Don’t be like that. I simply think that Apartheid South Africa was so bad that any improvement would be welcome.
The problem with that, in the South African case, is that there are improvements which would have helped South Africa from the beginning, and then there are improvements which would have made apartheid worse, or just as bad without some of the more egregious stuff. As a result, expansionism towards Rhodesia (Northern and Southern) and federalism I would consider two separate things.
First off, before I tackle the OP, the Rhodesia bit must be addressed. Now, before Southern Rhodesia was formed, that area was actually
BSAC company territory. The quick way to describe BSAC rule over Rhodesia as a whole, considering it based itself on the East India Company, is that it was absolutely awful if you were an African. As both Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia developed separate histories under direct colonial rule, their paths somewhat diverged, with Southern Rhodesia in particular aiming for what an American would immediately recognize as a Jim Crow society with the dial turned up. Now, granted, treating Africans as second-class citizens was different from their treatment in South Africa, where both the colonial regime and the Afrikaner leaders treated their African communities much like how the United States, Canada, and Australia treated their indigenous communities (with all the horrors that resulted) and combined that with a very warped interpretation of Kuyper's
sphere sovereignty theory to justify their policies. The effect of both, however, was basically the same; even under BSAC rule, plans were already drawn up to shift towards "Native Reserves" similar to Native American reservations in the US and which already existed in South Africa. Apartheid (or, rather, proto-apartheid) was already making its way to the Rhodesias, whether or not the population wanted it.
So expanding South Africa to include the Rhodesias would have no effect on the government's treatment of Africans. In fact, federation would make the treatment of the Rhodesias' African communities even worse (as can be demonstrated with South-West Africa, which became a de facto South African province despite international obligations first to the League of Nations and then to the UN). The only major difference would be a larger presence of Anglophone communities. Furthermore, the United Party would not even exist and thus the original core parts, the right-wing South African Party, the equally right-wing National Party, and the Unionist Party. Expansion of South Africa would benefit the SAP and the NP more than it would the Unionists, who would be permanently locked into a minority position on a national level, although all three would radicalize as socialist and communist movements start taking root. Regardless of what form South Africa takes (and remember that even IOTL the apartheid status quo was defended as "federalism" even if it definitely was not), this was going to be certain. Interestingly, Tswana objections to Bechuanaland being incorporated into South Africa proved to be a correct decision.
With that out of the way, let's shift gears and go straight to the OP.
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?
That definitely sounds interesting. This leaves open a question - what type of federalism were the colonies seeking? A Canadian-style centralized federalism (as it was at the time)? Australian-style? Something else entirely?
If I were to tackle a TL involving this, one of the first things I would do would be to transform the Cape Colony into separate provinces (basically following the OTL 1994 formula, but differently) because it looks too large in comparison with the other provinces. The only "1994 formula" (modern) province I'd use in that case would be Western Cape, but then after that I would draw a blank. The main thing, I see it, to get federalism going is precisely to modify Smuts' role so that his objections would be over-ruled and federalism entrenched as part of the system. Given that the design of the South African Senate seems to be similar to the Australian Senate (with some key differences, including the omission of the double dissolution), I'd think Australia's system would be the perfect model for South Africa. How it could impact the development of South African history, I don't know. Perhaps federalism could act as a bit of a check on the power of the federal government? (But that wouldn't necessarily be the case, as even Australia eventually had a centralized system thanks to the social safety net.)
