challenges in relation to their developmental goals (Lemon and Battersby-Lennard, 2009:523). The vicissitudes of apartheid can be measured by the ratio of black income to white and the failure by the first South African democratically elected party (ANC) to deliver and meet these set developmental objectives, more than 20 years after into her young democracy, has led to increased civic unrest and a gradual decline of the ruling party’s popularity in favor of the emerging Julius Malema, Economic Freedom Front (EFF). The devastating impact and implications of any civic unrest (boycotts, strikes, stay-ins) on the development of any economy cannot be overstated, and the best way of working towards achieving any set objective, is through understanding the importance of adequate and improved service delivery to the marginalized people who need the services the most. Mulberry (2014:216) argues that the provision of quality and adequate service delivery plays a fundamental role in creating an environment that encourages overall growth. Furthermore, in its draft policy on a framework for considering market-based instruments to support environmental fiscal reform in South Africa, the National Treasury notes that: “As the South African economy continues to develop, it is increasingly important to ensure that it does so in a sustainable way and that, at the same time, issues of poverty and inequality are effectively addressed. It is, therefore, important to appreciate that it’s not just the quantity of growth that matters, but also its quality”.

Webster and Adler (1999:351) argues that in light of the above assertion, the democratic agenda of 1994, that sought to encourage economic advancements and an inclusive society that upheld the social rights of all, is still an elusive reality for the millions of South Africans. As the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recently acknowledged with its recommendations following South Africa’s first review, the government’s adoption of austerity measures now perpetuates many of the same inequalities that apartheid upheld many years ago (Govender, 2017:54). It comes then, as no mystery that South Africa has the ability and potential to redress some of these existing inequalities, by making sure that measures taken redress and not perpetuate existing legacies and work towards increasing existing social security , health and education through increased funding in those spheres of the government. A critical review of existing tax policies, towards a more equitable one that focuses more on wealth and income redistribution. One strong strategy that really is needed within the South African situation is the combating of illicit cash flows and tax invasions that exists in the illegal and parallel markets, as well as a more responsive value added tax measure. Adopting a stronger human rights-based approach to fiscal policy making and making provision for additional strategies that cater for beneficial increases in allocations that address disparities in education and healthcare, as well as to improve accessibility to these basic services.

Conclusion

This literature body of work, sought to elicit both external and internal factors that have negatively affected and impacted on South Africa’s drive towards meeting and attaining set developmental objectives and goals. These challenges must be put into context, for the country has come a long way since 1994, when the majority of its population was formally excluded from politics and its industry cut off from global trade. However, it must be noted that the extent of some of the factors that impede on South Africa’s growth are deeply ingrained in the legacies of the now eradicated apartheid regime and 20 years into her democracy, the failure to resets these existing and lasting legacies has continued to adversely deter the South African drive towards meeting its set objectives and goals. This is because apartheid was sought by those economically threatened by the synergies between black workers and white capitalists. The reality that plagues the developmental progress of the country can only be achieved, through a thorough and corrupt free interaction and integration of the people that the government purports to fight for, towards the realization of an objective and developmentally oriented country. This is because restructuring apartheid geographies of racial stratification and spatial segregation poses formidable challenges, as increasing intraracial inequality also continues to underscore the importance of widening access and opportunity in the post-democratic South Africa. Secondly the reduction of the unemployment levels and rate in the country through increasing infrastructure development and job creation also plays a significant role in the improvement of the countries GDP and thus drive the country towards economic growth which in turns works towards meeting set developmental goals and objectives.

Language is one of the primary and essential aspects of life. Besides, language is a powerful tool that can do great things. Both verbal and nonverbal language elements serve as a critical, authoritative mechanism to people. At least people need to use language for communication, identity, and cultural distinction. However, language is commonly misused to achieve personal interests in society, especially in a multilingual community. During the Apartheid era in South Africa, the language was used to promote racial segregation. Nonwhite people were sidelined within their country land by the white supremacy for the benefit of Afrikaners. Almost every sector of life experienced tough policies that maimed the possibility of acquiring equity and just a multilingual nation. Trevor Noah’s memoir, “Born a Crime,” offers essential insights on the dark part of language use during and after the Apartheid rule. Nonetheless, language is a powerful tool that can unify or distort a society.

Most of the Apartheid policies in South Africa used the education system to promote racial segregation. Schools have been noted as the key areas where one gets basic and substantial knowledge of various things. For example, a student who knows nothing about the basic writing rules, such as formatting and referencing, can benefit by passing through a writing class by an experienced and qualified tutor. Similarly, there are high expectations that schools help students to acquire knowledge of writing and reading skills. Language is the mastermind of each bit (Versteegh, 10). However, South African white supremacy used this opportunity to promote its ideology by intentionally eliminating blacks and other people of color from accessing the then ‘languages of supremacy’; English and Afrikaans. The curriculum denied these students the opportunity to learn these languages for fear of civilization. Nonwhite people were thought of being enlightened by understanding the official languages used in several critical sectors, such as politics. There were no ways blacks and their associates could understand and use a competitive and authoritative language during the Apartheid rule. Noah notes that he was somehow lucky to understand numerous languages since his parents (Robert and Patricia) were of different races, hence different languages.

Furthermore, the quality of the trade language used in schools was not enough to attain a just and equal nation. For complete justice between nonwhites and Afrikaners in South Africa, equal English and Afrikaans language utilization was an unquestionable mechanism. The colonial masters introduced instruction policies that vernacular be taught even in universities (Johnson, 86). This tactic was ironically used to lure language users. First of all, insist on vernacular languages in early, middle, and higher learning levels could only introduce a state of imbalance in language empowerment. The native English was kept for whites who thought that they own the nation and its people. Henceforth, the vernacular language use would only promote traditional values among the native speakers but not grasp prestige aligned with mastering native English. Secondly, vernacular language cannot offer innovative affluence to learners. Understanding a certain language allows learners to study the identify the weak points of an oppressor and enemy. Therefore, whites pulled a great pull to make sure that their subjects do not understand the language of trade. Nonetheless, the vernacular language is only suitable for cultural enrichment but not civilization, hence fighting against oppression.

