From: South Africa's Radical Tradition, a documentary history, Volume Two 1943 - 1964, by Allison Drew
Document 54 - K. A. Jordaan, "What are the National Groups in South Africa? A Contribution to the Symposium", Forum Club, Cape Town, May 1954
In analysing a subject of this nature [... ] it is necessary to warn against a definitional approach to the national question and the problem of nationalities and its mechanical application to a given situation without a thorough assessment of the extant social and political arrangements. The truth is always concrete.
1. The National Question: General Considerations According to the classical meaning of the term, the national question presents itself as the problem of altering the relations one nation has with a foreign nation. The one is the oppressor; the other is the oppressed; the one is the hammer; the other is the anvil. The oppressed nation seeks to alter this relationship with the oppressing nation by its struggle for national independence and its demand for self-determination, that is, the right to separate state existence.
The Polish question of the nineteenth century is the classical instance of the nationalities problem. For more than a century the Poles lay under the heel of Russian absolutism as well as of German militarism. Thus, on the one hand, they were subjected to a rigorous policy of Russification, and on the other, to a policy of Germanisation. These policies were a calculated attempt to stamp out these traits and characteristics whereby the Poles justified themselves as a separate national group with their separate interests, and ipso facto, their right to a separate state existence. To this end, therefore, the Polish language was not recognised; the chief posts in the Polish government were filled by members of the foreign overlords; only the languages and customs of the oppressing nations were given official recognition. In this way, the Polish nation was lashed to the war chariot of foreign nations and sucked dry, economically, culturally and politically.
India furnishes us with the second example of the national question. Because of the multi-national set-up in that country, there are two prongs to the national question: firstly, the political liberation of all the Indian national groups from Imperialism: and secondly, the right of every Indian national group to complete cultural and political autonomy within the orbit of an independent India. This movement for autonomy by the Indian national groups is a very strong one because they had since time immemorial existed as distinct cultural groupings. Their desire for a separate existence is theirs as of historical right, like the Poles or Czechs.
Four main conclusions can be drawn from these two examples of the national question. Firstly, a homogeneous national movement develops strong centripetal forces whereas a heterogeneous national movement generates powerful centrifugal forces. Thus, on the one hand, the movement for German unification led to the assimilation of all the disjecta membra of the German nation under one central state, while, on the other hand, the dismemberment of the multi-national Austro-Hungarian Empire culminated in the formation of various states. Secondly, national liberation involves the combined movement of all classes and groups composing the oppressed nation. Thirdly, the national struggle is primarily directed at the overthrow of political and legal discrimiÂnation between one nation and another. It does not necessarily involve a change in the economic structure of the liberated nation. And finally, a successful national struggle, while it means the liberation of the oppressed nation from the oppressing nation, does not necessarily imply the extension of full democracy to the constituent elements. To be sure, the political oppression and economic exploitation of one class by another or of one group by another can still continue within the liberated nation itself.
2. The National Question in South Africa
What, then, are the differentia specified of the national question in South Africa? How are we going to apply the classical slogan of "national independence and the right to self-determination" to our problem of national liberation? There is no doubt that we are not dealing here with the problem of changing South Africa's relations with a foreign nation. The Act of Union, 1909, the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the Status and Seals Act, 1934, all gave South Africa its full political independence as a nation as well as its right to independent state existence.
Our national question revolves around the question rather of the internal arrangeÂments of the South African State. The form of this multi-national state must be distinguished from its content. Within the framework of this independent nation, one-fifth oppresses four-fifths of the people. Concretely speaking, certain South African groups are oppressed by other South African groups. British, Afrikaner and Jewish South AfriÂcans oppress the African, Indian and Coloured South Africans. Our national problem therefore presents itself as the struggle of four-fifths of the nation to alter their status under the state within that nation and to attain the same status enjoyed by one-fifth of that nation. This involves three things: the equalization of political and legal rights (the full franchise); the right to sell one's labour power in any field of economic activity (the abolition of the industrial colour bar); and the right to buy and possess property in any area (the abolition of the reserves and so-called native territories, as well as the abolition of laws which restrict on the grounds of colour the right of buying and selling).
