Page 86 - Demo

The dominions had quasi-independent status in running their internal affairs and a modicum of self-determination in the international arena in that they enjoyed direct membership to the League of Nations. However, in law, the dominions were effectively British provinces, extensions of the British Empire, and vulnerable to the whims of the throne in international affairs. “[Union Prime Minister] General [J B M] Hertzog set out to the Imperial Conference of 1926, with the object of clearing up these anomalies.” (Rand Daily Mail, 30 May 1931).
At the 1926 Imperial Conference, General Hertzog was a “prime mover in securing the definition and codification of the new status by the Imperial Conference. ... [He] found himself in sympathy with the Irish and Canadian representatives.” (Rand Daily Mail, 30 May 1931).
“The ... statute was passed to give effect to the resolutions of the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930. The Reports of these Conferences, and of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, 1929, which forms part of the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1930, state that the United Kingdom and the Dominions ‘are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs’,” states Steibel (1933, p 32).
That was the basis upon which “... [in] South Africa the Statute was approved by the Lower House on April 22nd and by the Senate on May 8th, 1931, but the discussion which took place in the House of Assembly disclosed a considerable measure of apprehension lest the terms of the Statute might derogate from the validity of the ‘entrenched’ clauses of the South Africa Act of 1909, particularly clause 152. This provides for the amendment of the Act and the procedure to be followed in the
repeal or alteration of, among others, the clauses affecting the non-European voters in the Cape Provinces and the use of English and Dutch as the official languages of the Union” (The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1931, p 4).
This marked the beginning of a prolonged and sustained period in which nationalistic leanings (Sunday Times, 1931) and the national question of South Africa would dominate Union politics, and spill over into government policy and the economic landscape. The changes drew General Hertzog closer to General Smuts’s South African Party. General Hertzog and General Smuts were effectively two sides of the same political coin. However, the point of variance between the two was that the former had little regard for English- speaking South Africans – or the internal British – while the latter was more sympathetic. These differences were not insurmountable. In 1934, General Hertzog’s National Party forged formal ties with General Smuts’s South African Party, in an arrangement that resulted in the formation of the United Party.
Both generals were fervent supporters of racial segregation, which resulted in substantial support being provided to white farmers and poor whites during the Great Depression. Furthermore, their brand of social Darwinism found expression in the adoption of job reservation policies in favour of whites while aggressively curtailing the movement of black South Africans into the cities.
The Slums Act 53 of 1934, for instance, enabled the government to declare certain areas as ‘slums’. This resulted in inhabitants being relocated along racial lines. Black South Africans were often moved outside cities, away from economic opportunity, while white residents remained behind in better housing conditions.
86