The London School of Economics and Political Science LOOSE CONTINUITY: THE POST-APARTHEID AFRIKAANS LANGUAGE MOVEMENT IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Mariana Kriel A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of PhD, Bloemfontein, South Africa, May 2013 DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 99,873 words (pp. 10–301). Statement of inclusion of previous work and conjoint work: In their infancy, the ideas expressed in this thesis – and then particularly in chapters 3, 4 and 5 – were published as part of the following articles or book chapters: Kriel 2006a; 2006b; 2010a; 2010b and 2012 (all listed in the bibliography). In each case, I stipulated that I drew on research that I was doing for my PhD at the LSE, and I acknowledged the guidance of my supervisor as well as the financial assistance of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission. To a very limited degree, I included material (in reworked format) from the following publications that preceded my PhD study: Kriel 2003; Kriel 2004a and 2004b. This thesis also contains a few paragraphs (no more than 3,000 words) that I wrote, on the basis of research that I conducted without any help, for the South African Language Rights Monitors of 2006 and 2007 (Kriel 2010c and Kriel 2010d). These reports formed part of the South African Language Rights Monitor project, which was sponsored by the Pan South African Language Board. For a brief explanation of my role in the project, cf. footnote 154. 2 ABSTRACT What happened to Afrikaner nationalism? Did the end of apartheid spell the end of the nationalism with which it had become synonymous? Was the decade that lay between South Africa‟s first universal suffrage elections of 1994 and the collapse of the Afrikaners‟ National Party in 2004 the final chapter in the history of Afrikaner nationalism? If so – and that is the question posed in this thesis – how is one to interpret the Afrikaner campaign that gained momentum during that very same decade in defence of Afrikaans – the language that gave the word apartheid to human history? Contra the lay and scholarly consensus, I argue that Afrikaner nationalism has outlived apartheid. What we are witnessing today, if only in certain elite circles, is not the end of Afrikaner nationalism but its revival. To substantiate this claim, chapter 3 of the thesis develops a definitional and theoretical framework from which I argue in chapters 4 and 5, by means of a diachronical comparison, that the latest movement represents a continuation of the Afrikaner nationalist past. First, however, the scene has to be set. Chapters 1 and 2 provide the political and ideological background without which no analysis would be possible of Afrikaner nationalism‟s consecutive language and cultural movements. It needs to be stressed, though, that while language and cultural activism has the central attention in this study, it also considers the relationship between cultural and political nationalism – both as concepts and as actual movements – and questions the notion of a dichotomy. In seeking a historical explanation for the contemporary Afrikaner movement, I revisit what Kellas regards as the problem that studies of nationalism have classically addressed, namely the relationship between politics, economics and culture “which in any particular case brought about the transition from ethnicity to nationalism”? (1991:35). Focusing on the Afrikaner case, my thesis explores the role of language in these dynamics – something that has not been done in a systematic manner. 3 Springbokke Astrale magte op hul bloed en soute in die grasse het bepaal dat uit woestyn en vlakte hulle as één groot trop ontmoet en dae lank eers in ‟n stofwolk maal tot een meteens koers snuif wat almal vat en dan geen weerstand duld dreunend oor veld en bult waar hoef en horings alles plat trap en voor hul vaart wegjaag, elkeen gewillig om sy lyf te gee dat die trop oor slote en riviere jaag en onkeerbaar afstort in die see: „Ons is geroepe om ‟n groot afspraak met die dood te maak.‟ D.J. Opperman (1987:239). 4 For my mother and my father – Die meetsnoere het vir ons in lieflike plekke geval. And for the man in my life who has always been, to my delight, a metropolitan among provincials (to borrow Le May‟s description of Jan Christian Smuts – 1995:144). “That was the river, this is the sea.” The Waterboys “It is a kind of continuity, I suppose.” The character of Gudrun Velk in William Boyd‟s “Loose Continuity” (2004:113–131). 