May 31, 1966 Prime Minister Verwoerd on The Fifth Anniversary of The Republic

Speech by Dr HF Verwoerd, Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa, on the Occasion of the First Quinquennial Celebration of the Republic of South Africa at Monument Hill, Pretoria, on May 31, 1966

Dear countrymen and fellow citizens,
The light of the sun of freedom was extinguished years ago, but not forever. In this Republic of South Africa we are once again abiding in the full strength of its light, in the warmth which it spreads; we are a free, happy and prosperous nation.

We shall not have the privilege of gathering in this wonderful place every five years. Every fifth year we shall, however, celebrate the birth of the Republic. We shall do it because as a nation it binds us closer together in the unity we want, the unity which we must have in the face of the attacks surrounding us. But every fifth year we shall have the main celebrations in another part of the country. You are thus again tonight attending a unique event which the next generation will live to see here in perhaps twenty or twenty-five years’ time.

Where we are tonight so united in spirit and in our numbers, I want to point out to you the strength of an ideal, the strength of the human mind which precedes the deed. A nation without bearings, that does not know whither it wants to go, will not get anywhere; similarly so with a human being in his personal life. It is the choice of an ideal, an aim set clearly, which leads to victory in the end. And it is since the day that we, as a nation, set the Republic as an ideal, that we have been inspired with strength and progressed day after day in all spheres of life. The power of inspiration of the Republican ideal was not limited to the achievement of political freedom. On the contrary, it was the inspiration of all our deeds, it was the inspiration of our growth as a nation. It led to our unity, it led to our economic prosperity, and it was based on our faith in God. We placed our future in His hands and received the gift from His hands five years ago. My friends, the strength of an ideal is inexhaustible and it will inspire us still further onwards, but when we consider it we must glance back and think of those who laid the foundations.

Now I want to put you a question, and in order to prevent it from being too much confused by the emotions of our time, I want to put it as follows: If in future years one looks back on the history of the last sixty years, what will one see? My answer is quite clear that this observer of the past will see a heroic nation; a nation which could lift itself up out of defeat and rise to victory; a nation which did not remain defeated but which in spite of all the human weaknesses which it inherited like other nations, could yet rise out of its defeat and grow to greatness in all spheres of life. Greatness only exists when you can use your defeat as the foundation on which to build a future.

When the past is surveyed not only a heroic nation will be seen, but also how a clear future was unravelled out of an apparently inextricable crow’s nest. The two great streams of the history of the first sixty years of this century will be seen as two opposite streams; one which sought independence but an independence enclosed in a greater whole; a pursuit of an independent South Africa as part, firstly of the British Empire, and later of a Commonwealth. Independence, but within limits; the desire of a share in a greater unity.

Beside that was the second stream; that of a nation which wanted to become independent, altogether free of all ties, but at the same time on friendly terms with those to whom it was tied before. It was the stream of the birth of a nation; the stream of a republican form of freedom. On looking back one will see that the two clear, separate, even opposing streams, are symbolized by two groups of men. On the one side Generals Botha and Smuts and on the other side General Hertzog, Dr. Malan and Advocate Strijdom. Those who represented the first course, who also inspired to a form of unity for the nation, sought it in the rise of that unity; in accepting the fact that the weaker and smaller would find its salvation in what appeared to be an everlasting world power. On the other hand, in the second stream, there was also an aspiration to national unity, but a unity of the people alone, of those who belong together; those who are loyal to each other, loyal to their country and nation and after that loyal to everybody outside.

On looking back, the first road will be seen as the cul-de-sac and the second as the road which led to fulfilment - the republican road. But let me state clearly now that history will judge that the courses and events which were included in that first political trend - although the road led to a dead-end - were linked up with the main road. It was the smaller stream, the stream which also helped to frame the Union; a stream which originally included the idea of separating the races; a stream which within limits also sought independence. That stream, as a tributary, flowed into the main stream and helped to fill and give it capacity. In that sense I can acknowledge the contribution of that stream, with which I personally never could identify myself, to the events which are taking place today; as a tributary which flowed into the main stream and in the fullness of time helped to make possible the greatness and magnitude which we are experiencing today.

But my actual tribute must be paid to the main stream and its leaders; the leaders and the followers, the leaders and the nation. General Hertzog who started it; laid the foundation of the Republican ideal with his point of view, his aims and his endeavours. Although he later felt satisfied with the length of the road on which he was able to walk, he will remain – when in the future a survey is made of the past – the great and powerful architect of what has been achieved. After him came Dr. Malan, the prolonged leader of the republican aim and idea. In the Cape where the republican ideal was not so obvious as in the northern provinces, it was he who clinched the ideal so that when the time came we could stand side by side and make sure that what had to come, did come. Cautiously and calmly, according to his nature, he moved onwards. And then again at the right time that which was also necessary, was added – the ardour and the driving force of Advocate Strijdom, the fighting prophet who had to work to overcome obstacles, who had to work to so engrave this ideal on the heart of the nation that it could remain there indelibly; that it could not disappear but had to come to fulfilment.

My friends, we have much to thank these leaders for, but together with them we have undeniably much for which we have to thank the followers, who stood behind them right through the past six decades and were prepared to carry this burden until the day of fulfilment. The time of preparation lasted for sixty years, six decades. And then, like a flash of lightning, the Republic was there within two years! The preparation took a long time, essential details were settled, inspiration was given; but the right time had to come and when it came the nation and its leaders had to seize the hand immediately which history offered them. And it is the fame of this generation, we who are sitting together here tonight celebrating, because we did not fail; because we were ready at the right moment, ready at heart, united in our decision and courage to attempt the future.

