A "HAPPY COUNTRY."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 50, 28 February 1935, Page 6

A "HAPPY COUNTRY."

S. AFRICA AND THE NATIVE. SMUTS' IDEA OF LIBERTY. (By PROFESSOR. ARTHUR SEWELL.) General Smuts, in a recent address to the Empire Press Conference, declared that South Africa could now be called "one of the happy countries of the world." In an earlier speech in Scotland he made a passionate plea for the survival in political life of "liberty," the most characteristic contribution of Western civilisation to the development of man in society. Well! Well! "One of the liappy countries of the world"? Liberty? I wonder whether this philosopher-statesman was not troubled in his dreams, if not in his waking thoughts, by the vision of a bronzed figure huddled in a blanket, not smiling any more, but sullen and helpless, fishing about in the folds of his wrappings for a ticket that shall prove that he has duly paid his tax to the white man's Government.

In the preamble to the Women's Enfranchisement Act in the Statute Book of South Africa you may read: "Woman means white woman." When you hear that South Africa is "one of the liappy countries of the world," remember that "happiness" means the "happiness of the wliite man."

An Aristocratic Privilege. The South African native does not know what liberty means —and General Smuts knows perfectly well that he excludes from all talk of liberty not only the native, but also many Asiatics, many Malays, and many coloured people who live in but arc not citizens of the Union of South Africa. General Smuts docs not, in fact, believe in liberty, any more than the upper classes of the eighteenth century believed in liberty. Liberty for him is an aristocratic privilege and the right to it is decided on the colour of a man's skin. It is a little nauseating, therefore, to hear this exceptionally intelligent man dilating on freedom to a Scottish audience when not on.ee throughout his political life has ho moved one finger to enrich the liberty of those whose emancipation has been within his power. In South Africa, General Smuts has a rich field in which to prove the sincerity of his words. There he could act as well as speak.

General Smuts was a Minister in that Government which decided that two ''pathfinders," native boy scouts, should not be allowed to go to the Vienna Jamboree, for fear they should pick up ideas that were not good for them —or, shall we say?—not good for white prestige.

General Smuts has always taken for granted in South African policy the continuance of some sort of "pass'' system for the native, whereby the native is compelled to carry about with him at least three documents —his labour service contract, liis poll-tax receipt, and his travelling pass. Failure to produce these means immediate arrest —and many a native is turned into a gaolbird because he has the ill-luck to go to gaol for the first time for non-payment of one or other of his many dues.

General Smuts, it is true, has always pleaded that the native question should be kept out of party politics and that the native bills should be framed by a national convention. But when General Hertzog and the Nationalist party stated quite clearly that the only way to" keep the white man 011 top was to keep "the coloured man underneath, the cat was out of the bag, and the question was: Would General Smuts stroke it or shoot it? As a matter of fact, he pretty well ignored it, and repeated that the native problem should be treated by a national convention. South Africans waited for a lead and they were fobbed oil with a formula.

The Great Question. It must have been apparent to General Smuts that in the future there is only one real question in South African politics. Which policy is South Africa to adopt—a reactionary or a liberal policy in its treatment of the native? Beside this question, the DutchEnglish question is relatively unimportant. The destiny of the Union will bo shaped by the wisdom or the folly of politicians in their answer to this question. And yet—although many bills have been before the House dealing with this problem, I do not recollect that ever once in South Africa 'has General Smuts made an important contribution to the discussion. There has recently been a love-feast in South Africa, and the lion has lain down with the lamb, or, better, the springbok. Kacial antagonism is said to have been forgotten, and there has been a sort of hvpostatical union of two races into one national entity. There are, of conrse, certain clouds in the blue, blue sky. We do not altogether trust Mr. Oswald l'irow, who seems to have little regard for the great peace-loving work of the British Navy. And, .skulking in the background, waving a very little vierkleur, is Dr. 19. F. Malan, who doesn't want a Republic, but would very much like to talk about one. And yet, perhaps, the biggest cloud of all is missed by most people. The truth is that no great change of heart has come over the South African people. P»acial antagonism has been long pretty well moribund. General Hertzog, since 19"2G, except for a few puerile gestures, has been as good an Imperialist as General Smuts. Political divisions have been utterly unreal and divorced from the life of the people. The true reason for fusion was seen when the late Mr. Hattingh, chairman of the Nationalist party in the Transvaal, in a speech at Port Elizabeth in support of fusion, declared that unless the white men got together they would never be able to preserve their civilisation against the menace of the black. That is the underlying reason for the fusion of the two parties. It is an unholy alliance against the black—and wrap it up as we will in political, imperial and sentimental verbiage, the truth is that so long as this alliance lasts the native is faced with a policy which will persistently attempt to perpetuate and exacerbate the division between the two peoples. Let us remember that General Smuts has willingly joined hands with a political party, which, despite its solemn promise, excluded coloured women from the Women's Enfranchisement Act, passed a bill which includes a clause making whipping the penalty for young natives who break their civil "masters and servants" contract with their employers, and devised a Riptous Assemblies Act which makes it impossible to distinguish between sedition and agitation for higher standards of living.

'.The Final Word. Libert}'? Liberty is supposed to be the very breath of the British constitution. But listen to what "constitutional" means to the white man, Dutch as well a* British, in South Africa. Addressing the native conference of 1930, General Hertzog said : t "You must bear in mind that it is not only your own people who are concerned in the resolutions you mav adopt, but that the Kuropeans are also interested, and that this being a constitutional country, after all, the final say rest* with them."

General Smuts' pronouncements have the weight not only of a statesman's experience, but also of a philosopher's wisdom. He was right to plead l'or the principle of liberty. In many European countries there is freedom only for the man who thinks a* he is told or else turns his coat. But the unlucky South African native cannot change his skin.