The Prime Minister described and analysed the political dispensation of the day in an exemplary fashion. It was his first public appearance following the announcement of the United Party's federal policy. After referring to South Africans political stability during the past 62 years. Adv. Vorster went on to analyse the policy directions of the various political parties. He concentrated most on the UP's new federal policy, describing it as the most immoral and dangerous policy he had seen to date. The greatest immorality of the policy lay in the fact that the rich man would rule over the poor man. He asserted further that if the UP accepted the policy of discrimination between rich and poor for its federal Parliament, the question would be what assurance there was that this principle would not also be applied in the White Parliament.
I do not know a single person in the world, and therefore not in South Africa, who, for the sake of his peace of mind, does not want a stable government to be in power. After all, we all aim at progress. It is an inflexible law that where there is no stable government there can also be no progress. Here I could mention numerous examples of countries, but time and circumstances do not permit this.
One therefore has to make a choice in politics, a choice of that party which will bring about a stable government. And do you know, we do not boast enough. And when I say we, I include some of the UP's. They are also we, as far as that is concerned. I am pleased that I am able to say this sometimes. Do you know, for 62 years, we have had only seven prime ministers. 1 Three of them died in office 2 and only one lost in an election. 3 If that is not a sign of stability on South Africa's part, then I really do not know what stability is. A country like Italy has had a prime minister every year since the last world war. Consider that when the Cabinet was recently sworn in, Professor Horwood was the 100th minister since 1910 4. There are other countries who have had that in five years. If that is not a sign of stability, then I do not know what is.
But let us take the National Party since 1948. Throughout the world governments have come and gone. Only in South Africa has the government remained truly constant. Not only has it remained constant, but it has systematically unfolded and applied its policy as it went along. And one is thankful tonight to have the knowledge-I must have it as Leader of the National Party and therefore Prime Minister of South Africa - the knowledge that not a single problem can arise in any sphere which cannot be countered by the policy and principles of the National Party. I am thankful for that. Talking of policy, I will presently discuss the swift changes in the Opposition's policy directions. They change more rapidly than ladies' fashions. We will come to that later.
But, Mr. Chairman, you as a young person do not only wish to give your support to a party which can bring about stability and therefore progress. You also want to see that the policy results in good race relations so that you can continue with your work, continue to strive for your ideals, so that the family you are building or hope to build some day can live and progress in peace. You want healthy racial relations based on justice for all. Therefore you must judge all political parties according to these norms. But you also expect a government - and therefore the political party you support - to ensure your country's participation in world affairs as far as selfrespect will permit it to go. When you have given your support to a political party you actually want to see that there is indeed development and progress, but with due regard for your history, with due regard for the road you have followed. You know that the road one has followed is often discussed with feeling, that in some circles it has been joked about. But it is and remains a truth. And that truth is that we are all on the road. But the man who sits down on the way never reaches his destination. Every person in every political party is on the move to some destination or other. But in the nature of things, you can never reach your destination if you do not know where you started from. This is an old, but enduring truth.
And, as we sit here tonight, what is the truth condensed from our history? If any of my UP friends are here, the truth applies to them too. Why do people argue with us? About one thing and one thing only. Because there are people in South Africa, a mere few million, who have had the audacity, not today or yesterday, but for ages and openly, to tell friend and foe that we wish to retain our identity and that we arc proud of it. That is what it is all about. Had this not been our aim, there would have been no trouble. You know, if I were tonight to announce from this platform, on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the National Party, that from tomorrow we were abandoning the retention of our identity, South Africa would, for five minutes, be the most popular corpse in the whole world. Look at it and joke about it as much as you like, but basically it comes from these things you have to combat, these currents washing against your shores, these recriminations made against you, these conspiracies against you. Basically it springs only from your desire to retain your identity. And you as a young person must judge, for it is the road of your history. It is the road on which you will presently find yourself. When you have to take over tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, you will have to judge whether it is worth it. Each generation answers that question for itself. I cannot speak for your generation. I can speak only for my own, and then I tell you, my young friends, for me and my generation, and those who went before us, everything that happened, the sacrifice, the humiliation, the breaking down and everything that went with it, was worth it for the sake of our nation. It is for you to judge when your time comes - and your time of preparation for taking your place is now - whether you want to retain that character and want to protect and preserve that view of life. Before you promise support to a political party, it is vital that you have the knowledge that that political party will ensure your safety and will bring about peace and order in your fatherland. And finally, perhaps more important than all the things I have mentioned here, you must ask yourself if the political party you support will preserve the moral stand you would like to see preserved in your fatherland.
