Archive category
Published date
Related Collections from the Archive
The Nationalist Party, though always claiming to have no association with Nazism, had staked everything on a Nazi victory. Hitler's defeat, therefore, weakened the party considerably. Towards the end of 1945, it seemed as if South Africa was at last entering a new era. Twelve thousand South Africans had given their lives in the great struggle of democracy against fascism. Tens of thousands who had volunteered for service had seen the world outside their own country and had everywhere met people who strongly opposed the South African race hatred. The men and women who came back from the war, and the tens of thousands who had helped the war effort at home, began to show a new spirit of racial tolerance and of true democracy.
In the immediate post-war years, South Africa seemed to be entering an epoch of great progressive development. During the war years, the country had passed through an industrial revolution. Manufacturing industries had expanded and prospered. Great masses of workers, European and non-European, had come into industry and had begun to play an important part in raising the national economy. The Poor White problem, which had once been so serious, had been largely solved by their absorption into industry. Capital was coming into the country in great volume.
Great numbers of non-Europeans had found employment in industry with opportunities to improve their skill and raise their standards, in spite of the many obstacles in their way, and there was a much greater understanding between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking sections of the community than ever before. South Africa had excellent opportunities to build an industrial civilisation and help raise the whole of Africa, at any rate south of the equator, to a higher level of progress.
The one thing needed to guide South Africa away from its sordid past and on to the road of true democracy was courageous leadership. There was one man who could have led the country to a new and better way of life. That man was Field-Marshal Smuts, who had played a leading military and political role in the fight against Hitler.
For nearly fifty years until his death-in 1950. General Smuts was the dominant figure in South African politics and, the only South African politician to attain international fame. In 1902 he became a great friend of Britain, where he was held in high esteem and earned the reputation of being not only a great statesman but also a great liberal. In South Africa opinions about him were sharply divided.
I first met Smuts in 1936, when he was Minister of Justice in the Hertzog government. I was a member of a deputation from the South African Trades and Labour Council, which had called upon him to discuss matters which came under his department. Smuts had fought with great courage against the British during the Boer War and had written "A Century of Wrong", which included the following magnificent passage:
"In this awful turning point in the history of South Africa, on the eve of the conflict which threatens to exterminate our people, it behoves us to speak the truth in what may be, perchance, our last message to the world. ...
"Our people have been represented by influential statesmen and on hundreds of platforms in England as incompetent, uncivilised, dishonorable, untrustworthy, etc., etc., so that not only the British public, but nearly the whole world, began to believe that we stood on the same level as the wild beasts. In the face of these taunts and this provocation our people still remained silent. ...
"Our people remained silent partly out of stupidity, partly out of a feeling of despairing helplessness, and partly because, being a pastoral people, they read no newspapers and were thus unaware of the way in which the feeling of the whole world was being prejudiced against them by the efforts of malignant hate. ...
"As the wounded antelope awaits the coming of the lion, the jackal and the vulture, so do our poor people all over South Africa contemplate the approach of the foe? ..."
And:
"It is ordained that we, insignificant as we are, should be the first among the people to begin the struggle against the new world tyranny of Capitalism".
Smuts was known to me not only as the Boer patriot and renowned statesman, but also as the man of "grey steel", of utter ruthlessness; the man who was responsible for many shootings. There were the shootings on the Rand in July 1913; at Bulhoek in May 1921, where 129 Africans were killed and 129 wounded, in South-West Africa, where masses of Bondels (Hottentots) were massacred in May, 1922; and there were many others. I hated Smuts for sending Taffy Long, that brave Welsh miner, to the gallows after the strike in 1922.
From the moment I was introduced I found Smuts charming, friendly and alert. I had been told beforehand that his word was his bond and that he always fulfilled any promise he made. We chatted informally over tea, touching a variety of subjects ranging from philosophy to botany.
After this long, pleasant interlude Smuts-said to us: "Well, boys, what's the trouble?"
We had two matters to discuss with him: first, the wholesale contraventions by clothing manufacturers of the wage determination and agreement for the clothing industry in Cape Town; second, the conviction and sentence to four months' imprisonment of Dr. E. R. Roux for "insulting the King", whose appeal was then pending before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Smuts listened to our case attentively and assured us that the trouble in Cape Town would receive his attention, and agreed that attacks on Royalty should not constitute a criminal offence in South Africa.
Two months later a clothing manufacturer in Cape Town was convicted and fined £75 and his manager £20 for underpaying workers. For about six months the courts dealt with prosecutions against clothing manufacturers in the Cape regularly. Smuts kept his word. Roux's appeal was upheld and his conviction and sentence set aside.
