0 of 2
It puzzles me how differently we perceive things as human beings. Some people would like to think of erstwhile bantustans as parts of SA where Africans where "dumped".
But in fact areas so anointed were natural African villages, areas occupied in substantial numbers by aborigines of Africa, spread all over the "country", where industrial development had not taken place.
While Africans in villages where minerals were discovered were so overwhelmed by development taking place to the extent they seized to recognise the place as their own.
They felt so much estranged in their places that in their minds they felt as though they came from elsewhere.
Some Africans in the non-industrialised parts followed industrial development by moving away from such areas to the industrialised parts and as their numbers increased, it appeared as though all Africans had come from outside such industrialised areas.
It should therefore not be taken that the areas where the minerals were discovered where empty spaces with no indigenous African occupation. There were African villages were these minerals were unearthed.
It was not as if every African came from outside were the mines were being developed.
For some reason, the colonialists were successful in alienating such Africans from ownership of such land. Worse that everyone seemed to believe that Africans in industrialised areas were all from some far way area. It would be very interesting to trace the original people who were in villages in what is now Johannesburg, etc. Fortunately, Pretoria is linked to Kgosi Tshwane. This is where research has to be done.
In their natural habitat, people lived on the land, produced their own food, owned their own livestock. Those who left had been seduced by the promise of a civilised way of living. While some were educated to some measure and could not find use for their skills in the non-industrialised villages, others just went or were forcibly recruited to work in the colonialist developed mines.
But all these areas of dominant African habitation, industrialised or not, were part of what was created as SA. They were within the borders defined by the colonial masters. It was the laws of SA they had to abide by in spite of not being allowed to choose who should make those laws.
It was no different for those who stayed in the non-industrialised areas or from those that had "migrated" to the industrialised parts of the country or those on whose land industrial development had taken place.
When the apartheid government decided to carve up SA to create bantustan, they selected substantially occupied (by Africans) areas that were under-developed. This being under the false illusion that no industrial development was possible in the areas.
But they did not cede complete control. It was clear that should any mineral be discovered in the bantustan or some profitable project require any part of any bantustan, Africans would be shifted without any hesitation. In fact, bantustan consolidation involved huge shifting of African people known as "forced removals".
Being the natural habitat of Africans, wide areas would be occupied by single language-speaking Africans. Hence the bantustans were patterned in accordance with the different African nationalities occupying such areas.
There seems to be very striking similarities between the origin of bantustans and that of the "new" SA, taking note that both were imposed on Africans burning with desire to be politically "free".
Both were decided by the apartheid government forced on the regime by international non-acceptance of apartheid. bantustans were meant to fool the world that Africans do have a franchise.
Those who would lead both the bantustans and the "new" SA were selected by the apartheid regime. They were further assisted by the West in selecting who to run the "new" SA. Those that opposed the form and pattern of the bantustan such as Chief Pilane, Curnick Ndamse, King Sabata Dalindyebo, etc. were systematically worked out of the equation.
So, also were those who wanted a different path for the establishment of the "new" SA jerked out of the proceedings, including being killed.
Negotiations for the establishment of both the bantustans and the "new" SA took place between the apartheid regime and the Africans selected by the apartheid regime.
In both cases, Africans in their massive numbers were excluded in the decision-making process.
While the law designated you citizen of an "independent bantustan", wherever you may be a resident, it never held a referendum to determine what your take was in rendering the bantustan independent from apartheid SA.
It should be remembered that the apartheid SA government was voted in by whites in the country, therefore they had a mandate from whites to make laws such as bantustan laws.
It should also be remembered that the apartheid government that took the plunge to do away with apartheid had been elected by white people and furthermore were given a 62% mandate in a whites only referendum in 1992 to carry on with the processes that would end apartheid.
The people who stayed in areas designated bantustan were not consulted. No referendum was conducted among them. Decisions were made with those the regime had selected.
The bantustan Constitutions were not subjected to any referendum for approval by what would be "citizens" of the bantustan. Therefore, bantustans were not made by the will of the people whose areas were made bantustans.
Similarly, Africans in the "new" SA were not consulted as to what form the country should take. There was no referendum among Africans. Decisions were made with those the regime had handpicked from among Africans.
The Constitution was not subjected to a referendum for approval by the entire African population, the same way it was done with whites. Therefore, the "new" SA was not by the will of African people who are the majority in the country which was so envisaged.
Some argue that the fact that people voted in the first election of the "new" SA, means people approved of the decision that established the country. Strange enough people in the areas designated bantustans voted for bantustan governments once they were established, but never fought to retain the bantustan when they were done away with in the 1994 dispensation. This should have been the case if their voting in bantustan meant approval of the bantustan and its constitution. Voting in 1994 has nothing to do with "approval". It is about "conformity" with what is availed. Rather than claiming approval, we should be moaning how Africans have been battered to pulp such that they will just take what is available to survive.
It is, however, clear that serious undertakings were made by both those chosen to lead bantustans (in the creation of the bantustan) and those chosen to lead the "new" SA (in the creation of the new SA).
It is not far-fetched to think of bantustan captains having undertaken never to harbour terrorists as one of the key points of agreement while the "new" SA Baas Boys undertook never to interfere with land ownership or to disrupt the economic stranglehold of whites as the key point of agreement.
The Bophutatswana bantustan presents another irony in as far our politics are concerned. There is definitely similarities in as far as corruption and nepotism is concerned.
It appears that in fact those in the wrong platform of bantustans did better than those at the helm of a "democratic" SA that should be regarded as the right platform as far as running the affairs of people is concerned.
-Dr Mosalakae is a Sowetan reader
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.