The establishment of ‘tribal homelands’ and ‘townships’ was another tactic used to sandwich language powers among nonwhites. The colonial government laid down policies that literary and physically separated people of local languages to march together. Most blacks were pushed and displaced to rural areas where they could not reach out to each (probably to unite and fight against the Apartheid menace) during most times of need. For example, Bantu speakers, such as Zulu and Xhosa, could not freely interact at village levels for political and social organization. Besides, few nonwhites in urban areas were forced to remain in slums known as ‘townships’ not to form associations. Noah says that his grandmother was among people who were confined in the township slums of Soweto. He further notes that the slums were not safe since they were “designed to be bombed” (Noah, 24). Besides, the townships had two rods that could easily help the government suppress any uprising attempt. The concern remains that language separation is an imminent style of curtailing people’s freedom. The majority of nonwhites had been prohibited from uniting to fight Apartheid practices. The dominating race had been aware of this measure

In South Africa, dominant psychology is based on Western, Eurocentric ideas about mental health. This means that the services provided by mainstream psychology in the field of mental health benefit only white, middle-class people, ignoring the needs of South Africa’s majority black population. The appropriateness of psychology in South Africa has thus been examined, because it is not relevant to all of this country’s diverse people, ultimately leading to black people feeling alienated. We can evaluate why it is important to question psychology’s relevance for the South African context by looking at how Apartheid shaped the history of psychology, the process of knowledge production and how it influenced how psychology is taught and practiced in South Africa, and finally the strengths and weaknesses of psychology as a science.

Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation in South Africa that lasted from 1948 to the early 1990s. This system benefited white South Africans, while ultimately causing the ‘negative other’ to suffer. Apartheid played a significant role in shaping the history of psychology. Racism was viewed as a political ideology.

To assess the extent to which Apartheid influenced the history of psychology in South Africa, it is necessary to acknowledge that the origins of psychology are intrinsically Eurocentric. South African psychology reflects the country’s ongoing colonial influences, which favor Western values over indigenous perspectives, because psychology was founded on positivist-empirical ideas in a Western environment (Cooper, 2012).

During the establishment of the Apartheid system in 1948, psychology was used as a political weapon to instill and enforce the National Party’s policies. According to Cooper and Nicholas, this is evidenced by the founding of SAPA (South African Psychological Association), the country’s first professional psychology association, immediately after the Party came to power, as well as the exclusion of non-white psychologists from society (2012). This allowed for the perpetuation of segregating modes of thinking in psychology, such as the underrepresentation of non-white individuals in available psychological knowledge, racially characterized diagnostic practices, the prioritization of white poverty, and the popularization of eugenic theory to justify the objectification of non-white people as a negative ‘other’ to white society. These fears were heightened by the fact that black people were denied access to higher education and that research critical of the Apartheid regime was censored. According to Painter and Blanche (2004), racism and capitalist motivations fueled psychology during this period, as the vast majority of practicing psychologists were white and middle-class, unwittingly benefiting from the regime’s policies, compounding the fact that psychology failed to resist the government’s racist policies.

The reproduction of positivist approaches contributes to psychology’s unreliability to individuals who do not conform to the hegemonic ideal in psychological theory, as this perspective only accepts information produced in controlled, observable environments as appropriate theory.

According to Naidoo (1996), positivist research methodology allows psychology to oppress or emancipate various groups of people. The inferiority model, the genetic deficiency model, and the cultural deprivation model are all used in South African psychology to isolate people of color, particularly black people. The inferiority model holds that various racial and ethnic groups are less evolved than white people and thus incurably inferior. This is closely related to the genetic deficiency model or the eugenics movement, which argues that people of color are biologically and incontrovertibly subordinate to white people. This movement was openly supported by many leading South African psychologists, including Hendrik Verwoerd, and thus played a role in the establishment of the Apartheid regime. The cultural deficiency model was developed as an attempt to reform the eugenics movement, and it contends that an individual’s upbringing and environment are to blame for any shortcomings, rather than genetically inherited characteristics due to their racial expression. The model hypothesizes that these issues can be resolved through intervention and exposure to acceptable culture, specifically a Western way of life.

These research models, in conjunction with the inherent perpetuation of Eurocentrism, are designed to isolate racial groups as a positive white reality and the negative ‘other’ perspectives of people of color. The establishment of a divide between what is normative, acceptable, and Western, in contrast to the unfavorable reality of other perspectives, casts people of color in a negative light on an institutional, professional, and personal level, allowing negative associations to be internalized and contributing to the exclusion of alternative perspectives.

South Africans continue to face racial discrimination as a result of the Apartheid regime’s institutional oppression, as well as the hegemonic influences of Western society. The continued prioritization and favoring of white realities, as well as the continued categorization of South Africans into racial categories, are dehumanizing because they reduce an individual’s unique experiences to the restrictive experiences assumed by their race. This allows harmful stereotypes to be reproduced and perpetuated on an institutional, professional, and personal level. This is exemplified by the Nieuwoudt et al. (2019) study, in which subconscious assumptions about colored women influenced the direction of the research and the manner in which the information was presented. The article is based on the assumption that black women are more likely to be uneducated and overweight. This reflects poorly not only on the researchers but also on the validity of the knowledge produced. This example of institutionalized racism, which is still present in psychology, demonstrates the persistence of discrimination.

The hegemonic ideal that is ingrained in South African society benefits not only white people but also men. This reflects the normalization and acceptance of gender as a fixed difference, as well as the view that masculine traits like assertiveness and aggression are praised, while feminine traits like sensitivity are viewed as signs of weakness. This behavior contributes to the perpetuation of misogyny on institutional and personal levels, as evidenced by the high rates of gender-based violence.

As a science, psychology has an advantage in the deconstruction and decolonization of its practice. Psychologists have the opportunity to conduct research and publish information on the effects of institutional racism and Apartheid on South Africans of color, and they can rely on psychology’s scientific authority to influence and change the way South Africans think as a community. A weakness, however, is that the knowledge production system rejects research that deviates from traditional and comfortable perspectives.

Similarly, through research, psychology has the scientific authority to condemn misogyny. This is exemplified by Eliot’s (2010) article, which addresses the sexist misconception that there are fundamental structural differences in adolescent male and female brains that justify misogynistic behavior toward children. Although research like this directly challenges conventional wisdom, sexist structures are deeply embedded in South African culture, and the information is easily dismissed.

Psychology is a science that can be both liberating and dictatorial, depending on the motives and biases of those who control knowledge production, thus influencing the projection of the reproduction of racial and gender discrimination. This, combined with the history of psychology’s role in the formation of such structures, creates the need to consciously question the validity, motives, and overall relevance of psychological knowledge in the South African context.

A wide range of scholarship has drawn on the applicability of the apartheid analysis in the Israel/Palestine context. While some literature, such as Ben White’s Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide (2009), identify exact similarities with South Africa, most of the discourse recognizes apartheid as a legal definition related to the governance of settler-colonial states (Falk, 2017; Gordon, 2017). Moreover, the analysis of state practices and policies as grounded in apartheid is increasingly part of the standard terminology adopted in comparative political analysis. Apartheid in the context of this dissertation will serve as a legislative framework congruent with racialised and ethnic exclusivity, in determining if Israel’s governance of Palestinians in the occupied territories and Israel proper are akin to South African apartheid.

