HSY3704
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
DUE August 2025
,HSY3704
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due August 2025
Modern South Africa: Afrikaner Power, the Politics of Race and Resistance, 1902
to the 1970's
Analysis of Reasons Why General J.B.M. Hertzog Implemented the
Representation of Natives Act (1936)
General J.B.M. Hertzog, Prime Minister of South Africa, introduced the Representation
of Natives Act (Act No. 12 of 1936) as part of a wider set of measures, collectively
known as the Hertzog Bills, aimed at entrenching racial segregation and maintaining
white political supremacy (Welsh, 2009). The Act removed Black voters in the Cape
Province—where a limited non-racial franchise had existed since the mid-19th
century—from the common electoral roll. They were instead granted indirect
representation through a segregated Natives Representative Council and a small
number of white-elected Members of Parliament (Worden, 2012).
Several factors explain Hertzog’s motivations:
1. Entrenchment of Racial Segregation and “Separate Development”
Hertzog’s political vision was informed by Afrikaner nationalist ideology, which
asserted that Black and white South Africans should develop separately to avoid “racial
mixing” and to preserve white dominance (Giliomee, 2003). The Act institutionalised this
philosophy by formalising racially distinct political mechanisms, marginalising Black
South Africans from meaningful participation.
, 2. Political Expediency and Compromise
The Act served as a political compromise that enabled the 1934 fusion between
Hertzog’s National Party and Jan Smuts’ South African Party to form the United Party
(Thompson, 2001). In order to secure support from conservative white constituencies,
Hertzog addressed their demand to limit Black political influence, which was perceived
as a threat to white control. The measure formed part of a legislative package that also
included the Native Trust and Land Act, which slightly expanded land allocations for
Black South Africans but imposed severe restrictions on ownership (Worden, 2012).
3. Suppression of Potential Political Threats
By confining Black representation to advisory bodies with no substantive decision-
making power, the Act allowed the government to neutralise potential opposition and
maintain white minority dominance (Saunders & Southey, 2001).
4. Economic and Ideological Motivations
The legislation reinforced an economic system in which Black South Africans were
denied political rights while providing a cheap labour force for white-owned farms,
industries, and mines (Davenport & Saunders, 2000). It reflected prevailing racial
ideologies portraying Africans as inferior and incapable of equal citizenship.
In sum, the Act was a cornerstone of pre-apartheid segregation, aligning with Hertzog’s
racially divided vision for South Africa, and it faced opposition from Black leaders and
some liberal whites (Welsh, 2009).
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
DUE August 2025
,HSY3704
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due August 2025
Modern South Africa: Afrikaner Power, the Politics of Race and Resistance, 1902
to the 1970's
Analysis of Reasons Why General J.B.M. Hertzog Implemented the
Representation of Natives Act (1936)
General J.B.M. Hertzog, Prime Minister of South Africa, introduced the Representation
of Natives Act (Act No. 12 of 1936) as part of a wider set of measures, collectively
known as the Hertzog Bills, aimed at entrenching racial segregation and maintaining
white political supremacy (Welsh, 2009). The Act removed Black voters in the Cape
Province—where a limited non-racial franchise had existed since the mid-19th
century—from the common electoral roll. They were instead granted indirect
representation through a segregated Natives Representative Council and a small
number of white-elected Members of Parliament (Worden, 2012).
Several factors explain Hertzog’s motivations:
1. Entrenchment of Racial Segregation and “Separate Development”
Hertzog’s political vision was informed by Afrikaner nationalist ideology, which
asserted that Black and white South Africans should develop separately to avoid “racial
mixing” and to preserve white dominance (Giliomee, 2003). The Act institutionalised this
philosophy by formalising racially distinct political mechanisms, marginalising Black
South Africans from meaningful participation.
, 2. Political Expediency and Compromise
The Act served as a political compromise that enabled the 1934 fusion between
Hertzog’s National Party and Jan Smuts’ South African Party to form the United Party
(Thompson, 2001). In order to secure support from conservative white constituencies,
Hertzog addressed their demand to limit Black political influence, which was perceived
as a threat to white control. The measure formed part of a legislative package that also
included the Native Trust and Land Act, which slightly expanded land allocations for
Black South Africans but imposed severe restrictions on ownership (Worden, 2012).
3. Suppression of Potential Political Threats
By confining Black representation to advisory bodies with no substantive decision-
making power, the Act allowed the government to neutralise potential opposition and
maintain white minority dominance (Saunders & Southey, 2001).
4. Economic and Ideological Motivations
The legislation reinforced an economic system in which Black South Africans were
denied political rights while providing a cheap labour force for white-owned farms,
industries, and mines (Davenport & Saunders, 2000). It reflected prevailing racial
ideologies portraying Africans as inferior and incapable of equal citizenship.
In sum, the Act was a cornerstone of pre-apartheid segregation, aligning with Hertzog’s
racially divided vision for South Africa, and it faced opposition from Black leaders and
some liberal whites (Welsh, 2009).
