PLUS
Recognition
Record
(academic)
Recreation
Residence
Roots
Rogues
(gallery)
HOME
 
 
 

The life 
& times 
of
Warren Swil
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

V 1

 

At the highest level there is an energetic group in the all-white parliament which consistently opposes apartheid legislation. The South African Legislature is bicameral, similar in design to the British House of Commons and House of Lords; the lower house, or Assembly, consists of about 180 members, elected by the whites on the basis of universal adult suffrage. The upper house, the Senate, consists of about 80 members nominated by the members of the Assembly in proportion to the number of seats held by each party in the lower house.

Of the 180 members of the Assembly, the Nationalist Party (the government) has about 140 seats, the United Party has about 30 members and the Progressive Party about 10. Tthe United Party, were it to be returned as a government, would create out of South Africa a race federation: it proposes to establish a racially mixed parliament with strictly limited powers and initially subordinate to an all-white Assembly. Because the UP would retain the supremacy of the white Assembly in matters such as defense, foreign policy and the budget, its policies have not been accepted by the blacks.

The real opposition in parliament comes from the seven Progressive Party MPs. In 1959, when the United Party abandoned its long-held principle of including some blacks on a common voters’ roll with whites, and voted in favor of removing all blacks from the voters’ roll as a prelude to denying them all representation in the white Assembly, 13 dissident MPs broke with that party and formed their own organization, the Progressive Party.

Helen Suzman

For 13 years Suzman was the sole Progressive MP; alone she spoke out for the millions of disenfranchised blacks and won their undying respect. For her thankless work and tireless opposition to apartheid, she has recently been honored with doctorates by both Harvard and Oxford universities.

In the 1974 election, Suzman was joined by six other Progressive Party MPs. Among those elected to parliament after 13 years in the political wilderness were the leader of the party, Colin Eglin; Dr. Alex Boraine, a Methodist minister and executive of the Anglo American Corp. (South Africa’s largest); Dr. F. van Zyl Slabbert, a professor of sociology at the University of the Witwatersrand; and Rupert Lorimer. The new representatives promised “effective” opposition to the aprtheid government.

One other white political party is worth noting, even though it has never held parliamentary representation. The South African Liberal Party, under the leadership to the country’s best know writer, Dr. Alan Paton (author of “Cry the Beloved Country”), decided to disband about four years ago when the government enacted the Prohibition of Political Interference legislation. This law forbids any individual of one race from belonging to a political party of another race.

It was clearly aimed at both the Liberal and Progressive parties, which had until then been multi-racial. The Liberals decided to disband; the Progressives decided to fight alone.
The Liberal Party was dedicated to uphold the “essential dignity of every human being irrespective of race, color or creed.” Its constitution expresses itself in favor of the right of “every human being to develop to the fullest extent of which he is capable, consistent with the rights of others.” It fought a lonely and unsuccessful battle on behalf of these lofty ideals.

In the unique South African political climate the opposition parties would have not survived without the assistance and support of the English language press. In the 1974 election, most English language newspapers for the first time unequivocally supported the Progressive Party (previously they had supported the UP) and they should receive credit for the victories of the six new MPs.

In early 1975 the United Party split in two, and four or five of the Reformist wing joined with the seven Progressive MPs to form the Pro-Reform Party, now the main opposition. 
The English language press has for many years been influential in shaping opposition politics in South Africa.  It has been pivotal in the swing of party affiliations away from the UP. It has also played a major role in informing the people where the apartheid policy is leading. It has consistently opposed the government’s draconian security legislation, and has felt the heat of the government’s anger.

Veiled threats of press censorship are part of the way of life for the South African newsman. In early August the Minister of the Interior and of Information, Dr. Connie Mulder, warned at a public meeting that the time had perhaps arrived when the government would have to help the press “put its house in order” if the press would not do so itself. 

“It seems to me,” he said,  “the time has arrived … to establish some things in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of press freedom.” Mulder proposed that all reports should carry the name of the writer (so it would be easier to identify troublesome journalists) and that all opinion formers writing for the press should be bilingual South African citizens.

A dispassionate look at the English language press in South Africa would show that it is anything but irresponsible. Because it is aware that the government is waiting for an opportunity to attack it, it is considerably more vigilant, accurate and moderate than the press in many countries today. It has for years been warning the government its race policies would inevitably result in violence, but it has done so in a rational, responsible manner, presenting the news in an unbiased, professional way, mindful of its influence in a society only this year discovering the magic of television.

