CONSIDERACIONES GENERALES Y FISIOPATOLOGÍA

The term ‘apartheid’ refers to a philosophy of separation that led to the formation of a particular political and legal system based on discrimination with a racial justification. Therefore, ‘apartheid’ was used to characterize the regime in South Africa from 1948 until, arguably, the first democratic elections in 1994. In order to show the main characteristics of this period I will stress the importance of the theological justification, the legal framework established through legal acts under different presidents and

254 As in chapter two of this thesis, ‘God’ is used as part of the context of the subject explained here and not as an endorsement of his/her role in the Buddhist theological framework.

129 international support of this system. These categories will help to give a clear vision of the systematization of violence with theological justification and international ambivalence during the Cold War Era. Moreover, it will set the context for explaining the life and work of Archbishop Desmond Tutu in the next section.

As I have stated before, apartheid was rooted in racial separation which also served the political ambitions of the ruling elite. One basic characteristic of it was ‘the exclusion of the majority from participation in central government on the basis of colour’.255 This separation of development and political and civil rights derived from the belief that every race had their own destiny and characteristics which had to be exploited wisely. Therefore, the government should guarantee different areas and spaces for this separate development: the mixing of races meant a threat to the divine order and to the interests of those races who were ‘meant to rule’ others. This separate development also portrayed a different political system within the same state. Robert Price and Carl Rosberg characterized it as follows:

In the West administrative states have been building up to provide for the national welfare; in South Africa such a state has been developed primarily to secure and uphold the dominance and privileges of a racial minority. The Whites enjoy a liberal-democratic substate, while the subordinated majority is ruled by a modern authoritarian state.256

Apartheid was also the political manifestation of a strong fear on the part of the white minority. Even with their claims of superiority, there was always the perception of a threat from the non-white majority and thus the need to take extreme measures to break the opposition by any means, even if this entailed crimes against humanity. It took policies of segregation to a new level of moral justification and political implacability never seen before. James Barber argues that apartheid appealed to faith and fear to guarantee its maintenance: ‘faith that a resolution could be found to the problems of race relations while retaining white supremacy; fear that without authoritarian measures the white would be swamped’.257 Therefore, the separateness of races in South Africa

255 International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, Apartheid: The Facts, 7.

256 Robert Price and Carl. G. Rosberg, Foreword to The Apartheid Regime: Political Power and Racial Domination, ed. Robert Price and C.G. Rosbert (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, 1980), vii. 257 Barber, South Africa in the Twentieth Century, 140.

130 had one uniting factor, the rule of one race over the others. This oxymoronic system that claimed separateness while appealing to one ruling class-race elite was then maintained only through the implementation of policies of violence and fear. This fear, fed and demonstrated through violence, was the major root that strengthened the system and the favourite weapon of the ruling community.

Therefore, apartheid divided the non-white community into three well- characterized groups: Africans, Coloureds and Indians. The first term is used ‘to refer to that section of the black community, the majority which is denied participation in central government and is assigned to Bantustan system’.258 The term Indian referred to those categorized as ‘Asian’ and the Coloureds referred to different groups of people, ‘including principally those whom they deem to be of descent that is mixed in terms of the categories of apartheid. Also included are those deemed to be of Malayan extraction, as well as descendants of the original inhabitants of the Cape, the Khoi and the San’.259 Thus, the apartheid system worked on a basis of separation, insecurity, fear and racial domination that, along with a theological defence and political power, proved to be a clear demonstration of the politics of hatred, anger and ignorance of our common humanity. As we will see, the theological justification was a key element for the perpetuation of the system over many years.

The Church of Apartheid: Theological Justification of Separate Development

The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) or Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk, provided the theological basis to rationalize and follow apartheid policies not only to the National Party but also to the rest of the white population who agreed to legitimize it. The DRC followed the Calvinist idea of predestination, which was used to justify white supremacy by claiming notions of ‘the chosen’ or ‘the called’ in the Old Testament. This idea of the ‘chosen’ had been developed since the time of the Great Boer Trek, the Boer War and the concentration camps where thousands of Afrikaners died. This tragic history, which led to what Dunbar Moodie calls the Afrikaner civil religion, was one in which ‘God repeatedly revealed Himself to the Afrikaners as a chosen people’260

258 International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, Apartheid: The Facts, 8. 259 International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, Apartheid: The Facts, 8.

260 Hermann, Giliomee, ‘The National Party and the Afrikaner Broederbond’, in The Apartheid Regime: Political Power and Racial Domination, 17.

