WI/AHC: Federal Union of South Africa?

[Nanwe]

I was recently reading about the negotiations between the British colonies in today's South Africa and the intense debate over the territorial structure of what was to be the Union of South Africa and in the South Africa Act of 1909.

According to Wikipedia, most of the colonies' governments preferred a federal structure but ultimately, due to the pressure from Jan Smuts, the Union would adopt a unitary territorial model with a Westminster-style unchecked, sovereign legislature.

So I was wondering how a federal structure could be adopted for the Union and how that could have impacted the development of a unified South Africa from 1904 on. ANy takers?

 

[Nanwe]

Bumping this, idk if @Marius you might have an idea?

 

[Ricardolindo]

I think that if South Africa was a federation, South Rhodesia would have joined it, which strenghtens the United Party and probably prevents Apartheid as we know it.

 

[Alex Richards]

I think that if South Africa was a federation, South Rhodesia would have joined it, which strenghtens the United Party and probably prevents Apartheid as we know it.

I can buy 'South Rhodesia joins a Federal South Africa' but I think the rest is unlikely. Or rather I suspect what you get is at least initially the United Party is strengthened, but then you get a bit dramatic split between Pro-Apartheid and anti-Apartheid (as in 'status quo') camps, with the former aligning with the Afrikaaners on that issue.

 

[LordInsane]

Would it even be certain that the United Party would be formed, given South African politics will be different from at least 1909 on? Perhaps, for an example with relatively minor changes, you could see the Unionist Party be strengthened enough that when it merges into the South African Party it is a visibly more equitable merger that leaves Barry Hertzog's National Party unwilling to re-unite with the SAP under the United Party banner.

 

[Japhy]

I think that if South Africa was a federation, South Rhodesia would have joined it, which strenghtens the United Party and probably prevents Apartheid as we know it.

The Unionist Party of course stood for what became Rhodesia-style Segregation verging on Slavery. So you know, not much better.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

A Federal South Africa including Southern Rhodesia is still going to see gross segregation- and its definitely going to see massive discrimination in land.

The alliance of white labour and Afrikaner nationalism that in OTL produced Apartheid is still going to exist. Anglophone South Africans were generally just as racist as their Afrikaner counterparts. The big change would be regarding South Africa's relationship with Britian and also the prosect of continued European migration.

I have a nasty feeling this would make Apartheid worse, as you basically would end up with a job creation program for European immigrants at the expense of black, Coloured and Asian South Africans. So domestically and internationally the situation resembles the interwar period but worse for non whites.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

A Federal South Africa does also have a greater chance of convincing Britian to let it annex Northern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Swaziland Letheso. Particuarly the first two.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

Having said that, an Anglo dominated South Africa could have interesting repercussions for the relationship between white Afrikaners, the Cape Coloureds and and the Griqua community.

 

[Bonniecanuck]

Would a POD in the late 1870's work? The Zulu war could be averted and you could have a southern African federation consisting of both white and black states, with the black states obviously having a second-tier status.

So you'd have Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, and Orange Free State as full status federal entities and Basutoland, Swaziland, Zululand, and Bechuanaland as second tier ones to start.

You'd have to have some fairly complicated federal entity to manage this. Maybe a Governor-General in the Cape who's responsible for the black states, a Westminster-style Parliament (or a bicameral system like the U.S.) that has power over the white states and a Senate type entity that includes black and white representatives but has limited legislative power.

Was this the plan before the First Boer War? I feel like this would be hard for the Boer republics to accept considering they would be subordinating themselves to London again after their independence had been recognised a couple decades prior. And even if they ultimately did, the resultant federation would likely be even more decentralised than Canada, and the former Boer states would probably hold even more sway over federal affairs than Quebec did.

 

[Gary Oswald]

My understanding is that the plan was to form a federation of small Southern African states all subordinate to the Cape and that disbanding the Zulu army was considered a necessary step so the British could be the undisputed military power in the region. I haven't read anything directly on the subject other than knowing that was the background to the Zulu war. I don't think there was a plan beyond the Governor-General at the Cape being in charge of all the protectorates, but I imagine that over time it would evolve into a federation of some kind or another.

This was the plan (though it must be said it was only a plan of parts of the British government with others bits rather seriously opposed), but then the First Boer War happened on the basis that the Boers weren't terribly keen on the idea.

 

[Gary Oswald]

They were going along with it until the Zulu War; I always had the impression that seeing how transparently bullshit the British pretext for aggression was and how incompetently they handled every aspect of the war gave them both the motivation and confidence to tell the British off outright.

There was also the fact that one of the things that the Boers were most scared of was the British-Zulu Alliance. One of the things the Zulu War did was remove the threat of the British sic'ing a Zulu Army on them. The British were also kind enough to remove the Bapedi, who'd been soundly trouncing the Boers in guerilla wars, from the game board by defeating them upon request of their Boer subjects.