I said that in the future we would be judged as a heroic nation. We proved that in those days in those two years of decision. In the five years of the Republic’s existence, we have proved that we can continue working onwards, but it was especially in those fateful months that we had to be prepared to act and did act!

Now I want to give expression to the often unexpressed longing of our people, that writers and poets may come into existence who can and will sing the praises of their own generation such as those of other nations in their hour of wonder. Oh, if it could also be granted to us as it was granted in the past to great nations in their hour of fame that those would come forward who do not ask hesitatingly. “what is a nation”, but who will cry out; “This is my nation, my nation is like this, thus it can do wonders, thus it can create its own future”. The writer and poet who can sing the praises of what is happening now will be quoted as long as the people of the Republic of South Africa remain. If out of our midst someone would come forward to sing the praises of the life of a nation, without hesitating to pay homage to patriotism, love of country, without following modern patterns which are the fashion elsewhere with nations who are already old, someone who in accordance with the fixed pattern of paying homage to his own people, could push aside what is carnal and ugly and see the spiritual, the beauty and the greatness in modern history and sing their praises! If only we could find such writers and poets of our time, how rich would we not feel? How rich would our people of the future be if they were told by such interpreters whom the heart of the nation feels today – five years after this miraculous event, this great milestone in the history of our people.

My friends, the Republic was once the one-sided ideal of many, but it has become the fulfilment for most. I dare say with great assurance that through these eventful five years many who were not prepared for this constitutional development in 1961, are now happy that it actually did come to pass. We have learned much in these five years. We have learned that we are, even if young, a nation in South Africa; that we all belong to that nation, that with pride we may say; this is our country, the country of all of us. Five years is an extremely short time for so strong a feeling to grow after the differences we had before. The amazing fact of life today is not that there are some who cannot yet accommodate themselves to this new era, but that so many can.

To the few who cannot yet accept this Republic as the best for South Africa and their own, there is so little to look back to, to hanker for. After all, in the past there was the link with the Commonwealth, which could be looked upon as a club of kindred spirits. It has become quite different, a conglomeration of nations, who do not understand one another in most respects. What is there to desire in that context? Let all who still cannot find it in their hearts to be wholly at one with us, realize this one fact of today’s history, and align themselves in future, whatever political objectives they may have, with us all as one nation, loving one country, prepared to defend her with all that we have.

There may be another group for whom I have no appeal and no comfort: those who would only accept the Republic if it were a multi-racial or even a Black or a “majority” Republic, as they would call it. Tonight I am not dealing with the wreckers, but with the builders. Those few who cannot see South Africa as it has grown and with all the grand ideals it also has for the others entrusted to its care, but seek to change all this into something wholly new, which would bring us to disaster and chaos as elsewhere in Africa – for them I have no word to say and with them I have no patience.

Let those of us who wish to be builders – and they are nearly the whole of this South African nation – for those of us who wish to be the builders let us continue to face the future with confidence and with hope. Let us be assured of success in the face of difficulties which we know are there. Briefly I wish to answer the question: What then is this Republic of ours, the Republic of the builders of this new nation? I can say at the outset that this Republic is part of the White man’s domain in the world. When viewed in terms of space, the White man’s domain in the world is fairly small; a tip of the great Asian-European Continent, Australia, New Zealand, great parts of the Americas, and this tip of the continent of Africa which is the anchor too of Western civilization. The White man and all that he has created for humanity through the past ages, is of incalculable importance for civilization and for history, and not only for history that has passed. He, and the spirit with which he is endowed, the characteristics which led him to this day and will in the future provide his inspiration, will always be needed where order and peace and progress are desired.

But, while we see this Republic as part of the White man’s domain, we are not unresponsive to the ideals of others. We see Africa, for example, as it is, a continent of many nations, each with its own degree of development, each with the form of government acceptable to itself, each with its own pace of progress – a continent of many nations, Black nations, and in the southern portion, White. If the world could only realize that this continent is no different from Europe with its many states and nations, and from Asia with its many states and nations! If it only could realize that in this Africa to which we belong, the differences are there and will remain there and must lead to the existence and co-existence of many widely different peoples and states. If only they could realize this, what great opportunities for better co-operation and better solution for all our problems we would then find! We are not insensitive to the ambitions of others. On the contrary we, who as a nation had to fight for what we have and who have achieved this freedom, cannot but understand similar ambitions in the breasts of others. Those who believe in their own nation and its separate existence are best capable of understanding the desires of others to achieve the same.

We understand the nationalism of each of the separate states of Africa. We understand the similar ambitions of the various nations and national groups at present within our own boundaries. And because of our own experience, we not only understand their ambitions, but would also wish to help lead them to fulfilment in the right way so that it can be an achievement not only for the selected few, a dictator or two, but for the masses, for their progress and their happiness.

This is a White republic, ruled by the white man, part of the white domain of the world, but with full understanding for the ambitions and objectives of the Black man of Africa within our own midst, our closest neighbours and those farther afield.