Those things you would like to see preserved. And you must look at all political parties in South Africa in the light of the things I have mentioned here. Then it does not matter to which political party your father or uncle or grandfather belonged. It then becomes a personal matter to decide whom you will support and whom you will follow. With this in mind, let us, as young people, look at the various political parties of the moment. I want to say immediately that there are two particularly interesting things at the moment. The one is the Currie Cup and who will win it. I wish the finalists could be the Free State and Eastern Transvaal - my constituency is in the Eastern Transvaal. And the one who plays better should win. I say the most interesting thing at present is Currie Cup rugby. Other rugby is not as interesting. I will say a word about that this evening. And politics also has never been as interesting as it is at present. And indeed, for anybody who wants to make a choice, there has never been such a wide variety to choose from. Four political parties that put up candidates from time to time. First the Herstigte Party. I do not plan to talk about them: I never speak evil of the dead. But I will say this in passing. In the nature of things, one cannot be anti-everything. And you can get nowhere by never being positive. And you mislead nobody when you say you are rightist, when you are merely irresponsible. You will never bring anybody round to your way of thinking by using abusive language. In particular you will not bring about good relations, which are so vital to South Africa's future. Then there is the Progressive Party. I am not a psychologist, but they tell me that in psychology there is something called a "delusion of grandeur", which I notice in the ranks of the Progressive Party. And it does catch out its master! They did not think they would be called upon to contest Johannesburg West and Vereeniging. They did not think I had the courage to cause a by-election there. I cannot take it amiss of them. Mr. Harry Schwarz also thought that. And as far as that is concerned, he is in a bigger dilemma than the United Party. I shall come to that young man later.
And then there is the United Party. Let me say immediately and let me confess that when I talk of the United Party tonight, I am talking about it as it was yesterday. To be honest, with all my activities in Bethlehem today, I have not had a chance to listen to the news today. When I now talk about the United Party, then I think you will agree that I am not doing my friend Sir De Villiers an injustice. He has been Leader of the Opposition for 14 years. 5 But I want to say to his credit that he has not sat still in those 14 years; he has produced no less than seven new policy directions. I am a political leader myself. To buy off seven policy directions in 14 years is not something just anybody can manage to do. And now I am afraid, so afraid something will happen to him politically, and I so badly want to keep him. I am very selfish as far as that is concerned. He is the nicest Leader of the Opposition a prime minister could have. More of that later. Now I say this: politics is not only interesting because of the new policy we will examine tonight, but as a single political fact it is interesting to young people, and you are here because you are interested in politics. I refer to the case of Marais Steyn. 6 You know, a political life is interesting. As far as I have been able to follow him, he is the first provincial leader of any political party, and we have had some assorted ones in these years, the only leader of a political party ever to have been beaten at a congress. That is actually something to go down in history. But what is interesting is that the United Party has fallen into every trap they have set for us during the past years. And far be it from me not to enjoy this.
My good young friends, while we are looking at this party, what is the basic foundation of this party's problems? Basically it has never shown leadership and never given the guidance a political party should. And the bit of leadership there is at present comes from the very back of the back benches in the Transvaal Provincial Council. Just imagine that those of us who are interested in politics should have lived to see people got into the Provincial Council yesterday and the day before yesterday from one province, controlling the Republic-wide politics of a political party calling itself the alternative government! 7 But this revolt against Marais Steyn was not, in the first instance, aimed at Marais Steyn, but at Sir De Villiers. Marais Steyn's opponents know only too well that to get at Sir De Villiers you first have to destroy Marais Steyn. Sir De Villiers himself said Marais Steyn was his left and right hand, and I have seen in Parliament that he is also his sense. I am not doing him an injustice in saying this. How often have I not asked him questions in the House when Marais Steyn has prompted him so loudly that I could hear it where I was sitting. I got the answer secondhand before Sir De Villiers could even give it to me. I want to predict, in fact it is not even necessary to predict, I can prove to you tonight, that this whole affair that is going on in the United Party, is basically aimed at the leadership of Sir De Villiers Graaff. You know, what has irritated me for years, and I want to assume it has irritated you too, whether you are old or young, is the verlig-verkramp tale. It did irritate one. And strangely enough, they have completely stopped speculating about our verligtheid or verkramptheid because they are so busy drawing up lists of who is verlig or verkramp in their own party. Sir De Villiers, of course, takes the cake in this respect. He breaks all records in that and again, you do not have to call me to witness in this regard, but take the Sunday Tribune. I found it so cute that I brought it along with me. Its front page - "Verlig en Verkramp - Div plays it both ways".