Apartheid has evolved from a historically descriptive term related to South Africa’s system of segregation and now serves as a legal framework in international law to describe a category of regime. The Apartheid Convention (1973) sets forth that the crime of apartheid consists of discrete inhuman acts, but that such acts acquire the status of crimes against humanity only if they intentionally serve the core purpose of racial domination. Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002) defines the Crime of Apartheid as: “inhumane acts…committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

Dugard (2014) argues that the Apartheid Convention extends beyond the South African case. Peteet (2009) concurs with Dugard in her affirmation that apartheid as defined by international law as state misconduct whose policies are internationally forbidden. While Dugard and Peteet agree to apartheid’s frame of reference not being limited to racial discrimination, Dajani (2017) insists that both the Apartheid Convention as well as the Rome Statute are only relevant outside South African setting where racial domination is explicitly legislated by the state. Greenstein (2015) suggests the idea of race has evolved, referring to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) which defines racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose of impairing fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”. Zreik (2004) recognizes that Palestinians encounter a notably complex situation and that the apartheid analogy should be used with prudence as it has the potential to overlook the nuances between the two cases. In contrast, Kadalie (2008) dismisses the apartheid analogy as reductive and promoting anti-Israel rhetoric. Kadalie highlights that several black South Africans tend to debunk the analogy, arguing that the motivation of Israeli legislation in the OTPs is not racially prejudiced. Authors such as Sabel reject the analogy as an attempt to delegitimize Israel as a Jewish state (Sabel, 2011) while Shimoni discredits the case against Israel as a flagrant form of antisemitism (Shimoni, 2007) which is remiss in its equating of Judaism to Zionism and defence that Jews have a right to violently maintain an ethnoreligious state in the homeland to the detriment of Palestinians.

The policy of legal racial separation was a self-identified ideology of the South African state associated with the National Party (Callinicos, 1992). The settler-colonial link with South Africa is traceable to the foundational roots of Israel’s nation-building. Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, appealed to Cecil John Rhodes the British colonialist who lead industrial settlement in South Africa and Rhodesia to make Israel an outpost of civilization in the Middle East (Erakat, 2019). Using apartheid as a framework of state policy is fixed within its Afrikaans origin translating to ‘separateness’. Ali Abunimah’s approach to the South Africa comparison specifically addresses distinctions, not least between the Afrikaner and Zionist self-images and historical narratives. He traces the foundational roots of both settler projects in the realities of colonialism but indicates distinct local expressions. Noting Israeli Professor of Political Geography Oren Yiftachel in his critique of the ‘exclusively Jewish discourse’ that relegates Palestinians as a kind of ‘silent backdrop or incidental stage setting’(Yiftachel, 2005), Abunimah addresses similarities in Zionist and Afrikaner dogma, drawing on their ethnonational ideologies that have been reinforced through separation by indigenous dispossession, hyper-militarization, and the relegation of racial groups to second-class status while being denied their right to self-determination (Abunimah, 2005).

In ‘Citizen Strangers’ Robinson (2008) illustrates that Israel is imperative to studies of colonialism due to its establishment necessitating the forced-removal of native Palestinians from their land while coinciding with the post-World War II period when the notion of self-determination gained traction and countries began the decolonization process. Robinson believes Israel exemplifies how colonialism developed in a sociopolitical context where imperial support was declining. Western powers emphasized the importance of self-determination but did little to support it and permitted Israel the liberty to dispossess the Palestinians (Robinson, 2008). But Western countries faced a mounting pressure to protect civil rights and Israel was coerced to grant citizenship to Palestinians who did not flee. Robinson maintains that colonial societies often enfranchised the colonized in this way, but only after completing the phase of weakening and dispossession. Herein lies the contradiction: Israel included Palestinians in its civil society and political landscape then proceeded to restrict them. This has set the premise of democratic inclusion and racial exclusion Palestinians have encountered ever since. Robinson ascribes this as upholding Israel’s status as a settler-colonial state. Nevertheless, Robinson’s work leaves a capacity to improve in its interpretations of the connection between Israel and colonialism. Robinson focuses on a direct correlation between Israeli practices and Western colonialism, without addressing the fact that Jews in Europe and the Middle East were both victims and beneficiaries of European colonial subjugation.

Perceiving Israel as an example of European colonialism is neglectful regarding the oppression Jews faced in Europe and shared experience of anti-semitism. While a more comprehensive analysis would pay heed to the oppression of Palestinians by Jews that transpired out of the oppression of Jews, Robinson presents an imbalanced account and does not include Israeli counter-arguments.

In The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (2005), Tilley repeatedly emphasizes the state of affairs in pre-1994 South Africa to draw parallels to the condition of post-1967 Israel. A keynote presented is the military occupation of the OPTs is now integral to Israel’s state infrastructure, and essentially renders any future obsolete of a viable Palestinian state, specified through the Oslo model. Palestinians currently find themself in a geopolitical deadlock: Although the widespread international condemnation of the occupation should be effective in its support of Palestinian self-determination, it has become counterproductive by exonerating Israel of its failure to recognize the rights of all the citizens within the territory of which it practices de facto sovereignty. Tilley offers a more empirical study than analytical, focusing through facts on the ground in her approach to the Israel/Palestine case. Tilley insists that an ideological shift of ‘settler-colonialism’ is necessary for our understanding of the conflict by highlighting that Israel/Palestine is essentially a single state already due to Israel’s deep entrenchment in the OPTs, and a single-democratic state is the only feasible alternative to a peaceful resolution. Tilley’s research establishes a broader discourse on the instability of Israel’s Apartheid structure and encourages dialogue around a single-state model where pragmatic methods can be offered in navigating this solution. Leila Farsakh (2005) shares a similar sentiment and argues for the one-state solution. Farsakh disputes the realization of Palestinian Statehood seemingly negotiated in the Oslo Accords as resembling South African ‘Bantustanization’: The fragmentation of Palestinian land in the West Bank through checkpoints, the wall of separation and Israeli settlement expansion has deliberately obstructed any outcome of a viable Palestinian state, inevitably leading to the demise of South African Apartheid.

Pappe anthologizes an extensive compilation of academics in his analysis between the two cases. Investigating the character of protest movements as well as their influence on both conflicts, Pappe makes convincing advances on a subject that has gained notability through news-coverage and activism but has scarcely been analysed in academia. However, Pappe’s research displays weakness in its failure to recognize the timescales for South Africa’s apartheid regime to fall. It took decades of the international community placing economic sanctions before the movements gained momentum. The BDS movement has gained traction at a much higher rate since its formation in 2005 with foreign direct investment in Israel dropping 46% in 2014 compared to 201 (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).

