Forced Segregation Versus Forced Integration

Is it justified to condemn forced segregation while expressing a clear preference for forced integration?

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

As a result of South Africa’s history, “forced segregation” has, for all practical purposes, become a dirty term. In contrast, “integration” is viewed as inherently meritorious, an almost untouchable concept. The prefix “forced” is also not overtly linked to the word “integration”.

In terms of South Africa’s democratic, compromise Constitution, however, integration is not enforceable. Furthermore, the lived reality since 1994 has not been one in which integration was legally enforced, because that is not permitted.

However, one gets the impression that it was simply assumed that, in South Africa’s case, integration would be the tacit consequence of the transition from apartheid to democracy in 1994. But, for the greater part of the post-apartheid years, the actual integration of all groups in South Africa has largely remained merely a continuous hope.

If something like integration is not legally enforceable, one would think that tactics of persuasion would have been employed to try to achieve that worthwhile goal. We know, however, that shortly after Madiba and Archbishop Tutu passed away, there were no serious efforts from the top down to encourage integration in South Africa. On the contrary, many divisive statements were made by Mbeki, Zuma, and Ramaphosa.

Far worse is the growing realisation that it was never the intention of our later rulers under the democratic Constitution, namely Mbeki, Zuma, and Ramaphosa, to integrate us as a nation. At least, not while retaining separate identities and cultures, especially, or specifically, if the identity and culture of a group are viewed as more synonymous with Europe than Africa.

If integration was indeed our government’s sincere objective, why, then, would it have continued with racial classification?

The recent “Bokkienaweek” for Afrikaner children caused a great deal of public noise and notably led Gauteng Premier Lesufi and Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie to play the popular race card. Their reactions sounded to me as though some of our leaders might now indeed want to prefix integration with the word “forced”.

Their condemnations of the collective action, or “cultural” self-assertion, of Afrikaners through their “Bokkienaweek” were superficial and unbalanced. They sounded like deliberate attempts to target the Afrikaner minority group once again.

By implication, they objected to an ethnic group daring to act non-integratively by not opening the event to all racial groups. They therefore expressed, or implied, the opinion that integration is, or ought to be, a prerequisite for organising group activities or “cultural” events.

Everyone should therefore feel forced to approach everything in an integrated manner. They offered no carrot, or tactics of persuasion. They simply applied the stick.

Alternatively stated, they implied that the voluntary segregation of groupings is unacceptable. Or did they perhaps imply that only some people’s segregation needs are acceptable, but not those of others? I cannot recall any criticism of other cultural groups that did the same with respect to their own cultures.

Is it justified at all to condemn forced segregation out of hand while, at the same time, as government leaders, expressing a clear preference for forced integration, even if it is not legally enforced but is instead promoted through reactions that can be perceived as threatening?

We in South Africa know particularly well the negative consequences that forced segregation under the apartheid policy brought about. By now, that is history. But has our more recent past, say the last 30 years, shown or proven to us that integration is so much better in all respects?

Naturally, it is better in certain respects, such as freedom from coercion. But are we not increasingly seeing renewed attempts at coercion?

What do we see in practice? Apart from continued racial classification, racial groups are not treated equally under legislation. This occurs across many spheres of our “integrated” South African society.

A few prominent examples include equal access to state contracts, employment positions in the public service, and access to university disciplines that can accommodate only limited intake numbers. The Afrikaans cultural group’s rights to mother-tongue education in schools and tertiary institutions are also being undermined.

How do we escape the increasing hegemony of forces that place those in South Africa who do not wish to integrate, despite their protected right not to be forced to integrate, under pressure through threats and insults to integrate against their free will?

It is seldom, if ever, claimed that the forced segregation of groups, per se, has merit. But even such a general statement must be qualified.

Segregation may be necessary if groups are hostile towards one another to such an extent that they wish to, or could, cause each other harm. Such groups can mutually decide to segregate in order to preserve the peace.

Alternatively, a third party can force them to segregate if it is felt that, without segregation, they would pose a danger to or cause harm to third parties should their conflicts spill over elsewhere.

Fortunately, we already know that the Solidarity Movement is achieving great success through a solution of parallel governance practices. We also know that the above-average wealthy protect themselves in wealthy enclaves. We are further aware of the particular zeal of Lex Libertas in investigating alternative models for our constitutional dispensation.

This is all very encouraging, but the audacity of our so-called government leaders in hurling public insults at groups and people exercising their constitutional rights must come to an end.

The more noise we make about it in the media, and the more firmly we object to it, the greater our chance of teaching such “leaders” that they are not above the Constitution.

Piet du Plessis is a retiree with a long history of applied socio-economic development. A liberated Afrikaner who has moved beyond self-flagellation and believes that he has been freed to live out his cultural pride and values, and to proclaim them openly when appropriate.