The Bantustan System
The Bantu Authorities Act (1951) and the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (1959)
- The apartheid regime's central plan for territorial segregation was the establishment of homelands, or Bantustans, aimed at assigning every Black ethnic group its own autonomous area.
- The official reason given by Hendrik Verwoerd for establishing the Bantustans was that they would allow each Black ethnic group in South Africa to develop independently and govern itself in its own territory.
- Verwoerd argued that this was a policy of "separate development", not racial oppression.
- This framing allowed the apartheid government to claim it was respecting Black sovereignty while, in reality, using the Bantustan system to strip millions of Black South Africans of their citizenship, exclude them from political participation, and contain them in underdeveloped and economically dependent areas.
- The Bantustans were introduced through two key laws: the Bantu Authorities Act (1951) and the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (1959).
- The 1951 Act dissolved existing national Black representation and replaced it with regional authorities based in the reserves, strengthening state control over African communities.
Tip
- In practice, Bantustans were led by Black South Africans. The apartheid government relied heavily on traditional chiefs and tribal leaders to administer the Bantustans.
- These individuals were often co-opted or appointed by the state, rather than chosen by popular consensus.
- Their authority depended on their willingness to collaborate with the apartheid regime, making them extensions of white control rather than representatives of genuine Black self-determination.
- Homeland leaders typically governed through undemocratic means, suppressing political opposition and dissent within their territories.
- These administrations often banned opposition parties, censored criticism, and used state security forces to silence activists.
- Many became known for corruption, nepotism, and violent crackdowns on protest, further alienating them from the people they governed.
- The vast majority of Black South Africans viewed homeland leaders as puppets of the apartheid system, lacking both moral authority and popular support.
- Rather than serving the interests of their people, these leaders were widely seen as benefiting from their privileged positions while enabling apartheid's broader strategy of exclusion and fragmentation.
Division of Black South Africans Into Ethnic Categories
- By 1959, the government formally divided Black South Africans into ten ethnic categories, each expected to evolve into a self-governing nation, with white officials overseeing the transition.
- These homelands were meant to strip Black South Africans of national citizenship, recasting them as citizens of their ethnic regions-regardless of where they actually lived.
- In 1970, the state formally declared that all Black South Africans belonged to the homelands, making them political outsiders in the country of their birth.
- Four Bantustans-Transkei (1976), Bophuthatswana (1977), Venda (1979), and Ciskei (1981)-were granted nominal independence, though no international recognition followed (except partial support from Taiwan and Israel).
Case study
Transkei, the first “Independent” Homeland (1976)
- Transkei was the first Bantustan to be declared an independent state by the apartheid government, on 26 October 1976.
- It was presented as a model of “separate development,” where the Xhosa-speaking population could supposedly exercise full self-rule.
- However, no country other than South Africa recognized its independence.
- Transkei was assembled from several disconnected and economically weak areas in the Eastern Cape, which had previously been part of the native reserves.
- The land allocated was largely poor and agriculturally marginal, often land that white farmers did not want.
- Its borders were drawn not for viability but to align with apartheid ideology.
- Kaiser Matanzima, was appointed as the leader of Transkei. Although he claimed to represent the Xhosa people, Matanzima ruled with authoritarian methods and became deeply unpopular.
- He was widely regarded as a puppet of the apartheid regime and tolerated no political opposition.
- The Transkei government was known for corruption and political repression.
- Dissenting voices and anti-apartheid activists were silenced, imprisoned, or forced into exile.
- The state used its “independent” status to justify cracking down on critics without South African legal oversight.
- Despite its status as “independent,” Transkei was heavily reliant on South Africa for financial aid, military support, and employment.
- It had no real economy and was mainly used as a dumping ground for surplus Black labor.
- Most working-age men lived elsewhere, especially in mining compounds or cities, while their families remained in poverty back home.
Geography
- Geographically, the Bantustans were fragmented and economically unviable. Some, like Bophuthatswana, consisted of dozens of non-contiguous land patches.
- These territories were often located on the least fertile land, a legacy of the 1913 Natives Land Act, which had already consigned Africans to marginal regions.
- Over time, the homelands became overcrowded dumping grounds for surplus Black labour. Despite making up only 13% of the land, they eventually housed over 50% of the Black population.
- Apartheid authorities continued to exploit the homelands for cheap labour, denying homeland residents any legal employment rights in white South Africa.
- Although attempts were made to promote homeland economies-like through the Bantu Investment Corporation Act (1959)-these efforts largely failed, except for isolated ventures such as Sun City, a leisure resort in Bophuthatswana.
Case study
Sun City
- Sun City was a lavish hotel and entertainment complex built in Bophuthatswana, a Bantustan declared “independent” by the apartheid regime in 1977.
- It quickly became a symbol of extravagance, catering primarily to white South Africans seeking leisure activities not allowed in white areas.
- Because apartheid laws did not technically apply in the “independent” Bantustans, Sun City could offer banned forms of entertainment, such as gambling, nude shows, and interracial performances.
- These activities were illegal in South Africa proper, making Sun City a popular escape for white tourists wanting access to these forbidden pleasures.
- The existence of Sun City exposed the moral contradictions of apartheid.
- While the homelands were justified as a means to protect Black cultural purity and self-determination, they were simultaneously used to generate profit and entertainment for whites.
- This illustrated how Bantustans served the apartheid economy and white desires rather than Black empowerment.
- Sun City became a controversial international symbol of apartheid. In the 1980s, the global anti-apartheid movement targeted it, and numerous musicians, including Bruce Springsteen and U2, refused to perform there.
- The 1985 “Sun City” protest song by Artists United Against Apartheid called out entertainers who ignored the cultural boycott and played at the venue, helping to raise awareness of apartheid injustices worldwide.