Can you imagine that this is one of the newspapers that have opened the way for the United Party since the 1970 election?
This is one of the papers that was used against the National Party. This is one of the papers that asserted that this was the man South Africa could not do without for a second. His government had to take over. And this, then, is the heading. If my newspapers ever had to say that about me, my self-respect would not allow me to remain in politics any longer. But after all, you can ask me on what grounds I say this thing is aimed at Sir De Villiers. On the grounds of what I saw in the newspaper this morning. On the grounds of what was in yesterday's Financial Mail, namely: "Div must go". And if the financiers and business people who have kept the United Party afloat until now, whose mouthpiece is the Financial Times, if they say "Div must go" . . .! He is essentially one to dig in his heels - I do not know if he will hold out. I do not know whether he will dare to hold out. Therefore, if you have to give a political party your loyalty, it is surely necessary in these days not only to look at the party, but at who the future leader of that party will be. Remember how for the last two or three years, they have tried to tell you that there was bickering in the ranks of the National Party which would ultimately lead to the fall of the Government? Friends, I must tell you tonight that the spirit of goodwill and unity in the National Party has never been as good as it is at the present time. I want to say as the leader of a political party, that if ever in any political party a cabinet shuffle took place as there did recently in South Africa, and took place with so much goodwill, I would like to see it. 8 And I know what I am talking about. Because the motive is to serve South Africa and its people. But, how much abuse people had to suffer - I am one of them - as a result of this defamation of character assassination and mudslinging tactic in which the United Party and its press have engaged for the past few years. But one must always remember, and you will remember, that in respect of something quite different, to which I will come later, I told the world and I told the United Party that they could continue with these tactics, but that they would be sorry in the end. And now that is the case. When a UP sees you he wants to gossip about another UP.
Let us have a look at the United Party's new policy. Among the young people present here, there will be those of you who were in Cape Town as well who will remember this Parliamentary session, when my post was discussed. You will remember how on that occasion, Sir De Villiers again stressed that there was only one salvation for South Africa, and that was the dispensation he suggested, namely, a mixed Parliament in which there would be six Coloured representatives, two Indians and eight Bantu representatives. But the representatives of the Indians and the Bantu had to be White. This, according to him, was the only solution to South Africa's political problem. I told him it would not work. He had no need to appoint a commission to find that out. I had been telling him this for years. And his words had barely been uttered, when he changed the policy. We will look at this new policy which is coming now. What faith can one have in a man who yesterday, with the greatest earnestness, said that that was the solution for South Africa's problems of the future, for the race problem and its solution were the most important things there could be in South Africa? And then he throws it overboard just like that. To tell the truth, he did not even bid it farewell. What can you expect of such a leader and such a party? But do you remember, the Jeugbonders (a Youth organisation) that were there, or who followed that debate in the newspapers, how Sir De Villiers had said the policy of separate development, namely the homelands policy, was lying in pieces at my feet? And now they are fighting about which one of the pieces must be their policy. What respect can one have for such a political party?
