Controlling work, land, public places and schools
After classifying and separating people, the Nationalists turned to four more parts of life: where Africans could work, where they 'belonged', which public places each race could use, and what African children were taught. Much of this was driven by Dr Hendrik Verwoerd, who became Minister of Native Affairs in 1950.
Key terms:
- Reference book: the single pass book, brought in by a 1952 law, that African men aged 16 or over had to carry at all times.
- Influx control: limiting the number of Africans allowed to move into the towns and stay there.
- Bantu Authorities Act (1951): the law that set up government-approved chiefs to run the reserves.
- Separate Amenities Act (1953): the law that let public places and services be kept for one race, and said they did not have to be equal.
- Bantu Education Act (1953): the law that put African schools under the Department of Native Affairs, with their own lower-level lessons.
- Mission schools: schools run by churches, which taught most African children before 1953.
The Pass System
Remember, African men already had to carry passes before 1948. But there were many different papers and the rules changed from place to place. In 1952 two laws closed these gaps.
📖 One book for everyone
The Abolition of Passes Act had a misleading name. It did not abolish passes at all. It replaced the many old papers with one reference book. The book held the owner's photograph, his race label, where he came from, his tax record and his employer's details. Every African man aged 16 or over had to carry it at all times. Failing to show it to a policeman on the spot was a crime. It also allowed passes for African women across the whole country, though none were issued until later in the 1950s.
👮 The 72-hour rule
The second law, the Native Laws Amendment Act, tightened influx control in every town. No African could stay in a town for more than 72 hours without a permit. The main groups with a right to stay were those born in the town who had always lived there, those who had worked there for one employer for ten years, or those who had lived there lawfully for fifteen years. Everyone else could be sent away.
Why were these laws passed? The Nationalists had promised white voters that they would stop Africans settling in the towns. In their view, Africans were only visitors in 'white' South Africa, there to work and nothing more. They also pleased white farmers, because workers could no longer leave the farms for better-paid factory jobs. In daily life, the result was constant police checks and many arrests.
The creation of Reserves
The reserves were not new, but the Nationalists gave them a new purpose. They were to be the only true 'home' of every African, even those born in a city. So, the government argued, Africans had no claim to a vote or other rights in the rest of the country.
The key law was the Bantu Authorities Act (1951). It did two things:
- It abolished the Natives Representative Council. This body, set up in 1936, had let African leaders give advice to the government. It was the only official national body Africans had.
- It set up new authorities in the reserves, run by chiefs and headmen. These chiefs were approved and paid by the government, and a chief who would not co-operate could be replaced.
Why was it passed? Verwoerd wanted Africans to see themselves as members of separate tribes, and not as one people with a claim on the whole country. Ruling through chiefs who depended on the government gave him control of the reserves at low cost. In daily life it meant that Africans lost their one official national voice and were tied to crowded areas where most could not make a living.
The Separate Amenities Act, 1953
An amenity is something provided for the public to use. Many were already segregated by custom or local rules. The Separate Amenities Act gave this the backing of the law across the whole country. Any public place, vehicle or service could be set aside for one race only: trains, buses, station waiting rooms, post office counters, parks, beaches and public toilets.
The most important part of the Act was one short rule: the amenities for different races did not have to be equal.
Why was it passed? In the early 1950s protesters had begun to challenge segregation in the courts. Judges ruled that separate amenities had to be roughly equal. Making everything equal would have cost a great deal of money, and it went against the Nationalist belief in white control. So Parliament made unequal treatment legal and stopped the courts from interfering. In daily life it brought 'Europeans Only' and 'Non-Europeans Only' signs to public places, with the best kept for whites.
The Bantu Education Act, 1953
Before 1953 most African children who went to school were taught in mission schools. These were run by churches with some money from the state. The Nationalists distrusted them, believing they gave Africans 'dangerous' ideas about equality.
🏫 What the Act said
Control of African education passed to Verwoerd's Department of Native Affairs. Mission schools had to hand themselves over to the government or lose their state money. Most were handed over or closed. The department designed separate lessons for African pupils. Young children were taught in their African home language, with more time for practical skills such as gardening and needlework, and less for academic subjects.
💰 Why it was passed
In 1954 Verwoerd told Parliament that there was no place for the African 'in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour'. Schools were to prepare African children for low-paid work and for life in the reserves, and not for jobs that would compete with whites. The government also kept costs down, spending far less on each African child than on each white child.
In daily life the Act meant crowded classrooms and a schooling that closed the door on most skilled careers.
Notice the pattern. Each law took an older, patchy form of segregation and made it tighter and national. By 1954 the main framework of apartheid was in place.
Common mistakes
Don't be fooled by the name of the Abolition of Passes Act (1952): it made the Pass System stricter, not weaker. And don't describe the Separate Amenities Act as 'separate but equal': the whole point was that amenities could be unequal.
Exam-style question
Extract A (a practice extract written for this lesson, in the style of a modern history textbook)
The laws of 1952 and 1953 were no clumsy accident. Each was a carefully cut piece of a single design. The reference book chained the African worker to his employer's signature. The Separate Amenities Act coolly declared that what was set aside for him need not be equal. Bantu Education then reached into the classroom itself, so that the next generation would be trained to serve and taught to expect nothing more. Verwoerd, the minister behind the pass and school laws, left nothing to chance.
What impression does the author give about the apartheid laws of 1952-53? You must use Extract A to explain your answer. [6 marks]
Model answer
The author gives the impression that the apartheid laws of 1952-53 were a deliberate, carefully planned system for keeping Africans in a lower position. This is shown by the author's language. Calling each law 'a carefully cut piece of a single design' suggests they were planned together, and 'no clumsy accident' rules out the idea that they just happened. The word 'chained' makes the reference book sound like a tool for trapping workers, and 'coolly declared' suggests the government felt no shame about unequal treatment. The author has also chosen what to stress. Each law is presented by its aim, so that children are 'trained to serve', and the extract ends with Verwoerd leaving 'nothing to chance'. It leaves out anything that might weaken this picture, such as the older laws the Nationalists built on. This selection makes the laws look cold and calculated.
What lifts this to the top level: it names one clear impression, proves it with short quotations, and explains how the author's word choices and choice of what to include and leave out create that impression.
Exam tip
Look for the words about planning: 'carefully cut', 'design', 'left nothing to chance'. They tell you the impression is about deliberate intent, not just harshness. Quote two or three, say what each suggests, and finish with what the author left out. Don't explain what the laws said: your own knowledge earns nothing in this question. For more on this question type, see the Exam Skills lesson Paper 1 Question (a): What Impression Does the Author Give?