Sean Jacobs and Jon Soske examine correlations between present-day Israel and Apartheid South Africa in Apartheid Israel: The Politics of an Analogy which is comprised of a collection of essays. Jacobs notes existing scholarship on the comparison often looks to the legal definition of apartheid as well as Israel’s system of Palestinian exclusion being akin to South Africa’s hierarchy of racial discrimination during apartheid. Instead, he distances his research from the aforementioned and demonstrates the settler-colonial character of both regimes as a central theme which is advanced by the contribution of historians like T.J. Tallie who parallels both cases “from ruthless expulsions of peoples to the claims of newly arriving peoples to authentic indigeneity, religious justifications, and hyper-militarization” (Tallie, 2008) The essays in this book avoid the applicability of the apartheid analogy and instead focus on pressing issues such as the ways that apartheid South Africa and Zionism intersect and are at variance. These investigations refrain from engaging discussions that are often a hindrance to reaching any progress and open a wider discourse that expands to changing the existing state of affairs in Palestine-Israel.

Notably, critical analyses on Israeli apartheid tend to neglect the correlation between setter-colonialism and racial capitalism. Much of the scholarship by authors such as Tilley and Dugard references the UN definition of Apartheid and focuses on discriminatory polices, dual legal systems in the OPTs, restrictions on freedom movement and encroachment on Palestinian land. Although recent studies emphasize the neoliberal restructuring that occurred with the Oslo process, political economy is largely overlooked in Israeli apartheid research. In ‘Neoliberal Apartheid’, the end of formal apartheid in South Africa and the Oslo “peace process” in Palestine/Israel are presented as fundamentally neoliberal projects connected to the restructuring of global political/economic relations at the end of the Cold War (Clarno, 2015) Clarno emphasizes the intersection of racism, neoliberalism and settler-colonialism in structuring the Palestinian and black South African existence. Clarno critiques the concentration on the legal definition of apartheid has largely overlooked the enduring legacy of racial capitalism and how it continues to marginalize the majority of black South Africans even with the transition to democracy. Clarno’s research interviews officials from the Israeli-Palestinian and South Africa contexts on private securitization that has emerged. Clarno intelligently develops his main feature of Palestinians and black South Africans who are targets of this securitization while simultaneously constituting the majority of these security regimes. Clarno diverges from the traditional binary debate on whether the charge of apartheid applies to Israel, and demonstrates new insights into this topic.

Neve Alexander considers the idea of ‘race’ as a structural creation of the historically white-owned capitalist system in South Africa. The post-apartheid sociopolitical context overlooks the direct correlation between race and poverty through the systemic structure of white dominance. Alexander challenges those who praise South Africa’s democratic transition and multicultural character, considering the largely untransformed capitalist order of the post-apartheid condition. Alexandra is critical of the ANCs adoption of a neoliberal economic model in navigating South Africa’s democratic transition (Alexander, 2002). The central point pervading Alexander’s analysis with the apartheid and post-apartheid state is the inextricable connection between race and class as the basis of oppression in South Africa. Alexander urges his readers to recognize how race has been contingent in upholding and maintaining a model that economically benefits the privileged few at the expense of the majority. Negotiations with the previous oppressors resulted in the consolidation of material-systemic conditions that exploit the black working class, relinquishing the possibility of a truly equal South Africa.

Occasionally, much of the discourse and scholarship ignores the lack of impartiality by its authors. Vehement partisanship on both sides of the debate sometimes eclipses a more nuanced examination into the approach in which the apartheid analogy is exercised. Instead of writing articles that seek to prove or disprove the claim ‘Israel is an apartheid state,’ it is better to examine the facts on the ground.

Early Life

Nelson Mandela was born on July 18th 1918 at Mvezo, a village near the banks of river Mbashe in the district of Umata. He was given the name Rolihlahla, which in the Xhosa language means ‘troublemaker.’ Although his relatives associated his name with the problems he caused, he never believed that a name could decide one’s future. He was a part of the Xhosa Nation. His father, Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa, was appointed as chief of Mvezo. His mother’s name was Nosekani Fanny. In total, his father had thirteen children, four boys and nine girls. His father was an acknowledged custodian of the Xhosa history. He served as an advisor in royal matters. Nelson Mandela also had an interest in history which was encouraged by his father. His father and other chiefs had a high respect for education. His father was strict when it came to disciplining his children. Once, someone lodged a complaint against his father involving an ox. His father was called upon by the magistrate but he refused which resulted in losing the title as a chief. His father lost most of his herd and land. After that, Nelson Mandela and his mother moved to the village of Qunu where he spent the best days of his childhood. In Qunu, the concept of education was still a foreign one. Nelson Mandela spent most of his time playing with other boys of the village. Corn, sorghum, beans and pumpkins constituted the largest portion of the diet because of financial limitations. Rich people included tea, coffee and sugar in their diet. Such items were exotic luxuries at the time. He became a herd-boy at the age of five. As a child, he learned skills essentials for survival- using a slingshot, gathering edible fruits, roots and honey, fishing and stick-fight. Kids made their own toys using clay. Kids a deep sense of dignity and believing humiliating a person is making them suffer an unnecessary cruel fate. The most popular game among the kids was thinti which is a resemblance of war. After playing such games he would go home and his mother would tell him Xhosa legends which are passed down from numberless generations. Later under the influence of the people who became christians, His mother decided to do the same. In fact, the name ‘Fanny’ is her christian name she was given in a church. Nelson Mandela followed the same path and was baptized at Wesleyan Church. Some of the educated and converted-christians suggested that he should go to school. Due to lack of education, his father immediately decided to send him to school. He was seven at the time. On the first day of school all the students were given English names and that’s how he got the name Nelson. When he was nine his father passed away because of lung disease. Shortly after his father’s death, Xhosa chief Jongintaba offered to adopt Nelson Mandela. His mother didn’t turn down the offer as there would be more opportunities to grow. He moved to Mqhekeweni, the provincial capital of Thembuland leaving behind the village of Qunu and his mother. He often used to listen to the court hearings. He observed that each person’s opinion is taken into consideration leading to a fair consensus. At the age of sixteen, with several other boys, he underwent a circumcision ritual to mark the transition from a boy to a man.

Education

1933- Clarkebury Boarding Institute for secondary education.

