The Apartheid State’s Response to Resistance (Grade 11 NSC Matric History): Revision Notes
The Apartheid State's Response to Resistance
The 1950s marked a crucial period when the apartheid government faced growing resistance from various groups across South Africa. As opposition mounted, the state responded with increasingly harsh laws and repressive measures designed to crush any challenge to white minority rule. Understanding how the government reacted to different forms of resistance helps us see how apartheid became more entrenched and brutal over time.
The pattern of state responses
The apartheid government followed a clear pattern when dealing with resistance throughout this period.
The State's Response Pattern:
- Identify the threat - Assess the nature and scale of resistance
- Pass new laws - Create specific legislation to address the challenge
- Arrest leaders - Remove key figures from resistance movements
- Break up opposition groups - Disrupt organizational structures
Each form of resistance was met with specific legislation designed to prevent similar challenges in the future.
Response to the Defiance Campaign (1952)
When the Defiance Campaign challenged unjust laws through peaceful civil disobedience, the government struck back hard. The state arrested key leaders including Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, and 18 other organisers, charging them under the Suppression of Communism Act for leading the campaign.
Consequences of the State's Response to the Defiance Campaign:
Immediate punishments:
- The accused leaders received nine-month prison sentences, suspended for two years
- Mandela was confined to Johannesburg for six months through a banning order
Unexpected outcomes:
- Despite mass arrests, the National Party government was forced to temporarily ease some apartheid legislation
- This showed that organised resistance could achieve some results, encouraging future campaigns
Response to ongoing protests and defiance
As protests continued throughout the early 1950s, the government realised it needed stronger powers to maintain control. Minister of Justice CR Swart introduced two key pieces of repressive legislation designed to crush future resistance movements.
Public Safety Act (1953):
- Allowed the state to declare a state of emergency whenever public safety was threatened
- Gave police and military extensive powers during emergencies
- Made it much easier to suppress large-scale protests
Criminal Law Amendment Act (1953):
- Prescribed harsh penalties for anyone who used protests to challenge existing laws
- Made it extremely risky for people to participate in civil disobedience campaigns
Impact: These laws made it increasingly difficult for resistance organisations to hold public meetings and rallies. Many activists were forced to go underground to avoid arrest.
Response to black resistance in rural areas
Rural communities often resisted government policies that affected traditional leadership and land rights. The government's response was the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951, which fundamentally transformed rural governance structures.
How the Bantu Authorities Act Worked:
Direct control mechanisms:
- Increased direct government control over rural African areas
- Allowed the government to remove traditional chiefs who opposed apartheid policies
- Replaced resistant leaders with cooperative chiefs who would implement government policies
Long-term impact:
- Strengthened the government's ability to control rural populations
- Broke down traditional African leadership structures that had existed for centuries
Response to resistance against tribal divisions
The government recognised that African unity was a major threat to apartheid. When black South Africans resisted attempts to divide them along ethnic lines, the state introduced the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act in 1959.
This legislation represented a sophisticated attempt to undermine African nationalism by exploiting ethnic differences.
Key Features of the Homeland System:
- Established separate homeland areas for different ethnic groups
- Aimed to break up African solidarity by promoting ethnic divisions
- Encouraged homeland loyalty rather than broader African nationalism that called for independence
- Maintained tribal identities in rural areas while preventing unity among urbanised black South Africans
- Many urban blacks rejected this system of traditional leadership as outdated
Response to the Congress of the People and Freedom Charter
The Congress of the People gathering in 1955 and the adoption of the Freedom Charter represented a major challenge to apartheid. The document called for a non-racial, democratic South Africa - the complete opposite of apartheid ideology.
The government viewed this as a direct threat to the entire apartheid system and responded with one of the most significant legal actions of the decade.
The Government's Response - the 1956 Treason Trial:
- Police used anti-communist legislation to arrest resistance leaders
- Leaders of the ANC and Congress of the People were targeted
- Many important documents were confiscated as evidence of "high treason"
- Homes were searched extensively and numerous arrests followed
- Key figures including Mandela, Slovo, Sisulu, Kathrada, Ngoyi and Joseph were detained
The trial had far-reaching consequences that extended well beyond the courtroom.
Long-term Consequences of the Treason Trial:
Legal outcomes:
- After a lengthy five-year trial, Justice Rumpff acquitted all the accused due to lack of evidence
Impact on the resistance movement:
- Leaders were out of circulation for so long, significantly weakening the resistance movement
- The trial placed a huge financial burden on the Congress Alliance
- It had a negative psychological impact on resistance leaders and their families
Political consequences:
- The trial created anxiety among white voters, who gave the National Party an increased majority in the 1958 elections
- The South African government became more repressive, as seen in events like the Cato Manor incident (1959) and Sharpeville (1960)
Key legislation used to suppress resistance
Understanding these laws helps explain how the apartheid state became increasingly powerful and how each piece of legislation built upon previous measures to create a comprehensive system of control.
Major Repressive Laws of the 1950s:
- Suppression of Communism Act: Used to charge anyone who opposed apartheid as "communist"
- Public Safety Act (1953): Allowed states of emergency to be declared
- Criminal Law Amendment Act (1953): Made protest activities punishable by severe penalties
- Bantu Authorities Act (1951): Gave government control over rural African areas
- Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (1959): Created separate ethnic homelands
The escalating cycle of resistance and repression
Each government response created new grievances and often led to more resistance. However, the state's increasingly harsh measures made open resistance more dangerous and difficult. This cycle of resistance and repression would eventually lead to the underground armed struggle of the 1960s.
The pattern established in the 1950s - where each act of resistance was met with harsher state repression - fundamentally changed the nature of the liberation struggle. By the end of the decade, peaceful protest was becoming increasingly impossible, setting the stage for the armed resistance that would define the next phase of the anti-apartheid movement.
Key Points to Remember:
- The apartheid government responded to every form of resistance with new repressive laws designed to prevent similar challenges
- Key legislation included the Public Safety Act (1953), Criminal Law Amendment Act (1953), and Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (1959)
- The 1956 Treason Trial seriously weakened the resistance movement by keeping leaders out of circulation for five years
- Government responses aimed to break up African unity through ethnic divisions and homeland policies
- The cycle of resistance and harsh state responses made the apartheid system increasingly brutal and militarised by the end of the 1950s