The South African national question therefore differs from the national movements in other countries in that it does not aim at establishing new and different relations with an outside nation or people. It aims at establishing new and different relations within the South African nation itself. Secondly, our national question is unique also in this respect that the solution to the national question is at one and the same time the solution to the question of democracy. More concretely: our movement is national because it aims at the overthrow of the oppression of peoples by other peoples within the same nation; our movement is democratic because the overthrow of such oppression automatically leads to the extension of democratic rights possessed by one-fifth to four-fifths of the nation. Ours is, in short, a truly national democratic movement.
In determining the character and the future of our national democratic struggle, one must beware of using as the point of departure those artificial Herrenvolk racial divisions. It is unfortunately an indication of our political primitiveness that certain political groups and individuals can conceive of our struggle, our organisational forms and the future of South African society only in terms of those racial categories foisted on us by Herrenvolkism. Thus there are people who conceive of our struggle as a purely African demand for land, as if the Africans would be satisfied with land alone. Others consider the democratic struggle purely as a Non-European struggle. And there are some who are perpetuating the tradition of racial separation by incorporating into their political organisational forms those racial divisions, which Herrenvolkism is preserving in society at large.
Our movement is, on the contrary, a movement, which embraces all those people who are opposed to the present system of national oppression and race discrimination.
Our movement has a place for every person who subscribes to its programme. It follows therefore that there is a place for every South African in the society of the future. This it necessarily be so, because the movement does not only offer the oppressed peoples the whole nation a solution to the present-day problems facing the country. And in freeing the oppressed peoples, the movement thereby also frees the whole of South African humanity. For no people oppressing other people can be free.
It must not, however, be taken to mean that the national movement will make the slightest concession to white arrogance or chauvinism. It emphatically asserts that in establishing a democratic republic the majority of the nation, the Africans, will clearly leave their imprint on the form the state is to assume. From the point of view of their number alone, it is indubitable that the Africans will dominate the councils of the new on.
3. The Problem of National Groups
What is a national group? It consists of people who, by virtue of their common racial graphical or linguistic antecedents, consider themselves or are considered to be a distinct or separate racial entity. In the light of this definition, the Africans, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Afrikaners can be regarded as national groupings. The question now arises: Should we sponsor a movement for the complete separation of these national groups and their separate existence in their separate territories? Is there a demand for such a dismemberment of the South African nation?
There is no evidence that any national grouping is raising any demand for an existence separate and apart from the rest of South Africa. There is, moreover, no land by any national group for the development of their own special culture. On the contrary, the members of every national group feel and consider themselves to be an inextricable part of one nation, and they resist any attempt to divide them from the rest South Africa. To be sure, if there is any move at present for cultural differentiation, then it emanates from the ruling classes themselves. The Nationalist-sponsored Bantu educational system is a case in point. This system seeks to revivify and to encourage se obsolete Bantu traits and characteristics which are the relics and the reminders of tribal past. Contrary to any demand by the Africans, for example, the use of the Bantu vernacular in schools is being made compulsory. And by encouraging a peculiar Bantu culture and mode of life, the ruling classes are trying to justify their special treatment, that is, their inferior status in the South African nation. The move for a Bantustan also comes from the Herrenvolk, though the Africans are implacably opposed to any special treatment or to any special home.
It is reactionary from two points of view to advocate the recrudescence of an obsolete Bantu culture. It is reactionary because it constitutes an attempt to unwind the historical film in reverse when the historic process is tending to knit more closely every section of the South African nation to meet the needs of a-modern industrial system – the fundamental pre-requisite for the socialist reconstruction of any society. It is reactionary because it means the aiding and abetting of Herrenvolk schemes to differentiate between sections of the nation in order to safeguard European interests.
There is no doubt that our problem of national groupings differs from the nationaliÂties question in India. The peculiar historical evolution of this sub-continent precluded the development of any distinctive culture by any national group. The industrial revolution in this country which began with the discovery of gold and diamonds gave the Africans no opportunity whatsoever of establishing on the smoking ruins of tribalism any peculiar culture of their own and of becoming a distinct national entity. They had perforce to take a tremendous leap from tribalism to modern wage slavery and assimilate the culture of a progressively higher type of society. Where certain aspects of the tribal past still exist, then those are assiduously preserved by the ruling classes and combined with the most modem forms of exploitation and oppression. This is the law of combined development. The Boers, also, were at no time able to evade the dynamics of capitalist development in this country. When they were able to establish simple peasant republics, these were at all times dependent on British capitalism economically, and subjected to the corrosive and assimilative forces of that system. The Coloureds themselves are not a race or nation aspiring to independent existence. Having been part and parcel of the European people for over two centuries, they had their links with the white severed by the Union. They are Europeans and know of no other culture. Finally, the Indians are of such diverse racial antecedents that one cannot conceive of them as a cohesive and homogeneous group. A national grouping demands a separate national existence on the grounds of historical and cultural rights. In South Africa, no national group is making such a demand because no national group has any distinct cultural or historical traditions.