1937- Wesleyan college at Healdtown

Passion/ Interest

During the years in University College of Fort Hare, Nelson Mandela aspired to be “a clerk or an interpreter in Native Affairs Department”. At that time, this was the highest a black man could aspire to. When he returned to Mphakanyiswa, his father told him that he had arranged a marriage for him in accordance with the customs. He thought that it was wrong of his father to force him into marriage against his will. Without giving a second thought, he devised a plan with his brother, justice, to run away to Johannesburg. Since he wanted to become a lawyer he joined a law firm and began practicing law. Alongside working as an apprentice lawyer, he pursued his B.A. degree at UNISA or University of South Africa and completed the degree in 1942. During his academic years he realized that teachers turned away topics like racism, lack of opportunities for Africans, etc. As an apprentice lawyer, he came closer to a colleague, Gaur. Gaur talked about the white oppression over the blacks and argued that education alone can’t free this nation. Gaur was a prominent member of ANC or African National Congress, an organisation established in 1912, that focused on eradicating racism and “Africans as full citizens of South Africa”. Though he lacked formal education, he was a powerful speaker. This made a huge impact on Nelson Mandela. All these years his ultimate goal was to become educated and get a job with a decent salary that wasn’t the case anymore. Now Mandela wanted to serve his people and became increasingly interested in politics. In early 1943 he enrolled himself in The University of Witwatersrand for a degree of LL.B. Later, he left the university and became a full- time worker at the ANC. Eradicating apartheid became his goal in life. He envisioned South Africa as a “free and democratic society in which all people live in harmony with equal opportunities.” He once said, “It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Setbacks/ Obstacles

As a black person in general, Mandela faced racism on a regular basis. Once, he saw “an elderly white woman’s car sandwiched between two other cars”, he rushed to help the woman, “she said, “Thank you, John(whites used to address Africans as John)”” and offered him a sixpence coin but Mandela “politely refused.” The woman “then exclaimed, “You refuse a sixpence. You must want a shilling but you shall not have it!”” impling Mandela wanted more money as an offering. Also as a black attorney, he wasn’t “guaranteed respect at court either.” Judges would ask him to produce his qualification certificate and “white witnesses would refuse to answer to a black attorney.” Mandela ignored the regular racism because it would have been foolish to act on his own at the moment. In the 1960’s Mandela was tried for “inciting workers against the government and causing mass rebellion.” First he was sent to a jail in Pretoria and then transferred to Robben Island where he spent the next 27 years of his life. At Robben Island, there were “no white prisoners and no black warders.” Mandela and his colleagues were called political prisoners. Prisoners were placed in different categories from A to D. The category affected a prisoner’s privileges. A was the highest classification while D was the lowest. All political prisoners were placed in D and received the most unjust treatment. Mandela and his colleagues protested against the unjust treatment but all the efforts were in vain. To keep himself busy, Mandela often read novels. Mandela also took up gardening and made his own mini garden. While in prison, Mandela never lost hope of a bright future

Qualities of a soulful leader

Willingness to fight for one’s goals

Non-violence was becoming ineffective against British and Mandela believed that the struggle required a change. In 1952, Mandela raised his concerns about the need for change in the struggle. Unlike Gandhi, he believed that non-violence is just a tactic which must be removed once it becomes ineffective against the oppression. Again in June 1961, he expressed his views about the need for change in the struggle. He said, “Sebatana ha se bokwe ka diatla(the attacks of the wild beast cannot be averted with only bare hands). He argued that “it was wrong and immoral to subject the people to armed attacks by the state without offering them some kind of alternative” implying an armed struggle is necessary. He successfully convinced the ANC to form an independent military organisation under the control of the ANC known as “Umkhonto we Sizwe(The Spear of the Nation).”

Person of substance and depth

Aims for the well-being of all not just privilege a few.

In the British South Africa, the whites legally dominated the non-whites or blacks specifically by a segregation policy called apartheid. Mandela always aimed to eradicate apartheid and establish a non-racial and democratic society. After being released from Robben Island, Mandela ran for presidency and won the elections by 62.6% votes. Many whites feared that the blacks would retaliate and start killing the whites. Regardless of everyone’s expectations about black domination, Mandela invited the whites to work together towards a better future for South Africa.

Powerful as a communicator

During a speech in Uganda, Mandela talked about South Africa’s past, “the brutal massacres that were committed against the people.” He talked about “Bulhoek in 1921, when the army and the police killed one hundred and eighty three unarmed peasants, to Sharpeville forty years later.” He also talked about “the birth of Umkhonto we Sizwe, explaining that all the opportunities of peaceful struggle had been closed.” Mandela “was met with loud cheers.” People were convinced “that freedom fighters in South Africa had no alternative but to take up arms.”

“We” Leadership

On January 31, 1985 the government agreed to free Nelson Mandela on the condition that he “unconditionally rejected violence as a political instrument.” Mandela “wrote a letter to the foreign minister, Pik Botha, rejecting the conditions of the release.” He rejected his own freedom because he believed it was useless when the organizations of the South African people are still banned. He wanted to work towards a solution as a whole society and not just one man. He reassured the ANC that his “loyalty to the organization was beyond question.” He reassured that he will probably resort to violence when he gets out of the prison if the situation is unchanged. He said, “Your(South Africans’) freedom and my freedom cannot be separated.” This shows that Mandela was not willing to “sell the birthright of the people to be free.

Leads with Humanity

Soon after Mandela raised his concerns for the need of an armed struggle, an organization named Umkhonto We Sizwe was formed. The goal of the organization was to sabotage the government by destroying power plants, power cables and other installations. Guerilla warfare was an option but it was never implemented. Mandela valued human life and was not willing to risk causing a civil war.

Skills I want to emulate

Anticipation

Since the ANC and other significant organisations were working towards freeing South Africa, it posed a threat to the white South African government. Mandela anticipated that the government would eventually ban the ANC. Mandela devised a plan which others called “Mandela-plan or simply M-plan” that would enable the ANC to operate in secret and keep working towards making Africa independent. I would like to emulate this quality because it would help me take calculated risks in life and increase my chance of success.