131 evidenced by the fact that they were still together and now they had the chance to rule a land where their forefathers settled and built a small but strong community in the seventeenth century. Therefore, at the heart of apartheid is the notion of the Afrikaners as God’s chosen people with an ordained calling or mission’.261

When the National Party came to power in 1948 and the apartheid was formally institutionalized, the DRC became the apologist in the theological foundations of such system. By doing so, ‘the DRC not only provided that theology, it essentially provided the policy itself.’262 Its particular interpretation of the Scriptures has been regarded as misled or, as Douglas Bax put it, instead of exegesis it is eisegesis, reading what is not there.263

The biblical foundation for idea of separate development, according to the DRC, can be found in Gn. 1:28, Gn. 11:1-9, Deut. 32:8, Ac. 2:5-13 and Ac. 17:26. It is particularly evident in the story of the Tower of Babel (Gn. 11:1-9), when God said, ‘If, as one people all having the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come let Us go down there and confuse their language so that they will not understand one another’s speech’.264 Although this act is more closely related to the idea of teaching humanity to leave selfish dreams of false pride and arrogance that would lead them to fall into sin again, the theology of the DRC interpreted this as a calling to enforce and promote diversity at any cost, indicating also the commitment to a particular calling for every race and identifying this as part of their duty to fulfil God’s will. Therefore, they interpret this act as a clear call to promote the separation of races, languages, cultures and identity in light of Scripture. Although they recognize the basic nature of all human beings as God’s children, they also point out the differences in order to justify different plans for every race, with whites being the ‘most blessed’ race.

The most important reports of the DRC concerning the theology of apartheid are ‘Human Relations in South Africa’ and ‘Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Lights of Scripture’. The first one, adopted by its General Synod in 1966 under

261 Robert M. Price, ‘Apartheid and White Supremacy: the Meaning of Government-led Reform in the South African Context’, in The Apartheid Regime: Political Power and Racial Domination, 299. 262 Johnston, ‘The Churches and Apartheid in South Africa’, 187.

263 Douglas Bax, ‘The Bible and Apartheid II’, in Apartheid is a Heresy, ed. John De Grucy and Charles Villa-Vicencio (Guildford: Lutterworth Press, 1983), 114.

132 the name Studie Sutkke oor Rasse Aangeleenthede presents support for different laws approved by the National Party such as the Mixed Marriage Act (1949) and the Group Areas Act (1950) that led to migratory labour, to the detriment of non-white communities. In the report, it is established that ‘the Church must also be mindful to support rather than disturb the harmony of law which has to be achieved by the state’265 while ‘criticism of specific, concrete actions for the authorities is not the normal order of things, except in those instances where the Church must be more obedient to God than to man’.266 Instead of criticizing the racial policies of the government, the DRC justified them throughout its report.

In the case of the Marriage Act wherein interracial marriages were forbidden, the DRC states that what Scripture views as the ‘suitability’ of a holy marriage ‘requires a similarity of descent, language, culture, colour, nationality, and religion, with the emphasis on the sanctity of marriage’.267 These conditions are not fully accomplished in a mixed marriage as is bluntly stated in the report: ‘a mixed marriage cannot fulfil all the essential requirements laid down for marriage by Holy Scripture, and must be rejected as impermissible’.268 Furthermore, the report legitimized the state to take the required measures to guard this divine act:

In the interests of the peoples concerned and for the welfare of the whole community, the Christian state can, under given circumstances, prohibit racial mixing through legislation. This would happen especially if there was a fundamental danger of whittling down and deliberate obliteration of lines of division, and the level of civilization and moral values and distinctive character of the people is endangered by the number of ‘strangers’. In the interests of self- preservation, steps may be taken to maintain the continued existence of the character and characteristics and distinctive identity of the people.269

Regarding migratory labour which was forced by the creation of ‘black zones’ or Bantustans in the Group Areas Act, the Synod agreed that it helps the black community to gain some new skills in the white areas which they can apply later in their own

265 Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke, Human Relations in South Africa: Report (Cape Town, 1966), 42. 266 Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke, Human Relations in South Africa, 41.

267 Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke, Human Relations in South Africa, 6. 268 Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke, Human Relations in South Africa, 8. 269 Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke, Human Relations in South Africa, 10.

133 separate homelands. Obviously these black workers contributed largely to the economy and with this system, the government could safeguard the differentiation between races while giving new skills to selected black workers to keep the Bantustan’s productivity at good level. This growth in efficiency was addressed by the Synod arguing that planned Bantu labour contributed considerably to the rapid economic progress of the country. Moreover, with regard to this issue the report concluded the following:

The greatest advantage of the system is that it makes it possible for the state authorities to control the movement of Bantu which would otherwise be disorganized, so that there is not a surfeit of labourers (and consequent unemployment) in one place, and a shortage of labourers in another area (and consequent collapse of the economy. The country’s economy is not still fluid; the African is to a large extent not yet Westernised; the civilizing process which the Bantu is now experiencing, his restlessness as a result of his detribalisation, this problems of adjustment, his great numbers, etc., could create a condition of chaos if his migration, opportunities of employment, housing problems, economic and technical education etc,, were not controlled to a large extent. 270