Despite the attempts of the Herrenvolk to accentuate our differences, the democratic movement, on the contrary, emphasises the similarities of the nationally oppressed groups. And these similarities are our common and indivisible oppression, our common interests and our common destiny. We emphasise the fact that we are not only one nation economically. We also emphasise the fact that we are one nation psychologically, because we think of ourselves, we act and react like members of one nation.
It is quite possible that after the consummation of the democratic struggle, a section or sections even of the South African nation would ask for autonomy, even if only for cultural autonomy. The thing cannot be anticipated. Certainly we will grant any group this right to cultural autonomy or secession. But to raise this problem now when there is no demand for it is to confuse the epilogue of the struggle with the prologue. We will give cognisance to these things if and when they do arise.
4. The National Struggle in Relation to Socialism Every national movement has as its objective the triumph of capitalist democracy. This is a fundamental proposition of the materialist conception of history which it is necessary to reiterate in view of the many misconceptions on this score. While it is clearly linked up with the struggle for socialism and while it is true that historical stages can be telescoped, a national liberatory movement must not be confused with the movement for the social ownership of the instruments of labour. The one involves a political revolution, nothing more, nothing less; the other argues a social revolution to change the very economic basis of society.
Let us take two examples to confirm this postulate. The Indian national movement has as its task the complete elimination of British Imperialism as a political factor from the Indian body politic. A bloc of three classes was formed to this end; the capitalists, the peasantry and the proletariat. Each class, let it be noted, temporarily liberated itself from its own peculiar economic interests to join in a united front with other classes for the political liberation of the oppressed Indian nation. The question of the radical Iteration in the economic base of India did not and, indeed, could not crop up. For how can a bloc of classes tackle it with conflicting economic interests and aspirations? In South Africa, secondly, the national movement is not directed against the present property relations. It is calling for a radical change in the form and application and not the content of capitalist laws. The demand for the full franchise, the demand for the abolition of the colour bar and race discrimination - these all involve political changes, not changes in the basic capitalist system of production.
The question now arises: Can our democratic struggle be consummated within the framework of the existing capitalist system? It is here that we have to distinguish between the formal programmatic demands of the movement and the practical results if their implementation. The theoretically possible must be distinguished from the practically probable.
Our revolution is clearly bourgeois, or more correctly, capitalist democratic, in its formal aspect. But who is going to make this revolution? The white capitalists have consistently displayed their impotence to consummate their own revolution by fighting against those obsolete institutions which are stultifying the free development of capitalism. Does this task therefore devolve on the Non-White bourgeoisie? Once again. South Africa is singular in the respect that, unlike India, Indonesia and China, she has no native bourgeoisie of any numerical significance. For at every turn in its revolution, capitalism has prevented the emergence of any large Non-White bourgeoisie either in the form of industrialists or peasants of trading and commercial classes. Our movement does not consist of a bloc of these classes. The Proletariat constitutes the preponderant majority in our national struggle.
It seems to me that the belated historic task of the capitalist class is now being shouldered off on the proletariat. This, to be sure, is nothing new in the history of revolutions. It is part of the law of the uneven development of capitalism. The oppressed lave had no tradition in private ownership under capitalism. I venture to suggest, therefore, that the proletariat will emerge at the head of the national movement and proceed to solve the contradictions of capitalism by proletarian methods of class struggle. More concretely, the national movement will find it impossible to solve the problem of democracy and the aspirations of the dispossessed elements within the framework of capitalism. Two examples will suffice. The abolition under capitalism of the laws regulating land ownership will in fact place all the land in the possession of the moneyed classes and leave the landless more landless. The abolition of the colour bar in the economic sphere will not satisfy the aspirations of the proletarian majority in the national movement to enjoy the fruits of their own labour.
The democratic struggle will therefore be uninterrupted and permanent in character by transforming the political revolution into a social revolution and reconstructing society on socialist principles. The task will greatly be facilitated, not only by the presence of a weak and insignificant local bourgeoisie, but by a tottering capitalist system on a world scale. That is the main conclusion we can draw from this analysis.