But this Republic is also a Republic of goodwill and friendship. We desire the well-being of all. We have no ambitions, in spite of what some say, to exploit others. Our nearest neighbours, the High Commission Territories, need have no fear. Those further away – states like Zambia, Malawi, many others farther north – need be neither jealous nor filled with fear that we have any intentions of attacking or exploiting them. The one principle we have laid down for ourselves is that we desire nobody to interfere with us, and that precept by which we wish to live, we intend to apply to others. We will not interfere in the development of Basutoland or Swaziland or Bechuanaland or Malawi or any other state of Africa. We offer goodwill, but we expect to receive goodwill in return. We will not interfere, but we will not be interfered with. And so this republic is a republic which is prepared to aid all those who need us but, since our hand of friendship has been struck aside so often, the initiative to obtain aid rests with those who need it. They must ask and we can give. We can give of our knowledge, that knowledge grown from the earth of Africa itself. We can give of our prosperity, plucked from the hard earth of Africa. Al that we possess we worked for. We are not prepared to provide handouts to buy friendship, but are prepared to aid those who wish to work for themselves. Who can keep their eyes off the possessions of others, who can keep their hands to the plough rather than outspread like beggars. We wish to help the process of self-development because no respect and no continued independence can be achieved without working hard and developing your own country yourself.

To the outside world we must also say that when the morality of our Republic is called in question, when it is said that we are not prepared to accept equality or assimilation with all who are in our midst, to them we must say that morality does not exist on the principle in which they believe, which they have experienced alone. Nations, various kinds of people who live close together, can solve that problem so easily called multi-racialism when there is a multi-national existence. I question the morality of forced assimilation or absorption of peoples.

It might be the way for some of the mighty nations of the world; it can be true that in the United States of America, its huge majority of White people can assimilate, in the course of time, the non-Whites in their midst. If that is their policy, if that is their way of life, who are we to question it? It is their problem, it is their country, those are their peoples and it is their future which they must seek themselves in their own way. Perhaps that may be the best solution there and in the United Kingdom, which has created a similar problem for itself, it may also be the right way to absorb and to assimilate, but is it the right way for a country like the Republic of South Africa? If we were to apply that principle of assimilation as if it were the only moral solution for our problems, what would happen to the White man whose heritage this South Africa is, settled by his forefathers, built by them throughout three centuries and more, a home for its people, drenched with their sweat and blood of these three centuries? Must the white population be assimilated and lost; must all that they possess and have gained be lost? Would this be right for them? Would this be right for the Coloured and the Indian minorities who would also have to be absorbed in spite of their differences, their own ambitions, partially their own religions? Must they be assimilated and lost? And for the Bantu, would it be right for them to become the dominating group, but in the course of that process to lose their various national identities and perhaps languages and customs and to suffer by being unable, as we know is the case, to direct and run and develop the degree of Western civilization this country has reached in the form of industrialization and more? Would this be right to their masses? The few who might attain power, may be satisfactory and may be wasters for all we know. The masses would become to great extent unemployed and the land desolated, as we have seen elsewhere in Africa. Would it be just to them? Would it be moral to create the semblance of freedom, but in fact allow living conditions of slavery?

True morality seeks another solution and that is the solution which this Republic is attempting today. It is the solution of doing right to all in the same way, by following the way that the nations of other continents have sought, namely of each going his separate road. To that we wish to add that we judge it our duty to help those, still far behind in civilization, along the road which for them will be long and difficult. We, the Republic of South Africa, would wish the major nations to have sufficient confidence in our honesty of purpose; in our deep desire to retain for ourselves what is justly ours, but to give to others even more than is justly theirs.

This is a Republic of peace. We seek peace, co-operation and friendship; we seek peace within our own country, and it is there. The extent of the co-operation from the various non-White groups has again come to the fore during these celebrations because they know what we wish for them.

We seek peace with our neighbours. If we are invited to the Day of Independence of Bechuanaland or Basutoland or whichever territory might wish our presence, we will be there. We seek peace and friendship with the great nations of the world. We will, however, not sacrifice this Republic and its independence and our way of life. If we are forced to by aggression, we will defend it with all that we have at our disposal. We will bring to the altar our lives, our wealth and all our possessions. This Republic is not simply to be taken away from this new nation which has come so far and is so proud of what it does possess.

We offer to our immediate neighbours co-operation and goodwill. We do not wish to exploit their interests in the form of any type of economic colonialism. We would rather see them develop on their own and in full control of what is theirs, and must remain theirs in our view, just as what is ours must remain ours according to the same policy. We offer to all the other states the same goodwill and the same co-operation. We offer to the Western nations, big and small, that friendship which we believe should accompany the kinship which we feel with all of them. If this hand of friendship is not welcome, it is not the fault of this Republic, which is built on the high values, the high moral values, which Western Civilization has created through centuries and centuries of endeavour.

And now my friends, what about the future? It is easy to foretell the future in the material field. Economic development can be vast. The conditions are there; the raw materials exist, the people are there. Concerning this I have no doubt. I do not want to elaborate on that tonight. I have equally little doubt about the solution of our racial problems, if given the time. If meddlesome people keep their hands off us, we shall in a just way, such as behoves a Christian nation, work out solutions in the finest detail and carry them out. We shall provide all our races with happiness and prosperity.

The problem of the future, however, lies in the international field, because it is not in our hands. We have a road on which we have to walk ourselves. If we can make the nations of the world understand that we are honest and sensible in our aims, then here also I have no doubt. If, however, they should want to sacrifice us and break us down because of their own selfishness in order to get support for their own purposes – not in fairness or with any moral considerations but as the victim of their ambition – then the future for us in the international field would be dark. But I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that in the end the common sense of the human race will not triumph over self-interest. Therefore, I hope that our voices, wherein we bear witness to our good intentions towards all states and people, will extend to all the world so that it will come to its senses and protect us from international pressure and attack.

If that should be the case then a golden age lies in store for South Africa, this Republic. Then we may ask the question: What do we intend making of that golden age? Only strong legs are able to carry a heavy burden. Are our legs as a nation strong? Shall we be able to build up great spiritual values out of our prosperity if we are safeguarded against attack and adversity? Shall we become contributors to art and science? Shall we keep our faith or shall we become spineless like some other nations in their prosperity? This depends on the character of our people.