The policy you have opposed for years now becomes the corner-stone of your policy, as we shall see. I want to agree wholeheartedly with The Star. I do not know if The Star said it as well as I am going to say it. But we both said more or less the same thing about the United Party: Their present policy is like a modern painting, you can hang it upside down or any way you like and nobody will notice that it is not hanging the right way up. But what is more, just like a modern painting, any man sees in it what he wants to see. Mr. Horace van Rensburg, the new Transvaal star, sees one thing and then you ask Mr. Horak and others and they say that is what he sees, but not what they see. We know what the whole lot will see in the end. This is the policy now being presented to you. Mr. Van Rensburg is interpreting the policy. Mr. Schwarz has not yet said if he agrees with Mr. Van Rensburg. They sent Mr. Enthoven to Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and other cities to go and tell people of their policy. Just imagine, in the Transvaal Provincial Council you send a deputation to the Province to tell what your policy is, and this after the leader has announced the policy! Could one be more foolish than this? I find it not only foolish, I find it far worse. Let us look at this new policy for a moment. There will be a Federal Parliament and in that Federal Parliament there will be representatives of four White Parliaments. I assume these are the four Provincial Administrations. South West Africa is left quite out of the picture. I do not think they want to leave it out, it is simply that they did not think of it. They will remember that tomorrow or the day after. But then four White Parliaments will each have three representatives in that umbrella Federal Parliament. And then two Coloured Parliaments will each have three representatives. When we established the Coloured Persons Representative Council, which is in fact the Coloured Parliament, they opposed us night and day and said it was the greatest monster in the world that we had created for the Coloured people in giving them such a parliament. They would cancel it and do away with it when they came to power.
And here they come with their new policy and say one is not enough, we will give them two, one for the Coloureds of the Western Cape and the other for the Coloureds from the remainder of the Republic. On what sort of healthy basis is this being done then? And an advocate, Adv. Mitchell, is the chairman of the commission! Now we understand why he recommends this and Sir De Villiers has accepted it. And then you will give the Indian Parliament three representatives. They also told us not to do this. We have not yet done so, but are only on the way to doing it. But then they told us it was something evil: we may not do that. Now they accept it as a. fait accompli. There will also be three representatives each for eight Bantu Parliaments, that is, 24. In other words, they accept the eight Bantu Homelands which lay in pieces at my feet. They not only accept them, they give them three representatives each in the Federal Parliament. Now they have forgotten the urban Bantu. They will remember tomorrow or the day after that they forgot that. Then another one or two parliaments will be added to the eight. But we can joke about this and it is fun to do so - of course it is, I make no secret of it. But it is the most immoral policy I have ever heard of, immoral in the sense that the Federal Parliament will have 165 members, 45 will be elected by these White, Coloured, Indian and Black Parliaments, and the other 120 will be chosen by the richest colour group, the one that contributes most to the nation's income. In other words what is happening for the first time in the history of South Africa is that you are elevating yourself to the skies and saying it is immoral to discriminate against people on the grounds of colour, you may not do it. But it is not immoral to discriminate bet-and poor. This then, is the highest form of morality. And these English editors have held themselves to be the model of integrity for years! They who stood as high as heaven on a platform and condemned the immorality of the National Party! Not a single one ever had the courage to revolt against this greatest immorality where the rich in the United Party's new dispensation will hold sway over the poor. But what is more, what assurance have I, as I sit here on this platform, that in the parliament of the Whites there will not in future be discrimination between the rich and the poor subject? If you accept that principle, you have fallen so low that you accept that immorality as your policy and nail it to yourself. What then prevents your carrying it through, in the remainder of your political life as well? And I say again, particularly when I talk to these idealistic young people, these newspaper editors who had so much to say about morality, what morality will lie in it if they allow this policy of the United Party to pass like that? But what is more, do you realise its dangers?
Look, I want to tell you very clearly as young people tonight, that the policy of the National Party is the policy of separate development. That policy is not based on my, as a White man, considering myself to be better than the man of colour. Who am I as one of God's creatures to say I am better than another one of His creatures? This is not the basis of my policy. My policy is not that I am better than he is because I am White. My policy is not that I am better than he is because I am richer-today or tomorrow he could be as rich as I. This wealth is worldly, it passes away. What if he becomes as rich as I am? My policy may not be based on educational qualifications, like the Progressive Party's. Should I vaunt myself because I am more learned than he? Only to discover tomorrow that he is becoming as learned as I? What will then become of my policy? My policy is based on my being different to him and I have the right to perpetuate that difference. I have the right to preserve my identity, that difference that exists between us. But should I rest on the foundation of being more learned than he, or richer, it would not only be despicable, it would be doomed to failure. What is more, the danger lies in that - for the Whites there are 12, there are four units as far as the Whites are concerned.