My next meeting with Smuts was in 1940, when he invited a deputation from our union to his office in Union Buildings, Pretoria. The war was on and he was anxious to establish cordial relations with the trade unions. Anna Scheepers, the president of the union, Johanna Cornelius, Dulcie Hartwell, Hester Cornelius and myself formed the deputation. Mr. Morris Kentridge, M.P., introduced us and within a few minutes of meeting the "Oubaas" (old master) I could see that my colleagues, who were all militant trade unionists and hated Smuts the ruthless politician, were enchanted with Smuts the man. Greeting me cordially, he expressed disagreement with my politics but paid tribute to the services I had rendered to the poor Afrikaner working women. There was nothing of the awe-inspiring, great statesman about him: he was the simple, genial, unaffected Boer-receiving visitor over a cup of coffee. He chatted to Anna about her uncle, whom he knew well. They had fought together in the Boer War, and later had farms near each other. There was no agenda and he invited us to discuss with him subject we liked. Dulcie, a bitter anti-Nazi, whose three brothers were at the front, raised the matter of the pro-Nazi ties of the Ossewabrandwag and other fascist organisations. Since the celebration of the Voortrekker centenary in 1938 many O.B.'s were sporting beards in imitation of the Voortrekkers, and in her denunciation of the pro-Nazi elements Dulcie said: "These young fools strut about in the streets with their goatees and consider themselves very clever". To illustrate her point she put one hand up to her chin, and then suddenly we all looked at Smuts, very conscious that he, too, wore a goatee. For a moment Dulcie was quite embarrassed and then we all burst out laughing: "Of course, Dulcie" (Smuts called all the women by their Christian names), not all people who wear beards are O.B.s", Smuts remarked.
As Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief, Smuts was a very busy man; but the interview, which had been arranged to half-an-hour, went on for over an hour. By the time we left, women were fascinated by Smuts' simplicity of manner and charm. Outside his office we met a galaxy of high-ranking officers, whom he had kept waiting while he enjoyed a friendly chat with a group of militant trade unionists.
In 1942 I was elected to a committee of the Trades and Labour Council which used to meet Smuts regularly to discuss war problems. He was always amiable and attentive, hated obsequiousness and wanted speakers to come straight to the point. On one occasion I submitted a lengthy memorandum to a committee in Johannesburg, appointed by Smuts to deal with war production problems, exposing the scandalous manner in which the "cost plus" system was operating. Government war contracts were paid on a basis of cost plus ten per cent. Some of the employer pocket-patriots plundered he national treasury by inflating costs and thereby enlarging the ten per cent profit. I collected a great deal of information from works managers, shop stewards and ordinary workers about deliberate wastage and inefficiency. The chairman of the Committee, the late Mr. Van der Bijl, was a pompous little man and sneered at my memorandum. I wrote to Smuts, and he returned my letter with a marginal note in his own handwriting, "Matter under consideration". A week later a special meeting of the committee was called, at which I was asked to read my memorandum. There was a new member present, who kept on asking questions with the obvious intention of checking the information. At the end of the meeting he introduced himself as Edward Jackson, formerly general manager of the National Bank of South Africa and now a director of ISCOR (Iron and Steel Corporation of South Africa). He was adviser to Smuts on economic matters and certainly knew his business. We had a long discussion at his office and it became clear to me that the Government knew of the cheating that was going on but was helpless-the whole system was too corrupt to make it possible to stop abuses.
In 1943 the T.L.C. Committee met Smuts to discuss a number of important matters. I was deputed to present the case for an all-round increase in the wages of African workers. The cost of living was rising, but the wages of Africans, which had always been low, remained unaltered. I stressed three points: the terribly low level of wages for African workers; that many employers were willing to increase wages and that the Africans were considering taking strike action. Smuts listened and for a moment I thought that I had convinced him and that he would instruct the Wage Board to raise African wages. Much to my surprise and disgust, Smuts, after thinking for a few moments, said, quite calmly: "Sachs, don't you think they are a lot of savages?" The next day I resigned from the committee.
It was the tragedy of South Africa and of Smuts himself that he failed his country at its most decisive period.
At the end of 1946, two important questions concerning South Africa were placed on the agenda of the United Nations. The first was a complaint brought by the Government of India against the Union Government, arising from the treatment of Indians in South Africa and, more especially, the passing of the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act by the Union Parliament at the beginning of 1946. The second arose from the Union Government's formal request for the incorporation within the Union of the Territory of South-West Africa, which it held under a mandate from the now defunct League of Nations.
During the debates which followed at Lake Success, the entire policy of the Union Government came under critical examination and representatives from various countries condemned in no uncertain terms South African policy towards its non-European peoples.
Smuts, who himself went to the United Nations, returned to South Africa a bitterly disappointed man, who seemed to feel personally insulted at what had been said against South Africa at the United Nations. Instead of appealing to the people of South Africa to renounce their policy of racial intolerance, he delivered endless diatribes against the "Kaffir", "Coolie" and "Communist" dangers. The spirit of democracy, which had begun to sweep South Africa after the defeat of Hitler, soon evaporated and the shrewd Dr. Malan exploited the situation with the utmost cunning.
"We told you that it was a terrible blunder to fight Hitler and to ally yourselves with Soviet Communism. We warned you of the danger of the Indians and Africans demanding equality and full citizen rights. You would not listen to us, now you are in trouble", the leaders of the Nationalist Party cried. Smuts, who all his life remained the champion of white domination beneath a veneer of liberalism, retreated to his backveld world and paved the way for Malan's victory in May 1948. Had Smuts fought for a great democratic South Africa with the same resoluteness with which he had fought against Hitler, the Nationalist Party would have been doomed. Before his death in 1950, he tried to save the situation, but it was too late. The Nationalists were in the saddle and, in a short space of time, turned South Africa into a fascist police state.