If we as parents and educators use correctly the opportunity which we have, then we can build a great and mighty nation out of this young one. We will: that is my hope and my belief. I believe in our nation. I believe in our inner strength. There have been weaknesses of discord, and others – so often pushed to the fore – which are perhaps still there. But in spite of that we have grown, built, developed and conquered. Why will those characteristics not stay with us and lead us to further growth and victories? I believe that we will do it, and therefore I have an unshakeable faith in the future of our nation.

This Republic did not come into being easily or quickly. Anything built in a hurry is easily broken down. New states that are continually disintegrating have come into being. Anything that grows slowly is not destroyed easily.

Our republic has grown slowly; there were sixty years of preparation and now there have been five years of building up. Signs exist which show that the work can be continued in this way. Our slowly developing state has developed an inner strength; but more still, our state is built on self-sacrifice. The blood of brave men and women has drenched our earth. Those sacrifices burn in the life of a nation like a fire, a fire which is never quenched. Whenever difficulties arise the flame flares again, although it may burn low in the times between.

The fire that steels the hearts of people, will make us stand our ground. We shall continue to dedicate ourselves wholeheartedly to our people and our fatherland. The Republic of South Africa has all our devotion, whether it be in times of fame or grief, in difficult or prosperous times. We dedicate our strength and our lives to this Republic of South Africa.

April 14, 1961 Speech by Dr. Verwoerd in Parliament

On this occasion the Prime Minister took part in the debate and put forward the policy of separate development. An excerpt of the speech follows here.

I say therefore that the United Party’s policy is an iniquitous policy. Apart from all the arguments I have mentioned, it is based on the bias of permanent discrimination and permanent domination by the Whites, because the Hon. member himself said: “Who says that we do not want to discriminate?” Their policy of racial federation, as it has been explained to us this morning, implies deliberate permanent discrimination and permanent domination.

The Hon. member for Parktown has said that discrimination and domination are the soul of this whole debate and the situation in which we find ourselves. It is the soul. And the government is trying with its policy to escape from this dilemma. During the transition period we may still have to apply certain forms of discrimination, and during this period there may be White domination. But the basis of our policy is to try to get away from it. That is why we adopt the policy that the Bantu, wherever he may live in various areas of his own, must be given political control and domination or dominion over his own areas and people. 

 Just as the Italians in France retain their vote in Italy, so the Bantu, who are living temporarily in our urban areas, must have a say in their homelands. They should be able to get it up to the highest level and we want to help them to attain that position. After all, there cannot be domination by Whites over Blacks where there are two neighbouring states, the White state and the Black state. We are also trying to solve the problem of the Coloured and of the Indian by accepting the principle of a state within a state so that within the borders of one territory for these two groups, each will be given the fullest opportunity to control its own interests. I admit the difficulties in that connection, and I have always admitted them. 

 But I have said that when one finds oneself in that dilemma, one has to choose between these three alternatives: the United Party’s stand of perpetual discrimination and domination; absolute equality and Black domination; or apartheid. To a large extent discrimination is also inherent in the Progressive Party’s stand if they want permanent White leadership to be retained.

As far as the United Party is concerned, its policy theoretically therefore includes a form of perpetual domination and discrimination by the Whites, even though I do not believe that that will remain the position. They will lose against the powers that they are letting loose. The same applies to the Progressive Party unless they accept Black rule as a further aim. The inevitable result of such a democracy in a country with a mixed population, as in a country without a mixed population, must be majority rule. 

 That is the only true democracy in a mixed fatherland. Any form of mutual arrangement whereby, by means of a constitution, one seeks to deprive a majority group of its rights by limiting its rights to lesser representation (even though it is by members of its own race) so that another group which is smaller, although more skilled or civilised, can retain an equal or a major say, is and still remains discrimination. In due course at least it must disappear as the other advances in civilisation. The moment you say, “I want to give equality; I do not want any domination” (which is the same) then you cannot claim that by legislation you can give a group of 10,000,000 Bantu equal rights with the White group of 3,000,000 and equal rights to a group of 1,500,000 Coloureds and equal rights to a group of 750,000 Indians. 

 It simply cannot be described as equal rights. The consequence of an attitude of “no discrimination” and “no domination” and “absolute democracy” in a “mixed fatherland” is “one man one vote”. That is the only consequence. If you do not accept that but a sort of so-called rigid constitution in which you place each group in separate compartments and lay down the limits within which each group can acquire authority however civilised these people may become, with the object of being able to say, “I am protecting the equality or the supremacy of the Whites”, then there is still discrimination and domination.

This is why I say to the Hon. member for Parktown that he and his party are in precisely the same difficulty as the United Party and that they are faced with the same dilemma. One should try however, to get out of this dilemma. The only alternative is our way, and that is to see that every group is given complete control over its own interests. When members of one group come into the other man’s area, or on to the other man’s terrain in the case of the Coloureds and the Indians, they must be prepared to accept that they are guests there. If the White man goes into the Bantu areas he cannot expect to be given joint control there. And this is what I believe to be a mistake in Britain’s handling of Basutoland, and it may become her mistake also in the handling of Swaziland. 

 The former cannot become a multi-racial state. As far as the latter is concerned an attempt is apparently being made, instead of sharing it and giving the White man and the Black man each full authority over that portion which he occupies or which is his, to create a multi-racial authority and then to try by means of all sorts of legal provisions and measures, to see that the Black man does not get sole control. I see only one road, however difficult it may be and whatever further consideration it may require as one progresses from step to step, and that is the policy of separate areas.