Kindness

After Mandela was elected as The President of South Africa

Sources

1. Autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom by ‘Nelson Mandela’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
2. https://nigerianstalk.org/2013/12/15/mandela-the-personification-of-humility/
3. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Friedman-Mandela-did-big-things-using-humility-5052556.php

How Mandela assessed his success

When Mandela was in Robben Island, the government banned any articles or newspapers that featured his pictures. For 27 years, no one saw Nelson Mandela or his picture and South Africans had no idea what he looked like. They considered him a messiah who was responsible for all the protests against Apartheid. At The Oprah Winfrey Show, Mandela commented, “that is one of the things that worried me, to be raised to the position of a semi-God, because then you are no longer a human being.” Mandela wanted people to remember him by his name, Mandela, who was not “something other than an ordinary human being.” Mandela never claimed all the credit by himself but said that the Anti-Apartheid movement’s success was a result of the the dedication and the hard work of the South African. Mandela showed his humility by recognizing his mistakes. “Self-mockery” was a part of his humor. “He never shied away from his flaws.” Mandela believed that all of us are nothing but human beings. When Mandela became The President of South Africa, he urged the black South Africans to welcome the whites and not retaliate. His humility is shown in the movie “Invictus.” In the film, the sports committee asks Mandela “to change the name and colors of the almost all-white Springboks(South African rugby team). so that it represented the post-apartheid South African identity.” However, Mandela denied and replied that they shouldn’t give whites what they are expecting(revenge) but “surprise them with restraint and generosity.’ To summarize, Mandela centered his leadership around South Africans rather than himself and gave all the credit to others for making Anti-Apartheid movement a success.

Hendricks Verwoerd, a Dutch-born South African politician sociologist, journalist, and psychologist. Psychologists study the mind and they seek to understand thoughts, emotions, and feelings. The mind is a powerful weapon that he and other architects of apartheid used to the system came with a long-lasting effect. From 1948 To date we see apartheid running its cause. The architects of apartheid made permanent damage.

Discrimination still exists, it still echoes in our homes, streets, schools, everywhere even on social media. In Jan 2016 Penny Sparrow a member of the DA who was later stripped of her membership after she posted racial remarks that offended many people across the country ‘These monkeys that are allowed to be released on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day on to public beaches towns etc have no education whatsoever so to allow them loose is inviting huge dirt and troubles and discomfort to others,’ she wrote.”. Discrimination takes place in many forms, like gender, age, race; physical and mental disabilities and sexuality to name a few all our differences are marked, packed, stored and weighted on the superiority scale. But will we ever move past this issue and wake up in the world where we see beyond color and our differences? We are far from that and these case are a proof of that. ‘the coffin case where two white South African men have been sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment after they were found guilty for forcing a black man into a coffin and threaten to burn him alive” AL Jazeera’s Natasha Shyheim YouTube. In this case, the white men who are farm owners did this because they this man walking past their farm and that just assumed he was going to steal because he’s a “kefir”. They have built a stereotype around black men, they still, they can’t work for themselves, they are all kefirs a foreign word meaning unbeliever and they don’t deserve our respect. Superiority, nativism, and othering are very visible in this case. On Aug 28, 2018, SA’s Pretoria high school for girls, black students were protesting against the school’s dress code. They claim that it is discriminatory and they were told that their hair was not school appropriate when it’s in their natural state (afro) and needs to straighten out. The students felt discriminated against and robbed of their identity. Which was the mandate of apartheid that we all say it’s in the “past”.

Not only black people are affected by poet apartheid, but white communities are also affected by what we call affirmative action. Affirmative action, which incorporates some of the features of both of the two distinct British terms ‘positive discrimination’ and ‘positive action’, describes policies that support members of a disadvantaged group that has previously suffered discrimination (and may continue to) in such areas as education, employment, or housing. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances, for example, the Black Economic Empowerment is a racially selective program launched by the South African government to redress the inequalities of Apartheid by giving black South African citizens economic privileges that are not available to Whites in essences wealth redistribution. It is a form of Affirmative action. Although race is the overriding factor, it includes measures such as Employment Preference, skills development, ownership, management, socio-economic development, and preferential procurement. They feel like the system of Post-apartheid has left them out, they struggle to find jobs. In Coronation park, a squatter camp with a majority white population in Krugersdorp South Africa “I’m sorry if this is racist’ I’m not racist but blacks come first then whites’ said one retired resident of the camp. ‘even highly qualified whites don’t get positions in south Africa’ Euronews. These are all issues around race but who created race, how was it created and why. A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society. But if we look at it the race is a social construct, an identity that is assigned based on rules made by society. In the movie’s skin, we see how Sandra Laing, even though they found her physically colored, her parents managed to get her classified as white and she also used that flexibility to her advantage because she changed her race to make sure that she wasn’t separated from her children. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning but apartheid architects used physical maker such as head shape, facial features, nose shape, eye shape and color, skin color, stature, blood groups, hair texture, etc. In the movie, Sandra was taken for a physical examination.

The categorization of people continued when divided people into subgroups ethnic groups aimed at turning the oppressed against one another and make them forget about the bigger issue(divide and conquer) the Group area act

The word Apartheid is a South African word which means a system or policy of discrimination or segregations between different races, which is exactly what occurred in South Africa. The anti-apartheid movement took place in South Africa during the 20th Century between the South Africans, also known as the Khoi-San and the white settlers from Europe and the Netherland, also known as the Afrikaners. This time showed great discrimination and hardship for those of colour and made the Khoi-San people feel inferior to the Afrikaners even though they were the majority. There were many people who were Khoi-San and stood up for their own but only a few who stood up for the rights of the Khoi-San who were an Afrikaner. One of these people was Helen Suzman. Suzman was the only member of parliament representing the South African Progressive party for several years and she was a famous human rights activist. Suzman became a member of parliament in 1953 apart of the United party. In 1959, she became one of the founders of the progressive party (later known as the Progressive Federal Party). After many years it became clear the key factors on how Suzman contributed to the success of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, but it also became evident that she contributed to the failure as well. During this time, it was abhorred to aid the Khoi-San people and fight towards anti-apartheid. This made those around her to have very strong, different opinions about her and what she was doing.

Helen Suzman contributed to the success of the anti-apartheid movement by visiting the Khoi-San leaders who were in prison and standing up for their rights in parliament. Her endeavours began in the 1960s when new party, the Progressive Party, campaigned against the apartheid legislation. She was also a part of a group who opposed the economic sanctions because they feared it will affect the Khoi-San people more than it will the Afrikaners. The next major action she took against the apartheid was when she visited the prison on Robben Island where all the anti-apartheid movement leaders were being detained. She was inspired to go visit the island after reading an article. “I had read in the newspaper quite alarming reports about the harsh treatment the political prisoners were getting on Robben Island”[footnoteRef:1] By doing this she showed to the public that she was willing to make a change and fight for the rights of all people in South Africa. Through her help and activism, the prison on Robben Island had improved and those being held there were treated better. This is evident when she reported “Conditions had improved – not only through me I might add”[footnoteRef:2] It was very important during this time that Suzman had a seat in parliament as the parliament members were all Afrikaners and none of them spoke up for anti-apartheid except her. She was also very supportive of Nelson Mandela and trying to give him opportunities to have his voice and opinions heard by the government. “It is crazy for the government not to take advantage of his [Mandela’s] position of authority among blacks, authority which I believe he would use to the benefit of all South Africa. I believe Mr Mandela’s talents should be used before it is too late and far more radical elements take control of the ANC”[footnoteRef:3]. This evidence shows that Suzman knew who the leaders were for the Anti-Apartheid movement and what they had to offer to help the progress of change. Hence we can see that Helen Suzman contributed to the success of the anti-apartheid movement. [1: Ed. Hobday R. & Bowron C. (2006) Mandela: The authorised Portrait] [2: Ibid] [3: Bradley C. (1995) Causes & Consequences of the End of Apartheid]

