Slow and Steady in South Africa

EVER SINCE the Nationalist Party assumed power in South Africa in 1948 and instituted apartheid, friction between Blacks and whites has escalated dramatically. There have been continuous protests highlighted by serious riots in 1960 and further violence in 1976.

Yet this turbulence and activism has achieved nothing. Blacks remain as subjugated as ever; the tension between the races continues to smolder.

The very ineffectiveness of anti-apartheid protests ironically is one of the most potent arguments against immediate majority rule in South Africa, desirable as it is in the long run. Both the Afrikaners and the Blacks are intractable in their opposition to sharing power. Like two huge boulders pressed against one another, each refuses to budge. Only tremendous violence will break the impasse and bring immediate majority rule. Yet such revolution would only blow each boulder asunder--polarizing the races more than ever.

Such a tumult would ravage the country physically and almost certainly kill tens of thousands, dwarfing in duration and bloodshed the bushwar in Zimbabwe. Besides, the stakes are much larger in the wealthier South Africa, for the Afrikaners, knowing they have nowhere else to go if the Blacks were to prevail in a civil war, would fight to a bitter end. Very rarely is violence the best means of resolving conflict; a revolution to bring about immediate majority rule might be the worst.

IMMEDIATE MAJORITY rule requires instituting a new voting policy in a hurry. But sudden movements tend to upset delicate equilibria, like the relative peace now in South Africa. In such a dangerous and unbalanced situation, literally anything could occur. Witness the notorious excesses of revolutions from France in 1789 to Iran two years ago.

African history dramatizes the dangers of immediate and nationwide suffrage; in Mozambique, Angola and most recently, in Zimbabwe, whites left in droves, fearing reverse discrimination. In the past five years, the white population of Zimbabwe has dropped from about 300,000 to 180,000. White desertion psychologically hurts remaining whites, instilling in many a fortress mentality. And the tremendous loss of skilled white manpower can devastate newly independent states. In many post-independent states, complicated machinery cannot be fixed because all the skilled repairmen have left. Only about ten skilled fitters and turners remain in all of Zimbabwe.

The economic consequences of immediate majority rule would be especially dire for South Africa, the most industrialized nation on the continent. Very few Blacks have had access to the education required of industry managers or government administrators. The poverty of now-independent colonies is mute testimony to this point: Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia, Zaire and Angola are among the poorest countries in the world, and many are debt-ridden or bankrupt. As soon as these states became independent, productivity plummeted and industry rumbled to a halt.

The geopolitical consequences of immediate majority rule through revolution seem equally unpalatable. South Africa would almost certainly become a socialist state aligned with Soviet bloc nations; the Soviet Union, directly or indirectly, supports most liberation movements suppressed by the Afrikaners, Socialist states have arisen in post-independent Mozambique and Angola; Namibia may follow suit. All of which pleases the Soviets immensely. They realize that the West would lose its control over the Cape sea-route--used by most oil tankers travelling from the Middle East to Europe and America--and the valuable mineral resources of the sub-continent if South Africa joins the Communist bloc.

STILL, SOUTH AFRICA need not settle for the morally reprehensible status quo of apartheid. The West could encourage such reform. Gradually and peacefully implementing Black rule is far more sensible. It could negotiate with Pretoria to provide economic support in return for South African adoption of a restricted franchise based on educational criteria--with free education available to all. In this scenario--utopian as it may be--more and more Blacks would gradually gain voting rights; eventually, they would take over the reins of government.

Such a gradual transition just might placate white fears, while educating Blacks to run the country along with the whites. It would not jettison firm ties with the West; it would bypass the polarization and strife that come with revolution.

Certainly apartheid is morally indefensible; equally certainly, majority rule should eventually occur. But it must not occur immediately. As Prime Minister Botha said recently, "We must adapt or die." Those who call for immediate majority rule--and the concomitant bloodshed of revolution--pave the way for needless death and suffering.