The second report of the General Synod of the DRC in October 1974 originally called Ras, Vokd en Nasie en Volkereverhoudinge in die lig van die Skrif, also reflected their position of supporting government policies regarding apartheid, although not as evidently as the previous report. For example, it is stated that ‘a political system on the autogenous or separate development of various population groups can be justified from the Bible, but the commandment to love one’s neighbor must at all times be the ethical norm toward establishing sound inter-people relations’.271 Following this idea, they still supported the Bantustans but pleaded for more ‘generosity’ in terms of space, affirming that ‘within the framework of autogenous (separate) development sufficient viable living space (Lebensraum) for the various population groups is of the utmost importance; hence the state should continue to devote its attention to the fair and just handling of this problem.’272

270 Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke, Human Relations in South Africa, 49.

271 General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture (Cape Town: Dutch Reformed Church Publishers, 1976), 71.

272 General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture, 73.

134 Once again in this report, there was an ambivalence of argument regarding apartheid policies. While not conflicting with the laws, the DRC pointed out some problems that may have arisen if the conditions were not improved. For example, regarding migratory labour, the report affirms the idea of continuing with this system but later highlights the idea that ‘the migrant labour system is one of the factors which disrupt the stability of marriage and family life among the Bantu’273 which, consequently creates problems for the church in its efforts to establish proper and stable congregations in the Bantustans. 274 The relevance of this migratory system is validated by the DRC’s assertion that:

the economic structure of South Africa is to a large extent dependent on the migrant labour system and if this system should suddenly be abolished, it would not only lead to a serious disruption of the economy in general and that of the homelands, but would also cause deprivation for the migrant labourers and their families.275

Finally, the report affirms that ‘nations should jealously guard the spiritual and cultural treasures which they have acquired in the course of centuries and which, in the case of the Republic of South Africa, endow the White and non-White peoples with their specific and various identities’.276 Thus, the DRC elevated the political claims of separate development to a divine level by explaining diversity in light of segregation and plurality in light of the differentiation of roles and identifying race as the major characteristic of discrimination and sign of dominance and oppression. This theological basis worked so efficiently that the DRC ‘has often been referred to as ‘the National party at prayer’.277 These reports set the conditions for formulating the set of policies of hatred, fear and racism that characterized the South African government in the apartheid era.

273 General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture, 75.

274 General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture, 75.

275 General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture, 74.

276 General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, Human Relations and the South African Scene in the Light of Scripture, 75.

135 Having presented the theological foundation of this philosophy of separation, it is time to present the most relevant legal acts which were approved by the National Party between 1948 and 1994 under the leadership of D.F. Malan (1948-1954), J.G. Strijdom (1954-1958), Henrik Verwoerd (1958-1966), B.J. Vorster (1966-1978), P.W. Botha (1978-1984; 1984-1989) and F.W. De Klerk (1989-1994). The acts approved during these administrations demonstrated the severity of apartheid policies and help us to understand the further resistance movements and the relevance of Archbishop Tutu in the struggle for liberation through non-violent means.

Systematizing Apartheid: The Acts

The implementation of apartheid policies has as its common denominator the separation between races, physically and psychologically. In order to accomplish its goal, the system has been categorized into ‘petty apartheid’ and ‘grand apartheid’. The first category refers to those policies concerned with people’s daily lives and necessities, where they faced constant reminders of their ‘distinct’ race and therefore had to make use of the facilities provided for their race exclusively. Thus, the restrictions on bus and train travel, the different doors used to enter public buildings, different benches to sit on the park and separate amenities, among many other factors, constituted a physical segregation with psychological consequences. The message was ‘You are different because of the colour of your skin, and you deserve what you have because of it’, do not fight, do not complain or you will be punished.

The second category, ‘grand apartheid’, refers to the massive population removals and work restrictions on a geographical-racial basis that guaranteed a separate development with almost no racial-mixing only the migrant workers with their relevant authorization by the authorities could stay periodically in ‘white areas’.

Both interrelated categories were meant to fulfil the principle that ‘underlay both the ideology and the institutional system it spawned—the complete separation of Black and White races in South Africa.’278 From a political point of view, as A.J. Christopher puts it,

278 Price, ‘Apartheid and White Supremacy: the Meaning of Government-led Reform in the South African Context’, 299.

136 it was the extinction of the Black political presence in the country which was uppermost in the White policy makers’ minds, as it was realized that Black numerical superiority constituted the greatest threat to continued White control. In practical terms this perception was also to be translated in to a programme of the removal of as many Blacks from the White zone of South Africa as possible, leaving behind only those considered essential for the running of the economy.279

Therefore, the more relevant acts approved by the government in order to safeguard that separate development were the ‘Population Registration Act’, the ‘Group Areas Act’ and the ‘Bantu Authorities Act’.280 The ‘Population Registration Act’ was passed in 1949 (Act No. 30) and labelled every individual by racial characteristics, so