Then the leaders of the various racial groups can meet, as is done at a Prime Ministers’ Conference or when different nations meet, on a basis of absolute equality in a consultative body to discuss matters of common interest. That is why I said I foresee that the eventual outcome of this policy will be no discrimination and no domination. Each group will look after its own interests, and they will then meet in a consultative body where they can sit together to eliminate as far as possible all points of friction and difficulties by means of discussions and negotiations.

That is the only way, and Hon. members who have tried to ridicule this, as the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also tried to do, are being superficial. What they themselves propose has been proved to be completely ridiculous. Every argument of ridicule, every criticism that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and other members have tried to put forward in respect of our policy can be applied to their policy, as has been done here today. For the umpteenth time therefore I say that no solution has been put forward by the Opposition. 

 Along the road which we are following, we are squarely facing all the essential differences which confront us; there is no bluff; this road offers protection to the White man because along this road we recognise the fact that there must be differentiation. The minute you refuse to recognise and to accept the necessity for differentiation, and you make equality the basis of your policy, you find yourself in the difficulty and the trouble that I have outlined. Whether you want it or not, there will ultimately be Black domination. I do not want to pursue that any further.

… In many of these [other] countries there is still discrimination, including those which say that they are the enemies of discrimination. Amongst those countries where the position is really bad, our accusers are in the forefront. In India, that is true for various groups; some of them have already been mentioned in public. The Nagas are the youngest section, but there are also others like the Sikhs. In Ceylon there is discrimination against the Tamils. 

 In Malaya there is discrimination against the Indian section of the population, and even to some extent against the Chinese there. Britain also is not guiltless of still practising domination, as e.g. in the Protectorates. Australia is not guiltless of ruling over others. It is the guardian over the population of Papua in New Guinea. Canada is not guiltless of discrimination in its behaviour towards the Indians and the Eskimos. All these countries say: Yes, that is true, but it is not the policy of our Government; it is only characteristic of a transition period. Now my standpoint this morning was that the Government in fact tries to find a policy whereby, whatever might happen in the transition period (just as in other countries), it is the object and the motive to evolve a method as a result of which eventually there need not be discrimination or domination.  
That is just as much a motive of the Government here as there is a motive of any of the other countries in the world, inter alia, those I mentioned. However, those countries do not want to view our policy in that light. They want to view our policy in the way they interpret it: that we want to dominate and oppress for ever.

All of us are co-responsible for this wrong impression, all the parties here, and I do not exclude my own party, nor do I exclude myself personally. The fact is that previously we spoke a lot about domination. We used words like that. As we developed our policy and put our case more clearly, having regard to the latest world developments, we arrived at this clear standpoint that discrimination must be eliminated by carrying separation far enough. 

 That is an attitude I put forward at a very early stage (something for which I have often been reproached by the Opposition), namely, when I stated on the occasion of the dissolution of the Natives’ Representative Council, “Our policy of parallel development is aimed at domination for you in your areas, just as we want domination for ourselves in our areas”. Therefore at a very early stage I indicated that our moral basis was that we were trying to give everyone his full rights for his own people. That is the goal we are striving for- just as other countries which, like us, are still in a transition period – say they are doing, I tried to emphasise clearly again this morning, and I do not propose to go into it again, that our idea of four kinds of parallel groups of authority eventually, is that you then actually follow a method whereby the one racial group will not permanently rule the other, but that every racial group will be given self-rule of its own people, in an area of its own, where possible.

Hon. members may differ from me on the practicability of our policy, and they may differ from me on the possibility of the application of some part of the policy. But they cannot continue to proclaim to the world that we are being dishonest in saying that that is our motive. They have no right to do so. At this stage I cannot enlarge further upon our attitude. I simply wanted to explain this point.

March 17, 1961 Prime Minister Verwoerd addresses The South African Club in London

The tenth conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers since World War II did not live up to expectations as far as South Africa was concerned. The discussions concerning South Africa’s request for continued membership after becoming a republic could not make any headway. The eleven member states – Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Malaya and Nigeria, together with the Prime Minister of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland who had been invited to attend – were of such a divergent character that attacks on South Africa’s racial policy could have been expected.

When some member states threatened to make progressively unreasonable demands on South Africa, Dr. Verwoerd brought about a dramatic trend in the discussions by withdrawing his request for continued membership on Wednesday night, the 15th March, 1961 in the congregation hall of historic Lancaster House.
Before the conference commenced, it had been arranged that the 17th March. After the dramatic turn of events, Dr. Verwoerd was obliged to change the theme of his speech, to which so much importance was attached that the B.B.C. made special arrangements to keep open one of its networks to broadcast it, something which had never been done before.
South Africa was not the first independent member to resign from the Commonwealth. The Republic of Ireland withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1949.

On former similar occasions the problem of black-white relations in South Africa has been accorded particular attention. This time the wonderful potentialities and variety of South Africa could justifiably have been placed in the foreground – this diamond with many facets. I would dearly have loved to have reminded you of the beauty of the South African scenery – its mountains, its blue sky, its white beaches and the surrounding sea, the open veld, the dry and healthy Karoo, the luxurious Low veld, the vineyards and orchards of the south and the north, its green maize lands, the great cultivated areas of yellow sunflower, the waving gold of the wheat lands, the tobacco plantations, the irrigation settlements – green borders stretching from horizon to horizon beside miles of slowly flowing river, green even in the driest winter.

I would wish to guide you to the wild flowers of the Namaqualand, the protea and the silver tree of the Cape and visit with you old homesteads, great national parks filled with wild animals from the smallest antelope to the lion, the rhinoceros, the giraffe and the elephant.