As far as the Non-Whites are concerned, there are eight plus two plus one, that is, 11 units. If you contribute the more numerous 11 units, whose numbers are millions more, to the national gross product, throw them together and throw those of the Whites in, in how many years will they overtake you? They have numbers on their side. Rising circumstances in respect of wages, productivity and independence, and so on. How long will it be before they overtake you? Are you going to think up something else to keep them from what you now want to give them? This is not only an immoral policy, an unacceptable policy, but it is a dangerous policy for South Africa. And do you know, the most dangerous of all is that they do not hesitate to tell you it is not even final yet. That it is still subject to further corrections. Can any young person with a pure conscience support such a political party?
I have told you as young people that difficult years lie ahead of you. Undoubtedly one of the most difficult problems you will have to face is what your policy should be in a country like South Africa to promote good race relations. For it is necessary not to have a policy like this which cheats the Whites on one side and the Non-Whites on the other. You must have a policy in which you can say precisely to the Non-White: This is my policy, whether you agree or not, but this is the policy I stand for. How often have I not told non-White leaders this. There is the question of land that comes up every time. I have told some of the non-White leaders publicly and privately that my view is that I stick stringently to the Act of 1936. 9 I stand by the world of the White man through the mouths of Generals Hertzog and Smuts, given in 1936 - that is the land I will give you. You will get no more land than this from the National Government. I put this to them very clearly and, in the nature of things, there were leaders who were not satisfied. As long as the National Party remains, this will be the policy of South Africa. I said it at Potchefstroom and I want to give this advice to some of the non-White leaders in all love and friendship. You help the elevation of your own people very greatly if you ride around less and talk less and work more among your own people in order to be of service to them. I say consider this delicate thing, land. The National Party's view is there for everybody to understand.
We say the Act of 1936 stipulates that 7,25 morgen of land has to be added to the land that was at that time Black land. So much in this province and so much in that. The Free State's land has been dealt with already. There is nothing more to come from the Free State. But there is in other provinces, whether you agree with it or not. But everybody knows what the policy is. And you know, we are debating this very matter in Parliament at present. And on one day, three views on the same matter came from the United Party. And all three are members of the same party. One man says there is too little land. The other man says it is too much land and the other man says it is sufficient land. And you may go and read this, for if you are in Houghton you say it is too little land, if you are in Bethlehem you say it is too much, and in another place you say it is sufficient. And Mr. Schwarz says he is revolting against this, for it will not continue to happen in his regime. I tell you, what the non-White leaders, the non-White nations, expect of us is to know exactly what our policy is. And tonight I want to say this as your leader. During the past years I have deliberated with every national group, with the leaders of every nation, and I have caused discussions to be held with them. With a clear conscience I can say - time and circumstances brought this about - that I have held more discussions with non-White leaders than all my predecessors. I could tell them very clearly what the policy of the National Party is.
I could tell them, even if they did not like it, that the policy of the National Party was that they would have no right to own property in my country, as I would not give my people the right to own property in theirs. They might not like it, but they know where they stand with me. However, the United Party goes and asks the non-White leaders their opinion and just listens to their commentary concerning this new policy that came along! They do not know exactly what it is, but the little they do know, they disagree with. And you cannot take this amiss of them; you may differ from the National Party, but you always received an answer to policy questions from this party and will continue to do so in future. There will be people who do not like this, as there are people who dislike the statement recently made by Dr. Koornhof on behalf of the Government, the statement about rugby. And let me deal with that tonight too. I want to state it to you very clearly once more. I do not think I, as Leader of the National Party, can be accused of not having gone out of my way to keep good sporting relations in South Africa with its young people and its sport. I want to go as far as to say that many good Nationalists took it amiss of me because I went as far as I did. I went that far because I thought it was right and good that it should be done. I did not do it to please this man or the other. I did it because I am firmly convinced in my mind that it was the correct thing to do. But people must not ask for things to be done that cannot be done. I want to tell you clearly tonight, sketch it again for you as I have continually sketched it in public and in Parliament in respect of the favourite sport of everyone present, rugby. Through the years that rugby has been played in South Africa, the Whites have organised themselves into a body known as the South African Rugby Board.
