| Date | November 2020 | Marks available | 9 | Reference code | 20N.1.BP.TZ0.16 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Evaluate | Question number | 16 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Source M Robert M Price, a professor of politics, writing in the academic book The Apartheid State in Crisis: Political Transformation in South Africa, 1975–1990 (1991).
On March 21, 1960 in the black township of Sharpeville … peaceful demonstrators, for the most part African women, were attacked by police, who shot and killed 69 and wounded another 178 … Images of the Sharpeville massacre alerted international attention to the apartheid system, and to the state’s efforts to suppress and silence opponents of racial separation. Pretoria found itself diplomatically isolated and faced with threats to its security and economic growth. International investment, which had played a considerable part in South Africa’s development, took flight.
It was in this context of international isolation and hostility that Prime Minister Verwoerd introduced his plan for the eventual partition of South African territory into ten independent African states, and “white” South Africa … Ten Bantustans would be created out of the 13 % of South Africa’s land area. Some economic developments and limited powers of internal self-government were intended for these new entities, which were seen as the future home of Africans who would be removed from “white South Africa” … A combination of ruthless repression and apartheid measures served to crush all organized manifestations of black political and economic power.
[Source: Price, R.M., 1991.The Apartheid State in Crisis Political Transformation in South Africa, 1975–1990 Copyright
© 1991 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear.]
Source N A map of South Africa showing the location of the Bantustans.
[Credit: South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid Building Democracy, Homelands (Bantustans):
https://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/image.php?kid=163-577-305.]
Source O Nelson Mandela, writing in the article “Verwoerd’s Grim Plot”, published in the magazine Liberation (May 1959).
There is … no democracy. No self-government… Politically, the talk about self-government for the reserves is a swindle [fraud]. Economically, it is [a nonsense]. The few scattered African reserves in various parts of the Union [of South Africa], comprising about 13 percent of the least desirable land area, represent the last shreds of land ownership left to the African people of their original… home. … The facts are… that the reserves are congested [overcrowded] distressed areas, completely unable to sustain their present populations. The majority of the adult males are always away from home working in the towns, mines, or European-owned farms. The people are on the verge of starvation. The [government] speaks of teaching Africans soil conservation and agriculture and replacing European agricultural officers by Africans… [In fact, the main] problem of the reserves is the intolerable congestion which already exists. No amount of agricultural instruction will ever enable 13 percent of the land to sustain 66 percent of the population.
The government is, of course, fully aware of [the] fact. They have no intention of creating African areas which are genuinely self-supporting (and which could therefore create a genuine possibility of self-government). If such areas were indeed self-supporting, where would the Chamber of Mines and the Nationalist farmers get their supplies of cheap labour?
[Source: Adapted from Verwoerd’s Grim Plot. Nelson Mandela. First published in Liberation number 36, May 1959.]
Source P Roger B Beck, an historian specializing in South African history, writing in the academic book The History of South Africa (2000).
The Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (1959) limited African political rights to the reserves, thereby taking away their elected White parliamentary representatives. … The bantustans were allotted within the limits of the 13.7 percent of land earlier set aside and varied considerably in size and quality. There were eventually ten homelands, or bantustans, based on ethnicity. Furthermore, in an effort to guarantee White access to the best farming land and mineral wealth, only the tiny bantustan of Qwaqwa was a single piece. Bophuthatswana consisted of nineteen fragments, some separated by hundreds of miles; and KwaZulu had twenty-nine major and forty-one minor fragments. …
Verwoerd argued that South Africa was “decolonizing” the bantustans and granting them independence; as citizens of their respective bantustans, Africans enjoyed full political rights according to their own practices and traditions. According to Verwoerd, there could be no racial discrimination against Africans in South Africa because there were no African citizens; African rights in White South Africa were not restricted because of race but because they were foreigners.
To present an acceptable face to the world, Verwoerd increasingly referred to “separate development” rather than apartheid; “Natives” became Bantu; bantustans became “homelands”.
[Source: Republished with permission of ABC-CLIO from History of South Africa, Roger Beck, 2013;
permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.]
Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the success of the Bantustan system in achieving the aims of the South African government.
Markscheme
Apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and award credit wherever it is possible to do so. The following material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and no set answer is required. While it is expected that there will be coverage of at least two of the sources, candidates are not required to refer to all four sources in their responses.
Indicative content
Source M The aims of the South African government were to respond to a situation of international isolation, to achieve internal security and to respond to economic concerns. Also, the government wanted to separate black Africans from “white” South Africa.
Source N The map shows how most of South Africa’s land area was reserved for the white population. However, this would strengthen black Africans’ opposition to the government.
Source O This source’s demonstration of the injustice of the Bantustan system and its condemnation of the government suggests that the government would face a worsening security problem.
Source P The source’s reference to the “best farming land and mineral wealth” being guaranteed for the white population could strengthen the government’s political position. However, the granting of only a small proportion of land to black Africans would be likely to increase black opposition to the government.
Own knowledge Candidates may provide evidence of the black majority’s increasing hostility to the government and the security threat that this posed for the authorities. They may provide further details regarding the shooting of peaceful demonstrators in Sharpeville or make reference to the Langa March (1960). This in turn led to the leaders of both the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan-African Congress (PAC) to decide to switch from peaceful protest to violence.
The ANC’s “Spear of the People” began a campaign of sabotage, and the PAC also formed a terrorist group. Candidates may further discuss the international impact of Sharpeville and Langa which led to increased pressure on the South African government to end apartheid.
Candidates may argue that white general election results showed a significant increase in support for the government between 1948 and 1961. Candidates may argue that South Africa’s increasing ability to withstand international pressure was due to the Cold War and to South Africa’s economic strength, rather than the Bantustan system.
Examiners report
Most candidates were able to offer a response to the final question which had some development. Responses usually demonstrated an awareness of the need to focus on the set question and to refer to and use the sources to develop and support their analysis. Indeed, the majority of responses had some use or reference to the sources. Many candidates were able to use the sources to offer a balanced assessment of the factors which influenced Mussolini's descision to invade Abyssinia in October 1935 for Question 12, or to evaluate the success of the Bantustan system in achieving the aims of the South African government for Question 16. In addition, some candidates effectively applied their knowledge in conjunction with a focused use of the sources.
However, some responses were limited by an excessively descriptive approach and some lacked clear and consistent focus on the set question. There were also responses that tended to list the content in each source rather than using it to develop an analysis of the question. In addition, responses often lacked synthesis of relevant knowledge.