And all this beauty and variety is only one single facet which today largely escapes the attention.

One would wish to talk of South Africa’s prosperity – this land of opportunity; of the economic development of the last 50 years, and of the last ten; of the old mines and the new; of the older industries and the younger, for greater development and the preparation for much more to come, expansion planned systematically, even for ten years ahead.

One would wish to praise farseeing investors from within and without the country who can see through the mists, imagined or otherwise, and seek to participate timeously in the prosperity which lies ahead in this always most stable part of Africa – this Europe of Africa, similar to the small strip of the Euro-Asian continent called Europe, which differs wholly from the continent and thereby led the world to all that it is today.

I would wish to talk about the new nation which we are building – our scientific endeavour, the growth of our educational institutions, and our welfare work, all in the interests of all sections of the community.

Unfortunately, present occurrences would make such a painting of the full and true South African scene seem unrealistic, because owing to the conference which has just ended, everybody’s attention has once again been focussed solely on the one facet of white-black relations and our policy for solving the political problem involved. Even though you would, like myself, prefer to turn this diamond to the sunshine to let its brilliance scintillate and delight, I am compelled, once again, to hold this one, familiar facet before you.

This is particularly necessary because of what occurred during the last few days.

I came to London with the conviction that the Commonwealth would remain based on the same lines as heretofore, i.e. a body of nations wholly independent, in no wise subordinate one to the other, and who therefore do not interfere in each other’s domestic affairs, even under the subterfuge that they affect international relations. The Commonwealth has always been founded on seeking points of agreement, and co-operating on them while forgetting (within that combination) all differences, however strongly they might have to be stated and fought elsewhere. South Africa persisted in this mature attitude throughout this meeting, as before, when she supported the membership of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Malaya, Ghana and Nigeria, without hesitation, in spite of boycotts and sustained attacks at the UN and elsewhere by them.

At this conference it was their duty to the ideal of Commonwealth association to do likewise. Unfortunately some of them failed, in their immaturity. The great vision was beyond them. A witch hunt was more to their liking. The change from monarchy to republic was of no importance in this except as an opportunity to raise a matter which would otherwise have been raised by a special motion either now or soon.

South Africa was prepared to attempt to have the air cleared by consenting to a full discussion of her policies. She was prepared to discuss and to agree to one formula after the other, in which in various ways both sides could sum up their case in the public communiqué. This would have enabled the opponents of South Africa’s policy, which they had attacked very volubly in advance in public to prove to their countries that they had persisted in these attacks, and that the fact that South Africa remained in the Commonwealth in no way meant that they thereby condoned, or accepted co-responsibility for her policies.

Retainment of membership would have been solely due to the purely constitutional position. We were prepared in the interest of the Commonwealth to accept any such proposition, however unpleasant, and to our minds wrong, such statements on a member’s policy would be, and even though this might prove harmful to South Africa.

The conciliatory attitude of South Africa must have been a disappointment to out attackers who then in a much more hostile manner than before began to make further demands. They now wanted the communiqué to contain, over and above the expression of their opinions, the addition at the end of what would be a joint condemnatory resolution, as well as the formulation (as a principle of the Commonwealth) that its multi-racial character should not only be respected in the relationships between nations, as is done by all of us, South Africa included, but that this must apply to the internal policies of constituent members as well.

It would have to apply in such a way that full integration could be the only form which would do justice to such a principle. This would not only constitute interference in domestic affairs but would also mean the disappearance of the rights of the white man and of the minority coloured groups in South Africa.

I could not accept this for South Africa. South Africa could not remain a member under such a formula without being under continual fire of remaining under false pretences.

But this was not all. It was made clear to us that, should we remain, we would be under the threat of a proposal for expulsion, whether sooner or later, even within days. And still not satisfied with this, several Afro-Asian nations gave notice that if South Africa nevertheless retained membership, they would have to consider whether they could remain members.

Under such circumstances it must be clear to everybody that it was not a matter of not being accommodating, but that on two scores I was driven to the decision I took. Both the honour of South Africa and the practical considerations involved for South Africa made the decision to withdraw the indication of our desire to retain membership inevitable.

Besides, I had to take into consideration the invidious position in which our friends, and particularly the United Kingdom, would be placed if I forced them to decide the issue and perhaps to choose between members! The only honourable and friendly method of solving the problem was to take the decision I did, however hard and sad. In the circumstances it is most unfair to blame my stand on foolish and unnecessary obstinacy.

And now, what lies ahead?

For the United Kingdom, the opportunity to hold together in her own way, if she can, the new and changing Commonwealth of increasingly non-White nations. She can attempt to do so without the embarrassment of South Africa with her policy of creating full but separate opportunities for White and Black. Indeed, particular emphasis should in future be laid, as we do, on the fact that the White people of Africa, being in the minority, from now onwards have the greater need for care and justice.

For South Africa and the United Kingdom and the other old friends this decision means new opportunity. They must seek to develop in other ways, untrammelled by the former problems, great bonds of friendship and co-operation to their mutual advantage. We are already working on these lines. Perhaps it is better this way, since sources of possible clash in most difficult situations fall away. Our trade and bilateral agreements, including the maintenance of the preferential trading arrangements. South Africa’s membership of the sterling area, and the value of our gold production, defence agreements with regard to a common enemy, etc., need undergo no change. They can be re-endorsed in what our experts find to be the correct manner.

This is a comforting assurance. We need each other. With friendship unimpaired and so many interests so intertwined to our mutual benefit, this is wise policy, and will, I trust, and have reasons to believe, become wise practice. We will leave London satisfied that what happened had to be, and that our countries and their leaders remain better and more understanding friends than ever before.