Even though Suzman contributed to the success, she also contributed to the failure by not fully fighting for liberation between the segregated sections of society. There were some that felt that Suzman did not wish for there to be full equality between the Khoi-San and the Afrikaners. This is evident when Joe Slovo, the chairperson of the South African Communist Party in 1983 said “Mrs Suzman and I may both be against apartheid but we are certainly not both for liberation”[footnoteRef:4] These words are supported when Suzman used her position of power to stop international financial aid to help the liberation movements in South Africa. This aid was offered from the World Council of Churches in 1970 and was around $2 million. Another way Suzman contributed to the failure of the anti-apartheid movement was by saying “I confine myself to the Whites only when I discuss this vote”[footnoteRef:5] when debating the issue of pensions and social welfare on a racial basis. It the 1973 Hansard record for this debate it shows that Suzman strongly pushed for this issue to be based solely on one’s race. A different example of Suzman contributing to the failure of the anti-apartheid movement was when her party limited the voting rights of the Khoi-San people by only allowing 1.5 million out of 15 million of them who had a maximum of seven years of schooling the right to vote. She was also found to be in support of many different controversial bills that limited the right of Khoi-San people. She defended this by saying they “represented a step in the right direction”[footnoteRef:6]. She believed that these bills were going to benefit the Khoi-San people, but others believed this was not the case. These are ways she contributed to the failure of the anti-apartheid movement. [4: https://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-26-00-suzman-was-against-apartheid-but-she-was-not-for-liberation] [5: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/helen-suzman-and-apartheid ] [6: Ibid]

Many people had different views and opinions on Helen Suzman and what she was doing during this time. Some of these views were positive and supportive while others were not. Nelson Mandela was very supportive and had a positive view on Suzman and her work during the anti-apartheid movement. During his ‘Know your DA (Democratic Alliance)’ campaign while he was President he said, “Your courage, integrity and principled commitment to justice have marked you as one of the outstanding figures in the history of public life in South Africa.”[footnoteRef:7] This showed that many people were very supportive of all the work she did to help contribute to the success of the anti-apartheid. In 1971, the president of ANC wrote in his message to the ANC’s external mission about Suzman “clearly in favour of change – but determined to prevent change”[footnoteRef:8] This makes it evident that people saw she was contributing not only to the success but also the failure of the movement. These people who had similar views as he were in the middle of thinking that Suzman’s actions were positive or negative. The other type of opinion was that her actions were completely not helpful and that she should of not of been doing what she did. An example of this opinion is in the ANC 26 November 1970 statement “Suzman has neither the mandate nor authority to speak on behalf of oppressed masses of South Africa.”[footnoteRef:9] These are the three different ways the public and government reacted to Suzman’s actions. [7: https://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-26-00-suzman-was-against-apartheid-but-she-was-not-for-liberation] [8: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/helen-suzman-and-apartheid] [9: Ibid]

Helen Suzman contributed to both the success of the anti-apartheid movement through her activism of the rights of the Khoi-San people and the failure through her not fully supporting the anti-apartheid in parliament and supporting bills that went against what she was fighting for. There were also many different opinions on her and what she was doing which helped to impact how the public viewed her. Through the help of Suzman and many others, the apartheid period ended on 27 April, 1994 when Nelson Mandela became President.

References

1. Bradley, C. (1995). Causes & Consequences of the End of Apartheid. London, England: Evans Brothers Limited.
2. Correspondent, M. (2019). Suzman was against apartheid, but she was not for liberation. [online] The M&G Online. Available at: https://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-26-00-suzman-was-against-apartheid-but-she-was-not-for-liberation [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019].
3. Hayward, J. (1989). South Africa since 1948. England: Wayland Publishers Ltd.
4. Hobday, R. and Bowron, C. (2006). Mandela: The Authorised Portrait. Auckland, New Zealand: The Five Mile Press Pty Ltd.
5. Politicsweb.co.za. (2019). Helen Suzman and apartheid – NEWS & ANALYSIS | Politicsweb. [online] Available at: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/helen-suzman-and-apartheid [Accessed 9 Oct. 2019].
6. Sahistory.org.za. (2019). Helen Suzman | South African History Online. [online] Available at: https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/helen-suzman [Accessed 3 Oct. 2019].

From the 1950’s until the 1990s, Apartheid contained a rebirth of racist legislation in South Africa. From this time, South Africa as well as the world was historically changed and separated through one word, Apartheid. Apartheid (meaning ‘apartness’) kept the white and non-white population separated and limited from each other. The non-white population were considered second class citizens and couldn’t experience a normal and fair life, which would eventually stop within decades until a policy was determined bringing in the Anti-Apartheid movement. The Anti-Apartheid movement, (initially known as the ‘Boycott Movement’) was an establishment created by Trevor Huddleston which worked towards supporting the non-white population of South Africa and releasing them from being persecuted by the original policies of Apartheid. As Apartheid was annihilated from the Anti-Apartheid movement, the world led to moving forward, abolishing legal discrimination.

The Anti-Apartheid movement did an astounding job at reducing the amount of racism shared around the world. It did this externally from countries putting economic pressure on South Africa as well as through internal resistance. While racism has initially reduced to this day, it still hasn’t 100% resolved. During Apartheid, the power of the racist white police rose gaining control with their discriminatory ways, seeming omnipotent. This issue has mostly resolved nowadays as in the western word it is unlawful especially as a police officer to discriminate from colour with the anti-discrimination laws. Two decades after apartheid came to an end, restaurants in Cape Town continued to discriminate against people of colour by not letting them book tables. South Africa’s racial tensions deteriorated as they fell into an economic stagnation. The black population are lacking jobs feeling as if the whites are still advantaged blaming racism for this unprivileged plight. The average income of non-white households has increased significantly over the last ten years, however, is 6 x below that of white households. This questions how much effect Anti-Apartheid had on the world, how it supposably got rid of racism, making people question if it ever even did.

