CORRESPONDENCE
A LETTER FROM CAPE TOWN [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—It was in the middle of last November that General Hertzog announced at Smithfield his native policy. There followed an outburst of discussion which has now died down. It died down for the sufficient reason that the debaters dis- covered that there was really nothing very much to discuss. Seldom has so far-reaching and intricate a policy been so vaguely and skimpily outlined. At Smithfield the Prime Minister told the public that he proposed to solve the native question by giving the native communal representation, limited to seven members who must all be Europeans, in the Union Parliament ; by establishing an advisory Native Council with gradually increasing powers ; by setting aside additional territory within whieh natives may buy land ; by taking away from the Cape native his present franchise rights ; and by extending the European franchise throughout the Union to the Eurafrican, or " coloured " man.
What was to be made of such a scheme ? Its general prin- ciples were clear enough, but the manner of their application in practice was not revealed. And it is their application that matters most. In essence the scheme amounts to a compro- mise in principle between the Northern doctrine that supreme political power in the Union must remain unassailably in the hands of Europeans and the Cape doctrine of equal political rights for all civilized men irrespective of creed or colour or race. That being so, it was natural that North and South alike should demand to know how the proposed compromise would be worked out in its actual application before either would commit itself to surrendering its traditional doctrine. But that was precisely the information that was lacking.
Again, quite apart from the conflict between the views of the two chief schools of thought on the native problem, there were certain obvious difficulties in the way of applying the principles laid down by General Hertzog—difficulties that were common cause. For instance, where was the additional land to come from ? How did the Prime Minister propose to overcome the notorious reluctance of Europeans throughout the Union to relinquish land for native settlement ? Would the extension of the Cape franchise to the "coloured " man in the North entail the enfranchisement of the Indian ? If so, the European in Natal would be swamped at the polls. If net, the Indian would be the only man in the whole Union without some form of political representation, unless he, toO, like the native, was to be given communal representation. And would not the giving of the European franchise to the half-caste " coloured " man and its denial to the full-blooded native mean the encouragement to a dangerous degree of miscegena- tion ? What inducement would remain to the native to keep his or her blood racially pure ? On these points too, and on many other practical details the Smithfield speech threw no light whatsoever.
Thus was it that after a time discussion ceased. It was seen to be unprofitable. The session of Parliament was ap- proaching, and the Prime Minister had undertaken to place on the table of the House the Bills embodying his poliek. Better, ,then, was it to await the appearance of this draft legis- lation, which—would; presumably, contain the desired in- formation.
But if the discussion was brief, inconclusive, and non-com- mittal, it at least showed the natural reactions of the chief parties, groups, and sections in the country. It was a criss- cross effect that these reactions produced. For while to some extent the Nationalists, the South African Party, and Labour were compelled to react each as an integral political party, the real line of division on the native question is to-day, as it always has been, a geographical division. It is fundamentally a matter of North versus South, the North being represented by the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and the South being represented by the Cape Provincei, with Natal more or less midway between the two.
The attitude of the two Government parties—Labour and the Nationalists—is that the Priinc Minister deserves pro- visional support for a bold and courageous policy that has never pretended to be anything but a tentative basis out a non-party examination of the problem. They point out that, apart from the wisdom and expediency of keeping the native question out of party politics, the provisions of the Act of Union make a non-party treatment of the problem necessary. For under the South Africa Act any alteration of the franchise law requires the assent of a two-thirds majority of Parliament. Any solution put forward by the Government is thus impos- sible without the consent and support of the Opposition—a circumstance that takes the problem right out of the ordinary political arena.
This contention is admitted by the South African Party. But that party's attitude, as defined by General Smuts, is that it is the duty of the Government to compose its own internal differences on the problem before coming to the Opposition for support. When the Government is able to come forward with concrete proposals, worked out.in some detail, it will be time enough for the Opposition to examine the proposals seriously and to criticize them constructively. Alternatiyely, if that standpoint should seem to the Government to savour too much of the ordinary procedure of party politics, let the Government convene a National Convention of a non-party nature, and let the Government's draft legislation be referred to that body for its consideration in an atmosphere free both from party politics and Press publicity. A National Conven- tion made the franchise law of the Union what it is ; any alteration of that law had best be made by a Natio- nal Convention.
The North distrusts the scheme through fear lest it be the thin edge of a mighty wedge. Seven Europeans to repre- sent the natives in the Union Parliament might be acceptable to the North as an end ; but who is to assure the North that that is not a mere beginning ? Will that content the natives ? Will it solve the problem, at least from its political side, per- manently ? Once you depart from the principle that only the white man should wield political power in South Africa, Where can you be certain that you will stop ? '
The Cape, on the other hand, distrusts the scheme because' it lacks assurance that the quid pm quo offered to the Cape native in place of his present liberal franchise is a reality and not merely a camouflaged disfranchisement. It is patent that two European representatives for the Cape natives on a com- munal basis will exercise less political power than the Cape natives now possess in voting alongside the Europeans on a common roll. Will that loss be adequately compensated for by the enfranchisetnenf oda communal basis Of-the Northern natives who are now voteless ? Will the natives in the Union as a whole gain by the change or lose ? That is a question that must be satisfactorily answered before the' Cape can feel justified in giving up its liberal traditions.—I am, Sir, &e:, YOUR CAPE Tow: CORRESPONDENT .
Previous page