For the purpose of what I have to say on race relations I shall presume a fairly extensive knowledge of the details of the Government policy of separate development. Today it seems more imperative to deal with the wider background of this policy, its morality and purpose. My reason for this approach is that it seems to me that the world at large and your own public have accepted, even if reluctantly, that South Africa has done and is doing more for the welfare of its non-white people than any other state in Africa.

In fact, it seems as if it is already being realised that the Asiatic nations and even others in Europe or South America fall behind, sometimes far behind, the achievements of South Africa in this respect with regard to her Bantu. South Africa has progressed very far indeed in the education and training for professions and trades of all its peoples, in health services for all, in housing, in income per capita, in health services for all, in housing, in income per capita, in the scope of the services each group provides for its own people, including the provision of tradesmen, administrators and professional men of all kinds.

Other countries would justifiably claim and receive great credit for creating such material benefits and great opportunity for the general advancement of their masses. It is only in the case of South Africa that all this is swept aside with the bland statement that all this is worth nothing as long as one looks upon the recipients as inferior beings to whom participation in the government is denied.

It is of no avail to emphasise that the Government’s policy is not based on people being inferior but being different, or to point out that a member of an African State can scarcely be accounted fortunate if he is in rags, with little to eat, with low wages, little continuous employment and a shack to live in, if the only compensation for all that he lacks and suffers is that he has the vote!

Does the vote satisfy and aid the people if the masses have to exercise this vote without much personal discretion because they know nothing of politics, or because a black near-dictator or a politically minded half-educated clique demands blind allegiance to keep them in power?

It is this distortion of values in the eyes of the prejudiced or blind critics from afar, judging according to their own privileged experience and advanced state, which makes for the unjust and unfavourable condemnation of South Africa. Lack of perspective leads to nonsensical statements like the following which I collected from your newspapers: “South Africa discriminates unfairly and hates its coloured people! Government policy tramples on the rights of the black people whom they regard as inferiors!
“South Africa’s assurances as to its aims and intentions for the development of its non-White people are dishonest! South Africa wishes to retain white supremacy throughout black and white areas and is not prepared to grant the non-Whites any political rights anywhere whatsoever! South Africa wants to keep the non-Whites in the position of second class citizens who will never participate in any form of government!

“South Africa must provide a blueprint for the future and this should contain no other ultimate object than domination by the black man which the white man must concede if he wishes to be allowed to live there in peace even though he then loses the vote or its value!”

A reply can be given to each of these, and many other, outrageous accusations and unjust criticisms which in addition do not take account of one great fundamental fact, namely that the white man of South Africa has as much or perhaps more right to justice and fair treatment and self-government, in his areas. To judge the morality of a policy it must be remembered that in all ethics a balance must be struck between different values, different rights. Absolute right for the one may mean tremendous injustice to the other.

I wish to deal with these contentions, either directly or by implication and commence by stating the dilemma of South Africa. Its problem is unique. Nowhere in the world and never in history has a situation developed which is quite similar. The solution must therefore also be unique. And yet everybody, everywhere, whether knowledgeable or quite uninformed, would like to impose theoretical ideas and principles or solutions found to be, or thought to be, useful elsewhere, on this different situation. Allow me to put to you the factors involved in very broad outlines.

More than 300 years ago two population groups, equally foreign to South Africa, converged in rather small numbers on what was practically empty country. Neither colonised another man’s country or robbed him by invasion and oppression. Each settled and gradually extended his settlements, and in the main each sought a different part to become his own. There were clashes and frontier wars, and border areas were conquered, but since then the white man has added, and is adding, more land to the Bantu areas from what he himself settled and intended to be his own.

The first point is therefore, that there was no colonialism, only separate settlement by each, nearly simultaneously, and each had the chance to develop his country to serve his growing population for more than 300 years. The white man did this but not the black man and the white man did not use his power to overrun and acquire black man’s country. In fact, only in South Africa, the white man deliberately reserved it for him and endeavoured (mostly in vain) to train him to make the best use of it, as he did with his own, and to such good purpose that the black man came to him for employment, food and the good things of life, and not for political conquests.

The white man therefore has not only an undoubted stake in, and right to, the land which he developed into a modern industrial state from denuded veld and empty valleys and isolated mountains, but according to all principles of morality it was his, is his and must remain his.

It is true that, in the course of time, he received within his country growing numbers of black people. Some fled to him for protection, driven out of their own country by internecine strife and the heavy hands of tyrants. Many came to him seeking relief from hunger or attracted by the bright lights of cities or by the desire for money or the good things of life.

It is also true that elsewhere immigrants from one country to another could become fully-fledged citizens with political rights under certain conditions. It must, however, not be forgotten that for that very reason such countries could, and do, ration and restrict entrance to numbers which would not change the character of the nation or the control of its country, its culture and ideals or its very existence.

South Africa did not need to exercise this control and could be very liberal in giving entry, providing aid and a better life to all who entered, even illegally, because such consequences did not come into the picture on the South African scene.

The non-whites who entered the white man’s country or the urban areas, came solely to seek employment, safety, health, education, all of which was provided freely by the white man, and knowing of and not expecting and not even thinking of political rights.

There was thus no question of robbing the white man of his country by any political result of this entry in huge numbers, or by the natural increase of his population under the white man’s protection and care. This was world-wide usage. Particularly as the result of their stage of civilisation, it was never contemplated that their presence would one day cause pressure upon the children of the white pioneer settlers of empty land to hand over without protest or resistance their whole heritage to such newcomers and protégés.

