CHIEF KHAMA'S MARRIAGE
By G. II. CALPIN Durban, August 24th.
THE marriage of Seretse Khama, chief designate of the Bamangwato tribe, to a London typist is bound to have serious repercussions in South Africa. Afrikaners of my acquaintance, in high and low positions, who, like their fellows all over the country, are great talkers and natural politicians, have to be prodded into comment. The shock has struck them speechless. The domestic affairs of natives, it is true, except when some imme- diate issue of State policy is involved, are not a subject of general discussion among them. But this special case of a marriage between a black man of importance in his own sphere and a white woman who is a citizen of the United Kingdom strikes at the very root of their cherished principles, religious, political and social, and must be looked upon as an event of profound political significance in Afrikaner-British relations.
First and foremost, the marriage occurs at a time when republican opinion is rising to a climax in the great Afrikaner celebrations to be held in December, when the Voortrekker monument will be unveiled at Pretoria. To that occasion the thoughts of every Afrikaner in the country are directed. Afrikaner journals are preparing mammoth Voortrekker issues, special trains will be run and special accommodation provided, and already, in the streets arc to be seen the luxuriant beards, grown over the past few months, to distinguish the " ware " Afrikaner from his " rooinek " fellow- South African of British descent. The so-called moderate Afrikaner, the non-Nationalist and therefore the non-Republican, is very rightly looking forward to the unveiling of the Voortrekker monument as the central event in current Afrikaner politics, while the rural Afrikaner, steeped in his Calvinistic past, looks upon it as the people of the Old Testament looked on the dividing of the waters of the Red Sea. The marriage of Seretse and Ruth Khama at any time would disturb Afrikaners. At this time it is a blow to everything Afrikanerdom stands for.
The immediate effect of the marriage is to widen the gap between Afrikaners and the country, Britain, whose political and social ideas permit it to take place. Afrikaners may read, but will not appreciate the force of, the argument that in the British tradition the law allows what it does not prohibit, and that, in any case, one of the fundamental rights of man is complete freedom in the choice of a partner. There are, no doubt, many thousands of people in Britain who consider the match unfortunate, and who even frown upon the idea of a black chief marrying a white girl, no matter how excellent the individual qualities of the parties. These thou- sands may see, too, some difficulties ahead as a result of the wedding ; but few will see it in quite the same way as do the Afrikaners, whose conception of fundamental human rights is very different from that of the oversea British, and who are acutely aware of the racial implications involved. The most obvious parallel is to he found in the British crisis caused by the proposed marriage of King Edward VIII. No one could forbid the marriage but they could and did forbid the retention of the kingship in such circum- stances.
Even this parallel fails to do full justice to the emotional forces kt loose by the Khama-Williams marriage. It is important to recognise that the South-African British are fighting a rearguard action against the advancing Afrikaner Republicans, and that the British connection, over which many political battles have raged, is in• jeopardy. The formula which provided for the inclusion of India as a republic within the Commonwealth without contractual obligation offered Afrikaner Republicans a most serviceable prece- dent. The Khama-Williams marriage furnishes an even stronger argument in the debate and a more intense emotional appeal, which touches Afrikaners at the quick and which does not escape British South Africans. There are only two subjects about which South African politics revolve. One is the status of the Union within the British Commonwealth ; the other is the supremacy of Europeans and the permanence of white, as distinct from western, civilisation. The second of these, dictating as it does our native policy, a policy which differs from the British concept of colonial government, is used in the pursuit of Republican aims arising out of the first.
South Africa's approach to native policy has been and will continue to be denounced by a host of writers and newspapers in Britain. No claim is made here that the approach is the right one, or that it coincides with the ideals of liberty and freedom propounded by the western world. The only claim made is that the attitude is factual. Its existence is sufficient to make the Khama-Williams marriage a political issue which will reinforce the republican element. Whatever party newspapers say in defence of this party or in the denunciation of the other party, South Africa has laid down a racial design which reflects the will of the European populace and from which it will not easily depart. The design may be variously described. It appears one day on the lips of General Smuts as trusteeship, and on another day on the lips of Dr. Malan as apartheid. But its central theme is racial separation and the colour bar, and only within this area is it possible to estimate the effect of a marriage between a black chief and a white commoner.
The newspapers, of course, have run the Khama-Williams marriage on their front pages. The business of newspapers is to present the news, but, as I have remarked before in this journal, what is good journalism can be bad politics. There are serious doUbts about the wisdom of giving front-page publicity and photographic attention to an event which cannot but have a profound emotional effect upon the native mind. There arc educated and intelligent natives who are capable of seeing this affair in its proper perspective. But the majority, even of those who can read and write, arc quite incapable of putting any interpretation upon it except one damaging to European prestige. It is a breakdown of certain conventions and restraints which, in South Africa, are given statutory force. The Afrikaner is not alone in frowning 'upon such publicity. Thousands of English-speaking South Africans are full of disquiet. They support the mixed-marriages legislation of the Union Government, and, contrary to the opinion of many people here and overseas, they do so as much in defence of natives as in defence of their own interests. The children of mixed marriages can be no less unhappy than their parents arc likely to become by the time the children arrive.
From this all-too-brief summary of South African reactions to the marriage it is possible to appreciate one or two fundamental questions it raises. The catalogue of human rights lengthens daily. High on the list is freedom of choice in marriage. Yet here is a case where the fundamental right has set up a series of political reactions which might endanger the status of a nation, and which will certainly influence for the worse the relations between two European nations, as well as damage the existing relations between black and white in the Union. These consequences, it may be said, are inevitable in a country like South Africa, where, in the opinion of some British sections overseas, the Government and people practise the doctrine of the Herrenvolk. But the fact remains that a critical assessment gives reality to this issue of human rights and urges upon the mind the query whether the technical legitimacy of a marriage of this sort should be allowed to transcend its political and social consequences.
Admittedly, nothing could be done to prevent the marriage. One may go so far as to wish well to the royal house in its choice, and still be acutely aware of the grave effects it will have on the neighbouring State. At best, from the South African point of view, it is an unfortunate affair ; at less than best, it will alienate thousands of Afrikaners from the British cause and estrange many English- speaking South Africans. Something of the importance attaching to it and to the questions it raises can be conjectured from the absence or postponement of comment by many English newspapers in the Union.
Previous page