For its trouble is has been continuously harassed by the government, and it seems more likely than ever now that the government will act to censor the press. Already since June, six senior journalists have been detained by the police, although no charges have yet been brought against them.

The Afrikaans language press, until very recently, was a mouthpiece for the government. Recently, Afrikaners too have woken up to the reality of the South African situation, and the Afrikaans press has changed form a lapdog into a watchdog, with teeth. In a recent column, the editor of a major Johannesburg daily, The Transvaler, issued an urgent appeal for government action to stop the rioting. Dr. Wimpie De Klerk charged that the problem of the urban blacks was being all but ignored, that the call for an investigation into a new constitution was not being heeded, and there is maladministration and ineffective decion-making at all levels in the government.

For an Afrikaans language editor to write such words even two years ago would have been unthinkable. This new independence shows that even the formidable and seemingly impenetrable South African Nationalist Party is beginning to crumble under the onslaught of racial violence and civil strife.

Perhaps the most strident opposition to government policy in recent years has come from the white English language campuses. Through their student union, the National Union of South African Students (NUSAS), a group of white students has effectively resisted government attempts to silence its vocal calls for a more equitable society. In the last 15 years Nusas has become an organization considered radical in the South African context.

A 1972 Nusas campaign to draw attention to inequities in education resulted in the largest student demonstration South Africa has ever seen. About 180 student protesters were attacked by police wielding batons and clubs. Several were injured about about 20 were arrested. The next day, thousands of students around the country protested the heavy-handed police action.

In Cape Town alone, more than 10,000 (the entire enrollment of the University of Cape Town) joined a demonstration, in spite of a government ban on all open-air gatherings. For the first time, the police moved onto the campuses to break up protest meetings.
In early 1973, the government appointed a select committee of parliament, the Schlebusch Commission, to investigate Nusas and three other anti-government organizations. When a preliminary report was presented to parliament, the commission urged the government to take urgent action against the organizations.

As a result, eight leaders or former leaders of Nusas were banned in March 1973. In terms of the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950, the government can restrict persons by administrative decree; they may not be quoted in the press, may not address public meetings, may not enter schools, courts, airports or harbors and are usually confined to one magesterial district. Since last year four senior Nusas officials have been detained. 

Academics have often been favorite targets of the government. In November last year, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Natal, Raymond Suttner, was jailed for 7½ years after he was found guilty of recruiting two friends for an underground cell. He evidently admitted to furthering the aims of the outlawed South African Communist Party and the African National Congress.

When the Schlebusch Commission completed its investigation, Nusas was declared an Affected Organization. The implication of this new status was that Nusas could no longer receive funds from abroad. Moreover, all its activities would be closely scrutinized by a government representative. This was the final step in the emasculation of the organization.
Religious leaders have been among the main white opponents of the regime. One of the most celebrated recent trials in South Africa was that of the Rev. Ffrench Beytagh, who was charged with treason. Beytagh was acquitted, but soon after the trial was deported to his native England.

Some trade unionists have also been active in opposing apartheid, the most notable of these being Mrs. Helen Joseph, former secretary general of the Garment Workers Union. Mrs. Joseph was banned and placed under house arrest in 1960. She was one of the first to be restricted under the Suppression of Communism Act. In 1974 she developed a severe cancer and, in a rare moment of compassion, the government lifted her banning order. She has now resumed her fight against apartheid, even though she is still officially listed as a communist.

More and more white South African businessmen are now calling on the government to modify its policies. In an unprecedented move the Transvaal Chamber of Industries, which contains most of the nation’s leading businessmen, issued an urgent appeal to the government to abolish some of the worst aspects of apartheid. Never before has a group of white businessmen made such a dramatic an emotive statement on South African race policies.

Through almost 20 years of opposition, however, the Progressive and United parties have had little success in convincing the government to modify its race policies. Although students continue pointed out the dangerous course the government has charted, they have failed to convince officials that change is necessary; their protests have been ignored. Warnings by the press that apartheid would result in violence have been countered with threats of censorship. There is no reason to believe the government will heed the belated call of the white businessmen.

It seems only violent racial conflict can wring changes from the government. The days when moderate South Africans can play a significant role in the resolution their country’s problems, seem to be slipping away. For the blacks have surely seized the initiative, and they from now on will control their own destiny. The white liberal South African has, unfortunately, already become an anachronism.

Warren Swil is a student at San Diego State University. Raised in South Africa, he is a graduate of the University of Cape Town. He worked as a journalist in South Africa before coming to the United States.