In fact, it seemed then that for all time the Whites would as guardians even have to rule the black man’s country as part of their own in his interest because he could not be developed to do this properly for himself. This white man therefore allowed the influx to continue until he was outnumbered four to one, and even now, against his will, streams of illegal black immigrants flow across his borders from many parts of Africa, because of the better wages and way of life they find in this land of so-called oppression.

What is the solution to this dilemma, which history and the unexpected awakening of the black man has handed us? Theorists and others who far away can remain unaffected themselves, but philosophise gladly on the handing over of what is the possession of others, expect the white South African to give away gradually (and knowing that after the first step the pace will become uncontrollable) his country and his possessions and indeed ultimately his whole nationhood and existence.

Where does morality come in if this is demanded? If there must be justice for the black man, there must be justice for the white man and the Coloured too, who will both be affected and suppressed.

The British fought to the death for their very existence. Cannot you understand us doing so too? And yet we do not only seek and fight for a solution which will mean our survival, but seek one which will grant survival and full development, politically and economically to each of the other racial groups as well, and we are even prepared to pay a high price out of our earnings for their future.

The moral problem just like the political problem, is to find a way out of this extremely difficult and complicated situation, caused by the fact that no longer as in the past is the black man incapable or undesirous of participation in the control of his political destinies. Nor is there any longer anyone prepared to oppress him by refusing the fulfilment of such ambitions in a form fair to all. Again I ask: What is the solution?

In certain parts of Africa where the white man also ruled alone before, a solution is relatively easy. Those who find it easy there and do not realise the great difference between the two situations, are unfortunately tempted to wish to transplant that solution to South Africa. I refer to the countries of Africa which undoubtedly belong to the black man by settlement and inheritance, although they were taken over, administered and developed by different white nations. It is right that their land should now politically become their own.

Then there are in Africa other states where the political solution is not so straight-forward or simple in spite of the fact that those territories were black-settled and at least theoretically not open space when whites originally moved in. The Whites are also far in the minority in these areas and this seems to support the demand for making black states out of these areas as well.

On the other hand the main body of these white people were genuine settlers, many for generations, and the fact cannot be denied that the development and prosperity of these areas today are wholly the result of their initiative investment, hard work and administrative capacity. In that sense it is their country too, or at least parts are, and they or their kin in the mother country have ruled alone until now. Have justice and the demands of morality nothing to say about the primary rights of these white people?

In the first planning it was accepted that their rights should be fully protected and the idea of partnership was born. This partnership was, for a long time to come, actually intended to be junior partnership for the Blacks and the continued control as senior partner by the Whites. Warnings made no impression on the rulers overseas that this theory would not work out that way, with the inevitable result that the black majorities soon demanded, and are quickly receiving, the right to what amounts to full control with the white man pushed out of politics to all intents and purposes.

He must furthermore expect to lose his possessions and see his hard-won farms, well-developed areas and businesses fall to pieces when he must go, as he realises is inevitable. It is in such areas that the white settlers feel that they have been left in the lurch by parent countries.

Neither of these solutions would therefore suit the already described quite different South African situation. Not only are the Whites less outnumbered that anywhere else, and not only do they claim the empty country settled by their forefathers as really theirs, but they know that if they gave way to some preliminary form of partnership it would become the end of white civilisation in South Africa too - and white civilisation in the world would lose its only anchor in Africa. The lessons of the developments set out before are clear.

Forget the word “apartheid”. Forget any term by which to describe a policy, and just ask yourselves what you would do under such circumstances.

There are three possibilities. One is that the white people of South Africa should sacrifice themselves, their possessions and the generations to come. They can do this by surrendering to black rule, even if it became a dictatorship, and evacuate the country of their forebears, or by remaining and becoming an indistinguishable part of a black nation. Would you really choose that if it were England of which we are speaking?

Another way is to bluff yourself by making apparently smaller concessions, hoping to stave off the evil day, so that your children or grandchildren may suffer, but not you. This could be done by accepting some black people in Parliament and in every phase of life in the community, in the hope that their selfish satisfaction of life in the community, in the hope that their selfish satisfaction of own ambition will prevent them from developing and leading the ambitions of their masses.
And if this does not happen, what then? If junior partnership would quickly – very, very quickly – also lead in South Africa to the demand for black rule alone, must the white man fight or submit? And at what stage should he admit that his subtle attempt to retain power has failed?

In fact, this second method of solving the problem, solves nothing at all. It only means that the struggle for power goes on and on, while the white ruler of today lets things develop until he gives in as before, or finds himself at last fighting in the last, or nearly last, ditch for self-preservation.

There is another method, however, and that is to take your example from the nations: live and let live – apart. Would anybody in the United Kingdom accept as his ideal for the Commonwealth that it should became one state with one central government, controlled solely by numbers and not by the merit of your country as leader state, smaller in numbers but great in experience and knowledge?

That one multi-racial state, including the province which Great Britain would then be, would of necessity be governed from India under the majority control of those hundreds and hundreds of millions of non-Europeans concentrated there, bolstered by others scattered over the earth.

Of course you thrust this aside as nonsense, but why must South Africa accept just that for herself in a smaller way? We prefer each of our population groups to be controlled and governed by themselves, as nations are. Then they can co-operate as in a Commonwealth or in an economic association of nations where necessary.

Where is the evil in this? Or in the fact that in the transition stage the guardian must needs keep the ward in hand and teach him and guide him and check him where necessary? This is separate development.

South Africa will proceed in all honesty and fairness to seek – albeit by necessity through a process of gradualness – peace, prosperity and justice for all by following the model of the nations which in this modern world means political independence coupled with economic interdependence.