HSY3705 ASSIGNMENT 2 2026
DUE AUGUST 2026
Due: Tuesday, 1 September 2026, 11:00 PM
Explain how the interaction between organised popular resistance and emergency
repression made negotiations increasingly thinkable by 1990.
The Interaction between Organised Popular Resistance and Emergency
Repression Made Negotiations Thinkable by 1990
The rise of organised popular resistance in the 1980s, especially through the United
Democratic Front (UDF), created a powerful challenge that the apartheid state could not
overcome through force alone. The UDF was launched in August 1983 as a non-racial
coalition of over 575 organisations representing more than 1.5 million people.¹ It drew
support from churches, trade unions, student groups, women's organisations and
community associations across the country. The UDF mobilised opposition to the
tricameral parliament, which excluded blacks while giving limited representation to
Coloureds and Indians. Through school boycotts, rent strikes, consumer boycotts and
stay-aways, the UDF made black townships ungovernable.² The government's attempts
to co-opt Coloureds and Indians through the 1983 Constitution failed because the UDF
organised mass boycotts of the elections, with only 13% of Indians and 18% of
Coloureds voting.³ The widespread resistance showed that the government's reforms
were not accepted by the majority, and that the state could no longer control black
communities through its own institutions.
¹ JP Brits, AM Grundling & FA Mouton, Modern South Africa: From Soweto to Democracy, Only study
guide for HSY3705, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 2015, Learning Unit 2, Discussion 2.
² 'The United Democratic Front (UDF)', South African History Online,
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/united-democratic-front-udf, accessed 18 August 2026.
³ GM Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa: The Evolution of an Ideology, University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1978, p. 300.
, The apartheid state responded with emergency powers, but these measures failed to
crush resistance and actually created a costly cycle of violence that damaged the
regime's legitimacy. In July 1985, the government declared a state of emergency
covering 36 magisterial districts, and in June 1986 extended it nationwide.⁴ Under these
emergency regulations, the state gained sweeping powers to detain people without trial,
ban meetings, restrict movements and censor the media. Between June 1986 and June
1987, nearly 26,000 people were detained, almost half of them under 18.⁵ Yet
repression did not end resistance. Instead, it intensified anger and created a vicious
cycle: shootings led to funerals, funerals became mass political gatherings, and
gatherings led to more shootings.⁶ The permanent presence of police and army in
townships fuelled further resistance. The state's brutality also destroyed its moral
authority, both inside South Africa and internationally. The emergency measures
revealed that the government could not rule through consent and had to rely on force,
which undermined its claim that apartheid was a just or "moral" system.
The resistance movement adapted to repression by building alternative structures of
"people's power" that challenged the state's governance at the local level. When the
state banned mass meetings and detained leaders, activists turned to political funerals
as platforms for mobilisation.⁷ When the state destroyed formal organisations, new
leaders and structures emerged. Street committees, people's courts and civic
organisations were formed to provide essential services and administer justice
according to community norms.⁸
⁴ 'State of Emergency - 1985', South African History Online, https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/state-
emergency-1985,
⁵ Brits, Grundling & Mouton, Study Guide, Learning Unit 1, Discussion 3.
⁶ Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa, p. 305.
⁷ Brits, Grundling & Mouton, Study Guide, Learning Unit 2, Discussion 2.
⁸ Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa, pp. 305-306.
DUE AUGUST 2026
Due: Tuesday, 1 September 2026, 11:00 PM
Explain how the interaction between organised popular resistance and emergency
repression made negotiations increasingly thinkable by 1990.
The Interaction between Organised Popular Resistance and Emergency
Repression Made Negotiations Thinkable by 1990
The rise of organised popular resistance in the 1980s, especially through the United
Democratic Front (UDF), created a powerful challenge that the apartheid state could not
overcome through force alone. The UDF was launched in August 1983 as a non-racial
coalition of over 575 organisations representing more than 1.5 million people.¹ It drew
support from churches, trade unions, student groups, women's organisations and
community associations across the country. The UDF mobilised opposition to the
tricameral parliament, which excluded blacks while giving limited representation to
Coloureds and Indians. Through school boycotts, rent strikes, consumer boycotts and
stay-aways, the UDF made black townships ungovernable.² The government's attempts
to co-opt Coloureds and Indians through the 1983 Constitution failed because the UDF
organised mass boycotts of the elections, with only 13% of Indians and 18% of
Coloureds voting.³ The widespread resistance showed that the government's reforms
were not accepted by the majority, and that the state could no longer control black
communities through its own institutions.
¹ JP Brits, AM Grundling & FA Mouton, Modern South Africa: From Soweto to Democracy, Only study
guide for HSY3705, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 2015, Learning Unit 2, Discussion 2.
² 'The United Democratic Front (UDF)', South African History Online,
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/united-democratic-front-udf, accessed 18 August 2026.
³ GM Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa: The Evolution of an Ideology, University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1978, p. 300.
, The apartheid state responded with emergency powers, but these measures failed to
crush resistance and actually created a costly cycle of violence that damaged the
regime's legitimacy. In July 1985, the government declared a state of emergency
covering 36 magisterial districts, and in June 1986 extended it nationwide.⁴ Under these
emergency regulations, the state gained sweeping powers to detain people without trial,
ban meetings, restrict movements and censor the media. Between June 1986 and June
1987, nearly 26,000 people were detained, almost half of them under 18.⁵ Yet
repression did not end resistance. Instead, it intensified anger and created a vicious
cycle: shootings led to funerals, funerals became mass political gatherings, and
gatherings led to more shootings.⁶ The permanent presence of police and army in
townships fuelled further resistance. The state's brutality also destroyed its moral
authority, both inside South Africa and internationally. The emergency measures
revealed that the government could not rule through consent and had to rely on force,
which undermined its claim that apartheid was a just or "moral" system.
The resistance movement adapted to repression by building alternative structures of
"people's power" that challenged the state's governance at the local level. When the
state banned mass meetings and detained leaders, activists turned to political funerals
as platforms for mobilisation.⁷ When the state destroyed formal organisations, new
leaders and structures emerged. Street committees, people's courts and civic
organisations were formed to provide essential services and administer justice
according to community norms.⁸
⁴ 'State of Emergency - 1985', South African History Online, https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/state-
emergency-1985,
⁵ Brits, Grundling & Mouton, Study Guide, Learning Unit 1, Discussion 3.
⁶ Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa, p. 305.
⁷ Brits, Grundling & Mouton, Study Guide, Learning Unit 2, Discussion 2.
⁸ Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa, pp. 305-306.