 

[Charles EP M.]

If there's no war with the Zulus and an Anglo-Zulu alliance sticks around as the proverbial stick for the Boers, would Zululand actually be in the hypothetical South African federation or would they get to remain an independent state?

 

[Gary Oswald]

If there's no war with the Zulus and an Anglo-Zulu alliance sticks around as the proverbial stick for the Boers, would Zululand actually be in the hypothetical South African federation or would they get to remain an independent state?

British Policy has always been that allies are nice but client states are better.

Burtons right that the Anglo-Zulu war came out of nowhere in so much as the settlers of natal, the zulu king and the british government all liked the status quo and had no desire to go to war, but Bartle-Frere and the military wanted a reckoning for many reasons, most of which are paranoia, in terms of seeing them at a centre of a black conspiracy for a native insurrection but also in terms of land disputes, conflicts over missionaries etc. being resolved easier without the hassle of them being an independent state.

Someone is eventually going to make that call and demand a Zulu King accepts one of their pre existing british advisors becomes their resident and take control over foreign policy. The more successful the UK is at avoiding a boer rebellion, the more arrogant they'll get and the more likely they are to do that.

I have seen timelines in which the Zulus just accept that as long as they get the deal the Tswana were offered and not the deal they were offered in OTL where the army had to be disbanded. I'm somewhat skeptical of that.

Cetshwayo was probably the single most pacifistic King any native polity in Africa had during this time period and he fought for his independence.

There is also the fact that native kingdoms who accepted that deal with the British, or in the case of the Swazi the Boers, did it under circumstances where the Boers were invading and it was vassalitude or extermination. If the Boers are kept quiet, the motives on a) the African side to accept being a protectorate and b) the British side to offer good terms are much reduced.

My gut instinct is avoiding an anglo-zulu war in the 1870s gives you one in the 1890s.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I can buy 'South Rhodesia joins a Federal South Africa' but I think the rest is unlikely. Or rather I suspect what you get is at least initially the United Party is strengthened, but then you get a bit dramatic split between Pro-Apartheid and anti-Apartheid (as in 'status quo') camps, with the former aligning with the Afrikaaners on that issue.

Considering Rhodesia was never as bad as Apartheid South Africa and the United Party planned to expand the franchise over time, I disagree.

The Unionist Party of course stood for what became Rhodesia-style Segregation verging on Slavery. So you know, not much better.

IMO, any improvement is welcome.

A Federal South Africa including Southern Rhodesia is still going to see gross segregation- and its definitely going to see massive discrimination in land.

The alliance of white labour and Afrikaner nationalism that in OTL produced Apartheid is still going to exist. Anglophone South Africans were generally just as racist as their Afrikaner counterparts. The big change would be regarding South Africa's relationship with Britian and also the prosect of continued European migration.

I have a nasty feeling this would make Apartheid worse, as you basically would end up with a job creation program for European immigrants at the expense of black, Coloured and Asian South Africans. So domestically and internationally the situation resembles the interwar period but worse for non whites.

The United Party was very much in favor of Coloured rights.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

Considering Rhodesia was never as bad as Apartheid South Africa and the United Party planned to expand the franchise over time, I disagree.



IMO, any improvement is welcome.



The United Party was very much in favor of Coloured rights.

Not as bad as Aparthied South Africa is a fucking terrible bar to be able to cross.

The United Party in OTL 1948 has committed itself sort of maybe to eventually intetegrating black South Africans.

But a Federal South Africa including Southern Rhodesia wouldn't be an improvement. The terms of the agreement by which Southern Rhodesia wpuld enter the Union actually stipulated that Southern Rhodesia introduce a Colour Bar to its Franchise.

To say they were in favour of the rights of Coloured South Africans is a misnomer. They were incidentally not opposed to them but they never had a Party platform of "enfranchise all the Coloureds".

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

When white Southern Rhodeisan and Northern Rhodeisans settlers proposed uniting (amalgamating) the two Colonies, the proposal was for the South to basically annex the North. And extend its systems of formal segregation and discrimination there.

Southern Rhodesia in the Union won't strengthen Afrikaner Nationalism. But it certainly will strengthen the already dominant conservative faction in the United Party.

 

[Japhy]

Considering Rhodesia was never as bad as Apartheid South Africa and the United Party planned to expand the franchise over time, I disagree.

IMO, any improvement is welcome.

Yeah, yeah everyone else is wrong as per usual.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Yeah, yeah everyone else is wrong as per usual.

Don’t be like that. I simply think that Apartheid South Africa was so bad that any improvement would be welcome.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

Don’t be like that. I simply think that Apartheid South Africa was so bad that any improvement would be welcome.

An expanded South Africa, particularly one that annexes Southern & Northern Rhodesia and so forth is probably going to end up with something resembling Apartheid anyway.