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This has been a lengthy project. It started in the British Settler city of Port Elizabeth in 2003 with an application for a Commonwealth Scholarship and has since been interrupted by other projects and too many Treks, the last of which brought me to the former Boer Republic capital of Bloemfontein. (And the Treks were always Great – maybe these things are in one‟s blood after all). In between, I spent about two and a half years in the erstwhile British imperial capital. Along the way, I have incurred more personal and intellectual debts than I could possibly hope to repay. My greatest debt by far is to the man who took me on as a doctoral student – something that I am sure he has regretted at times. John Breuilly has been a model supervisor: committed, enthusiastic, understanding and patient. His detailed, substantive and challenging feedback on draft chapters always left me amazed at the breadth and depth of his historical knowledge and the incisiveness of his mind. About a year ago, when I bought the 775-page Oxford handbook of the history of nationalism at Waterstones on Clare Market, I realised once again how privileged I have been to have studied with John (who had edited the volume). I would like to express my sincere gratitude and admiration to him without making him complicit in any of my errors. I must also thank John Hutchinson, who works with John on the nationalism programme at the LSE, as well as everyone else who participated in the nationalism workshop between October 2004 and June 2007. I benefited greatly from these seminars. Thanks are also due to the administrative staff of the Government Department at the LSE and to the staff of the Research Degrees Unit. It was Vic Webb who instilled in me an interest in nationalism studies and for more than twenty years he has been a mentor and an invaluable source of support. Richard Haines, whom I met at the University of Port Elizabeth (as it was called then), has been equally supportive as a mentor. Had it not been for him, I would never have made it to the LSE. He has broadened my intellectual horizons and I 6 hope that I have done his input some justice. In Port Elizabeth, I also met Janet Cherry, Carol Christie, Belinda du Plooy, Angelo Fick, Vivienne Lawack, Wessel le Roux, André Mukheibir and Henry Thipa, all without whom my life would have been much poorer. For a range of reasons, I owe considerable gratitude to many (ex-)colleagues at the University of the Free State: Jani de Lange, Ilse Deysel, Corrie Geldenhuys, Xany Jansen van Vuuren, André Keet, Lis Lange, Susan Lombaard, Chrismi Loth, Marisia Minnaar, Monnapula Molefe, Dolly Mthembu, Eventhough Ndlovo, Reinet Nel, Tshepo Pule, JC and Tania van der Merwe, Marlie van Rooyen, Albert Weideman, André Wessels and Vanessa White. I am especially indebted to Theo du Plessis and Lucius Botes for their unfaltering support (and for all the leave applications they approved). A special word of thanks is also due to Jonathan Jansen and the Prestige Scholars Programme team, Jackie du Toit, Neil Roos and Corli Witthuhn. And a fond “thank you” goes to the African Studies team, from whom I learned a great deal: Thomas Blaser, Jacob Boersema, Tom Devriendt, Cees van der Waal and Christi van der Westhuizen. The list would be incomplete without the names of Lize Kriel and Niel Roux: thank you for the leads, the statistics, the stimulating conversations and so much more. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the in-course financial support of the LSE for the academic year 2007/2008. And, of course, I thank the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission for their money, not all of which was spent at the Majestic Wine Warehouse at Borough Market. Bloemfontein, May 2013 (revised April 2014) 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 1 Afrikaner nationalism and the state: 1910–1948 ............................................................ 16 1.1 Union without unity ..................................................................................... 16 1.2 The Hertzog years ........................................................................................ 29 1.3 Fusion and the birth of “purified” Afrikaner nationalism ............................ 39 1.4 South Africa at war and Afrikanerdom divided ........................................... 42 1.5 “South Africa belongs to us!” ...................................................................... 48 Chapter 2 The land which they once owned and lost again: 1948–1994 ........................................ 62 2.1 Apartheid: the new face of Afrikaner nationalism ......................................