In 1922, a referendum was held in the British colony of Southern Rhodesia about whether the colony would be integrated into the Union of South Africa or establish a responsible government. In OTL, 59% of the voters were in favor of a responsible government. But what if the majority of the voters chose to join South Africa? How will this affect the policy of apartheid and the Bush War, if they still happen in this TL?
WI: Southern Rhodesia joined South Africa in 1922
- Thread starter GenericAltHistorian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- rhodesia south africa
So this Greater South Africa will include both South-West Africa (Namibia) and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)? That will be one big country.
White minority rule is still probably going to eventually end in the late 20th century. But the question is: will it end more violently like in Zimbabwe, or more peacefully like in South Africa and Namibia?
White minority rule is still probably going to eventually end in the late 20th century. But the question is: will it end more violently like in Zimbabwe, or more peacefully like in South Africa and Namibia?
Ricardolindo
Banned
If Southern Rhodesia had joined South Africa, the National Party wouldn't have gotten into power, in 1948, and Apartheid, as we know it, would never have happened. There would probably have been a transition to black majority rule in the late 60s.
I hear this a lot , but is this really true? Why would White Anglos in South Africa be any less racist than the Boers?
No apartheid sure, but the pre-apartheid minority rule structure would likely be retained well into 70s at the earliest.
The problem is that even if this were the case (many, but certainly not all White Rhodesians were perfectly content with the arrangement as it was), there simply wouldn't be enough White Rhodesians to make a difference- using 1970 numbers, approximately 2 million Afrikaners and 200-250 000 White Rhodesians
Apartheid as we know it will probably be butterflied away, but racism will probably still be on the books in some form so long as the Big Red Boogeyman is still around to rationalise it.
Deleted member 94680
South African general election, 1948
All 150 general roll seats in the House of Assembly
Party: Reunited National
Leader D. F. Malan Last election 43 seats Seats won 70 Popular vote 401,834 Percentage 37.70%
Party: United
Leader Jan Smuts Last election 89 seats Seats won 65 Popular vote 524,230 Percentage 49.18%
Source: wiki infobox on S African election 1948
So, 200,000 white Southern Rhodesians could make a significant difference, depending on their locations and voting tendencies. When the difference between the UP and NP at the ‘48 election was 5 seats, the 13(?) seats of Southern Rhodesia could make all the difference.
elkarlo
Banned
Would be interesting, as there weren't many examples of minority rule being transferred over. Wonder if with stability and if they take it slow enough, but not too slow to ensure that white flight doesn't happen. Which would help keep the economy sound and society stable. Wonder if it could be a success story?
Ricardolindo
Banned
IIRC, the United Party had a plan for an eventual transition to black majority rule.
Last edited:
The mixed race people known as colored, were to be allowed to stand for parliament.
Africans and Indians were to be represented by whites on the national level, themselves in provincial assembly’s and in a federal council which would replace the bantustans.
Africans and Indians were to be represented by whites on the national level, themselves in provincial assembly’s and in a federal council which would replace the bantustans.
That's what they always say. Even Rhodesia and the British in India said the same thing. But, in the end, those are just excuses to perpetuate minority rule.
Deleted member 94680
Well, a fair proportion of the South African electorate believed what they said, as it is the generally accepted reason for the United Party losing the ‘48 election.
Deleted member 94680
The United Party, from what I understand, were very much on the “take it slow enough” side of the debate.
A race federation. Integrated universities seperate high schools and elementary schools
There goal was to do what Botha did thirty years earlier.
Eight African representatives whites in the house of assembly in 1960, twelve in 1970, similar to Rhodesia.
There goal was to do what Botha did thirty years earlier.
Eight African representatives whites in the house of assembly in 1960, twelve in 1970, similar to Rhodesia.
elkarlo
Banned
Ok, thanks for the clarification. But it's one thing to think that in the 40s and actually implement it in the 70s. Communism can certainly make this tricky and may give case to not cede control.
Deleted member 94680
I agree, but any move to a genuine hand over of power - or a race-free franchise at least - would be better than apartheid, no?
Deleted member 109224
They weren't necessarily for majority rule. The United Party was for majority rule at the provincial level, and at the national level they supported indirect rule - blacks could vote but they'd be represented by coloreds, asians, or whites.
In Rhodesia blacks could vote and hold office based off of income requirements and having served in the military. At the very least I can see that happening in South Africa by the 1960s. Then it'd become a matter of slowly expanding the franchise and right to hold office over time.
In Rhodesia, while it wasn't as bad as Grand Apartheid, "qualified franchise" was another means of denying the black population the vote. There were financial, educational and property barriers to the vote. This was complicated by the Land Tenure Act, which allocated roughly the same amount of land to blacks and whites. Except the white population was 5% of the size of the black population and got all the best land.