The verdict of history on this extraordinary man will be given not on the basis of the speeches he made abroad, but on his actions at home. South Africa needed and still needs today an Abraham Lincoln to free it from traditional backwardness and bigotry, and Smuts, although a great admirer of Walt Whitman was no Lincoln. He was a product and a victim of historical circumstances, not an architect of history, and all his life remained a faithful servant of British imperial interests and of the backward farmers of South Africa. He was a man of great physical and moral courage. He first fought the British and then became their best friend. His personal charm and simplicity did not stop him from being ruthless to others and unsparing of himself. He was big enough to admire Western European civilization, but too deeply rooted in South African backwardness to introduce that civilization into his own country. He was human, with contempt for humanity-and especially for the little men by whom he was surrounded at home. He was a man of many parts, a brave soldier, a Boer, a statesman of international repute. He was certainly a great man but not a good one. His policy of Christian Trusteeship towards the African people differed from apartheid only in degree, not in substance. He left to posterity a country, of which he was the chief designer, tormented by hatred and fear; yet he was the only person who could have led South Africa towards real progress.
During 1946-47, the influence of Malan continuously declined.
Had the truly democratic forces, and those which professed to uphold democracy, taken advantage of this trend, the Nationalist Party could never have recovered and might even have disintegrated. The main support for Malan had come from the rural areas, but economic factors drove great numbers of Whites to find employment in the towns. By 1946, about seventy per cent of the Europeans had become urbanised. The towns, in the main, had been violently opposed to the Nationalist Party and, in the general election of 1943; the Nationalists had obtained only a few seats in all the urban areas. It was clear that, whoever won the allegiance of the tens of thousands of Afrikaner workers, would rule the country. These workers had brought with them the backward traditions of the land and, at first, were overwhelmingly Nationalist. The union had proved, however, that, given a correct lead, the Afrikaner workers could be won over from Nationalism. A new political home had to be found for these workers, and that home should have been the Labour Party.
Whilst the United Party was in power, from 1946-47, it did everything possible to antagonise the workers, so playing straight into the hands of the Nationalists. In the Mineworkers' Union, the United Party leaders supported men in whom the workers had no confidence. The cost of living was rising catastrophically, but no steps were taken to check inflation. The United Party should also have concentrated on weakening the power of the Nationalists by helping the Labour Party to gain influence among the Afrikaner workers, the majority of who distrusted the United Party because they identified it with capitalism and imperialism. Instead, everyÂthing was done to discredit the Labour Party and to denigrate its more militant leaders who were, of course, the only ones with any influence amongst the Afrikaners. In this, the muddle-headed "Lefts" warmly supported the United Party and confused liberals, who took great pleasure in sniping at the Labour Party. For twenty years, our union pleaded with all anti-MaIan elements to do everything possible to wean the Afrikaner workers from Nationalism. Our plea was unheeded.
The following shows the decline in Nationalist Party influence among Afrikaner workers in 1947. On the 22nd February 1947, our union held its annual general meeting, which was attended by several thousand members. The first item on the agenda was the election of general secretary. I was nominated. A Nationalist stooge nominated a certain Mr. Vosloo, a Reformer. This nomination was not even seconded,
On the 22nd July 1947, at another general meeting of the union, attended by about four thousand workers, a resolution that the union affiliate to the Labour Party was carried enthusiastically, with only two votes against.
In previous years, the South African Labour Party had supported an economic colour bar, but by 1947 it had moved far to the left of its original policy. At all events, the Labour Party, with all its faults, was always more progressive in its attitude towards non-Europeans than the United Party, and certainly more so than the Nationalist Party. Obviously, no party which claims to be democratic or Labour can have any association with racial discrimination. In South Africa, however, the major problem was, and is, how to save the country from a Nationalist fascist dictatorship. This can be done if all the anti-fascist forces concentrate on educating the Afrikaner workers in democracy.
Many trade union leaders of the right also made their contribution towards Malan's ultimate victory. Leaders of the mining unions, of the engineers, electricians, boilermakers and iron-moulders, and others, began to demand the exclusion of Africans from the South African Trades and Labour Council, and engaged in violent attacks upon the more progressive trade union leaders. Failing in their efforts to introduce a colour bar into the S.A.T.L.C., they disaffiliated and thus caused division in the workers' ranks.
The utter stupidity of the United Party was shown in the following glaring examples:
On August 1st, 1947, some ten thousand building workers in the Transvaal came out on strike for increased wages, a 40-hour week and improved holiday leave. The building industry was enjoying great prosperity and, had the matter been left to the employers and workers, the strike could have been amicably settled within a few days. But the United Party Government set up a special "Cabinet sub-committee", which exerted all its power to bring defeat upon the workers. In addition, the United Party press persistently attacked the strikers.
Our union donated £10,000 towards the building workers' strike fund and our leaders, with their vast experience in conducting strikes, offered their services. An amicable settlement was reached and the strikers returned to work, more incensed against the United Party than against their employers.