The Coloureds organised themselves into their board and the Bantu in turn organised themselves into theirs. At present there are three rugby boards in South Africa: one represents the Blacks, one the Coloureds - in fact there are two for the Coloureds - and one the Whites. And the White Rugby Board does not represent South Africa, but the Whites of South Africa have over the years built up certain relations with Britain and New Zealand and Australia and France. It forged those ties and they knew it was the South African Rugby Board, representing the White players of South Africa. There was nobody that did not know this. But we said - I said in particular - that we made it possible for the Coloureds and the Bantu to participate in international sport as well. It is their good right. It is not only a White man's right to participate in international sport. I went out of my way to do this and I was pleased when a Coloured team finally went to Britain and that the British played a Coloured and a Bantu team here. It was good and right that it should have been so. But suddenly there has again; who caused it and why, I do not know. But what I do not know is that the Whites, as organised into the South African Rugby Board representing the Whites, have been invited by New Zealand to team there. And it is for New Zealand to say whether it accepts that team or not. Their prime minister has said he will be happy to accept it. Their rugby people did not say they would accept it but sent an invitation: "Please come."
And their population, according to their own newspapers, is more than 70 per cent in favour of the team's coming. So where docs the story of mixed trials come from? Where does it touch? One cannot on like this. And why should exception be taken? And I tell you, the people who are taking exception are the people who want to disturb relations between South Africa and New Zealand. One cannot take exception to that statement for any other reason. For I think one thing, and I will say it to you as young people. One thing has abundantly proved in the National Party, and that is that is a question of discriminating against a man because of colour, but in the National Party it is a question of defining on the grounds of colour, if you discriminate on the grounds of colour you humiliate and hurt, but if you define on the grounds of colour, you state the fact as it is, and about which nobody can argue or become angry. And what is more, in a country like South Africa it is absolutely essential - and you as young people will realise this when you stand in practice - it is essential that peace and tranquility and calm must reign in a country like South Africa, that there must be proper borders between nation and nation. Eliminate those borders and you will land in a mess that will wound you and render your society in South Africa impossible, will render it impossible in a country like South Africa in which Whites, Bantu, Coloureds and Indians live. While I am talking of Indians, I see that very pious pleas are being directed to me as Prime Minister to make a gesture towards Uganda's Indians. 10 I am getting a little tired of this making of gestures.
I am not unconcerned. I want to state clearly that I am extremely sorry for these people. I am not unconcerned about their fate. I notice that the countries, of which Uganda is one, which have accused South Africa of racism, of the most ghastly racistic deeds that can be perpetrated. I notice that those who damn South African are afraid to raise their voices against it. I notice that the clerics who sat again on the World Council of Churches and gave terrorists money, do not consider that such a petty little matter is within the bounds of their interest. In fact, if you subsidise death, why get upset about theft? I say I am very sympathetic, but I also want to say this does not demand any gesture from South Africa in this regard. And I shall tell you why. This whole episode in Uganda can be blamed squarely on the State of India. Take a look at the UN's stocks. Who caused this stir in the UN for the first time? None other than India. 11 Who nurtured and cultivated animosity against South Africa for years? Who put South Africa in the pillory for years, before the Organisation of African Unity was there, and encouraged this enmity? It is India! And today India's chickens are coming home to roost. The things she wished South Africa, the things she organised to happen to South Africa and to South Africa's people, are happening to her own people in Africa today. And India, the holy, the pious, is not opening her portals to her own people. She has not yet told them they will be welcome. But I must make a gesture. I repeat that I consider this one of the most immoral deeds yet perpetrated against any population group. But I want to see how soon those countries who always condemn South Africa, will show themselves willing to solve this matter. I think this is their chance and their opportunity. I must do nothing to deprive them of it.