The effects from life after the Apartheid have particularly been devastating for the non-white population of children. The consequences of racism, bullying, unfairness and poverty have all negatively affected the lives of children of colour. This effects their full life from the trauma resulting into psychological disorders, and a generation of a disturbed childhood. This has affected the world now because those children are our generation. From their poor school education, they didn’t have the same materials to learn in their early days for what they need to know now when applying for jobs. This is a major issue in today’s society, leading them to a major disadvantage, creating lower employment for the people of colour.

Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s president after the fall of Apartheid influenced history through his reconciliation committees which offered forgiveness to offenders in return of them confessing to their crimes. Nelson’s idea was based on healing not punishing teaching the world to forgive trying to heal the wounds of Apartheid. He affected the world today by being the powerful political leader he was with faith and hope which therefor helped the US and Australia not want to trade with each other until South Africa dropped their racist laws. This effected the world dramatically as South Africa’s economic stability dropped.

As apartheid came to an end, Governments in south Africa were found corrupt since less people were voting. People who were getting into power were untrustworthy and shouldn’t have led the country, this eventually led to corruption which destabilized the economy. Because apartheid was withdrawn, it meant that companies could trade again which meant that their GDP and buying power went up. Although the murder rates have halved, this drastically means black employment SHOULD have gone up, but it didn’t. Although employment is an issue, the Governing party has been focusing on the African National Congress by building new housing for black South Africans but unfortunately concentrating on settlements by strengthening the physical criticisms of apartheid. Sadly, large amounts of the ‘leftover’ black population continue to be crouched down in filth sometimes on land that isn’t even legally theirs. The government is using this as an excuse for the unfairness on the jobs claiming they should come forward for them self. This is proven to show the racism that still lives in white people’s blood today.

The end of World War Two and the establishment of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights intended to end global injustices and put forth a positive influence on human liberty and dignity; however, the South African policies of apartheid outlined in motion undignified and increasingly oppressive, racially segregated laws – polarising South Africa from the rest of the globe. This essay will discuss the effectiveness of the mobilization of both non-violent and violent anti-apartheid campaigns that challenged the white supremacist regime through various forms of resistance. In conjunction with the previous point, the elimination of the apartheid was due to organizations and masses within South Africa, but also by the global citizens who also fought to eliminate the ‘soft development’ of the apartheid, in the form of media exposure and sports diplomacy.

Foremost, it was three men who defied the hardened measures of the apartheid in South Africa: Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, and Oliver Tambo all strove to topple the systemic oppression through the creation of the African National Congress (ANC) and initiation of mass population movements as countermeasures against their repression and the first step in efforts to secure equal rights. ANC leader Nelson Mandela stated, “It is not the kings and generals that make history, but the masses of the people” In 1952, Mandela alongside fellow ANC member Walter Sisulu led the first mass, non-violent action: The Defiance Campaign. This campaign took the form of mass civil disobedience, protesting against the laws that mocked the livelihoods of Black South Africans; in particular, the Defiance Campaign fought against the degrading use of ‘compass,’ passes continued to assist the socio-economic divide between the Black and White populations (Sisulu, 1995.) Roughly over eight and a half thousand Black South Africans were arrested over six months, with passive resistance and defiance an integral aspect of the ANC’s call for mass organized defiance to effectively ‘arouse the whole nation’ (ibid.) Following the semi-success that arose from the Defiance Campaign, the facilitation of the ‘Congress of the People’ in 1955, culminated in black and white South Africans, calling for recognition of the ‘Freedom Charter’ written by the ANC, which included the basis of policy reforms including a democratic government in South Africa and, of course, the removal of policies such as the pass-system in the apartheid.

Furthermore, the intent of the Defiance Campaign, as mentioned earlier in the essay, was to reinvigorate the rights of Black South Africans with the complete abolition of the system through ‘absolute non-violent measures’ (Giliomee and Mbenga, 2008.) However, it is worth noting that despite the initial successes of civil rights progression made by the Defiance Campaign, the South African government’s response to the ANC’s non-violent campaigns, involved tighter measures of control, with the facilitation of higher fines alongside government permissibility of the use of police brutality by whipping protestors. Additionally, the Sharpeville massacre that ensued on 21 March 1960 was a response by the government that indicated that to achieve democracy and liberty within South Africa, non-violent measures were not entirely useful to the ANC leaders. (Thompson, 1962.)

Moreover, the ANC’s campaigns against the systemic oppression of the Black South to secure a dignified livelihood for the Black population, had an incredible impact both domestically and internationally; with global citizens of the world protesting against their own government’s involvement with the South African apartheid regime. The conflict within South Africa resulted in a global anti-apartheid campaign which was represented in many aspects including banners in sports, consumer boycotts, and military and economic sanctions – all of which were initiated by the people of the world to contribute to the elimination of the apartheid. The facilitation of the global anti-apartheid movement in sports (including ‘Operation Locust’ and ‘Stop the Seventy Tour’ in the global cricket competition of 1970) created a profound impact in spreading awareness of systemic racial oppression. Further to the previous point, the significance of these boycotts can be attributed to the divergence of media on sports to the injustices of the apartheid, with the media having a role in the establishment of discussions surrounding the connections between sport and politics that highlighted the white supremacy in South African sports teams that reflect the colonialist legacy of the state (Nixon, 1992.) In addition to anti-apartheid movements disrupting sports diplomacy, the involvement of organizations such as the American Committee on Africa (ACOA) sought to “do what our government itself was not doing” (Have You Heard From Johannesburg, 2010) and support the campaign for the elimination of the apartheid regime. The ACOA was inspired by the resilience of the Defiance Campaign and the non-violent protests which led to the publication of the situation in South Africa in the United States, to raise awareness of the repressive system of apartheid alongside raising funds in support of the ANC.

On a final note, by 1990, President F.W. de Klerk, announced the ban on ANC would be removed and Nelson Mandela would be released from prison, marking the beginning of the end of the South African apartheid. Following Mandela’s release from prison, the president entailed negotiations occur between the two to unite the citizens of South Africa regardless of race, for the release of Nelson Mandela was the “release of us all South Africans at last” (Have You Heard From Johannesburg, 2010.) Conversely, whilst the end of the segregation laws and apartheid had ended, the prejudice remained within both Black and White populations with current relations within the state highlighting, that the protests of the ANC and Mandela were successful in eliminating the legal aspect of the apartheid however there are longer lasting ramifications that will take longer to reduce. The TRC announced the apartheid reparations would help in the rehabilitation of South African victims through the implementation of healthcare, education, and housing needs for victims to re-establish the liberty and dignity they had lost during the apartheid. However, as of 2019, the apartheid victims still suffer from rampant unemployment and lack of opportunities due to prejudice. (Gumede, Van Marle and Swart, 2017)