South Africa will have its internal and external problems. But I repeat, I am thankful that despite all those problems, not only my predecessors, but I as well could succeed in combating those problems because of the policy and principles of this party. I am thankful, extremely thankful to have the knowledge, as I stand here tonight, that there is at present peace and tranquillity in the National Party, a peace and tranquillity that was absent for some years. I am thankful to know that there is a new interest in the National Party. I am thankful for the loyalty to the Party that I have noticed here tonight. My dear young friends, you came to hold a congress, to reflect, to enjoy being together. Let me pay you this compliment. I looked at you today and I looked at you tonight. I see earnestness among you, but I also see cheerfulness. I am so glad that you are not like the Nusas bunch who think they are carrying South Africa. South Africa would fall pretty hard if they had to carry it. I am so thankful that you are continuing to reflect on politics with cheerfulness, but with seriousness, to prepare yourselves for the day when South Africa will be your responsibility. As an older politician, whose time will be done tomorrow, or me day after tomorrow, I am thankful to know that serious young people are acting in such a way that when they are called upon to carry responsibility one day, they will be sufficiently trained to be able to do so. Not only young people trained sufficiently to be able to do this, but, I am so thankful to know, young people of faith who will be entrusted with that task. I wish you well.
Gen. Louis Botha (31.5.1910-26.8.1919); Gen. J. C. Smuts (3.8.1919-29.6.1924 and 6.9.1939-3.6.1948); Gen. J. B. M. Hertzog (30.6.1924-5.9.1939); Dr. D. F. Malan (4.6.1948-30.11.1954); Adv. J. G. S. Strijdom (1.12.1954-24.8.1958); Dr. H. F. Verwoerd (3.9.1958-6.9.1966) and Adv. B. J. Vorster (1966-).
Gen. Louis Botha (26.1.1919); Adv.J. G. Strijdom (24.8.1958) and Dr. H. F. Verwoerd (6.9.1966).
Gen.J. C. Smuts (1924 election). The result of this election, which brought the National Party to power for the first time, was: National Party: 63, S.A. Party: 53, Labour Party 18, Independents: I
Professor O. P. F. Horwood resigned from the University of Natal as rector and vice-chancellor on 30 September 1969, joined the National Party and took his seat as a Senator in Parliament. He was taken into the Cabinet by Adv. Vorster on 31 July 1972 and was Minister of Indian Affairs and Tourism (1972-1974), Minister of Economic Affairs (1974-1975) and Minister of Finance (1975- )
Sir De Villiers Graaff took over leadership of the United Party from Adv. J. G. N. Strauss on 21 November 1956. At a congress held in Bloemfontein Sir De Villiers was unanimously elected the new leader. Cf. Rand Daily Mail, 22.11.1956.
Mr. Marais Steyn, MP for Yeoville and later leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, was defeated in a struggle for the leadership of the Transvaal by Mr. Harry S MPC for Hillbrow and leader of the UP in the Transvaal Provincial Council on 25 August 1972.
Here Adv. Vorster is referring to Mr. Harry Schwarz, who was a member of the Johannesburg City Council from 1951 to 1957. He became MPC for Hillbrow in 1957 and leader of the United Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council in 1963. In 1971 he became deputy leader of the UP in the Transvaal, a post specially created for him.
Comprehensive changes in the Cabinet were announced by the Prime Minister on Monday, 31 June 1972. Five new ministers and four deputy ministers were appointed, while five ministers resigned from the Cabinet. There was also a new division of portfolios. Cf. South African Digest, 4.8.1972.
Cf. P. J. Nienaber, (ed.) Gedenkboek Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog, Johannesburg, 1965, pp. 198-9-
Gen. Idi Amin came to power in Uganda on 25 January 1971, having over thrown the government of President Milton Obote. Following this, President Amin launched an inhuman campaign against all Indians in Uganda, according to which they were driven from the country.
On 21 September 1946, Gen. J. C. Smuts wrote to his wife in South Africa from Paris: "The Indian trouble is continuing in India and to detract attention from it, the Indian attitude to South Africa is intensifying. Nehru, the new prime minister, has said that India will oppose South Africa to the most extreme limits and they are now persuading Ghandi to go to the UN Assembly to attack me and give evidence against South Africa. It will be rather interesting for the world to see Ghandi and I before a world court in our old age! This is really a strange world and time in which we live. In India itself it seems as if things are leading to civil war and one can therefore understand that they want to detract world attention from such an ugly situation." Cf. Jean van der Poel, Selections from the Smuts Papers, Vol. VII, August 1945 - October 1950, p. 84.