Central Labour College

Central Labour College

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In November 1908, Oxford University announced that it was going to take over Ruskin College. The chancellor of the university, George Curzon, was the former Conservative Party MP and the Viceroy of India. His reactionary views were well-known and was the leader of the campaign to prevent women having the vote. Curzon visited the college where he made a speech to the students explaining the decision. (1)

Dennis Hird, the principal of Ruskin College, replied to Curzon: "My Lord, when you speak of Ruskin College you are not referring merely to this institution here in Oxford, for this is only a branch of a great democratic movement that has its roots all over the country. To ask Ruskin College to come into closer contact with the University is to ask the great democracy whose foundation is the Labour Movement, a democracy that in the near future will come into its own, and, when it does, will bring great changes in its wake".

The author of The Burning Question of Education (1909) reported: "As he concluded, the burst of applause that emanated from the students seemed to herald the dawn of the day Dennis Hird had predicted. Without another word, Lord Curzon turned on his heel and walked out, followed by the remainder of the lecture staff, who looked far from pleased. When the report of the meeting was published in the press, the students noted that significantly enough Dennis Hird's reply was suppressed, and a few colourless remarks substituted." (2)

William Craik, a member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (later the National Union of Railwaymen) pointed out that his fellow students were "very perturbed at the direction in which the teaching and control of the College was moving, and by the failure of the trade union leaders to make any effort to change that direction. We new arrivals had little or no knowledge of what had been taking place at Ruskin before we got there. Most of us were socialists of one party shade or other." (3)

Noah Ablett emerged as the leader of the resistance to the plans of Hastings Lees-Smith. A coalminer from South Wales, he was one of the Ruskin students who was greatly influenced by the teachings of Dennis Hird. He set up Marxist tutorial classes in the central valleys of the Welsh coalfield. In January 1909, Ablett and some of his followers established the Plebs League, an organisation committed to the idea of promoting left-wing education amongst workers. Over the next few weeks branches were established in five towns in the coalfield. Arthur J. Cook and William H. Mainwaring were two early recruits to these classes. (4) Ablett was described as "a remarkable young man, a rebel of cosmopolitan, perhaps cosmic, importance" and "as an educator and ideologue, he was unique". (5)

Students of Ruskin College were forbidden to speak in public without the permission of the executive committee. In an effort to marginalise Dennis Hird, new rules such as the requirement for regular essays and quarterly revision papers were introduced. "This met with strong resistance from the majority of the students, who looked upon it as one more way of making the connection with the University still closer... Most of the students had come to Ruskin College on the understanding that there would be no tests other than monthly essays set and examined by their respective tutors, and afterwards discussed in personal interviews with them." (6)

In August 1908, Charles Stanley Buxton, the vice-principal of Ruskin College, published an article in the Cornhill Magazine. He wrote that "the necessary common bond is education in citizenship, and it is this which Ruskin College tries to give - conscious that it is only a new patch on an old garment." (7) It has been argued that "it read as if it had been written by someone who looked upon the workers as a kind of new barbarians whom he and his like had been called upon to tame and civilise". (8) The students were not convinced by this approach as Dennis Hird had told them about the quotation of Karl Marx: "The more the ruling class succeeds in assimilating members of the ruled class the more formidable and dangerous is its rule." (9)

Lord George Curzon published Principles and Methods of University Reform in 1909. In the book he pointed out that it was vitally important to control the education of future leaders of the labour movement. He urged universities to promote the growth of an elite leadership and rejected the 19th century educational reformers call for reform on utilitarian lines to encourage "upward movement" of the capitalist middle class: "We must strive to attract the best, for they will be the leaders of the upward movement... and it is of great importance that their early training should be conducted on liberal rather than on utilitarian lines." (10)

In February, 1909, Dennis Hird was investigated in order to discover if he had "deliberately identified the college with socialism". The sub-committee reported back that Hird was not guilty of this offence but did criticise Henry Sanderson Furniss for "bias and ignorance" and recommended the appointment of another lecturer in economics, more familiar with working class views. Hastings Lees-Smith and the executive committee rejected this suggestion and in March decided to dismiss Hird for "failing to maintain discipline". He was given six months' salary (£180) in lieu of notice, plus a pension of £150 a year for life. (11)

It is believed that 20 students were members of the Plebs League. Its leader, Noah Ablett organised a students' strike in support of Hird. Another important figure was George Sims, a carpenter, who had been sponsored by Albert Salter, a doctor working in Bermondsey who was also a member of the Independent Labour Party. He was the man chosen to deal with the press. (12)

The Daily News reported: "It is one of the quaintest of strikes, this revolt of the 54 students of Ruskin College against what they consider the intolerable action of the authorities with regard to Mr. Dennis Hird, the Principal." In an interview with one of the strikers, George Sims claimed that the students had been told by the authorities that Hird had been sacked because he had been "unable to maintain discipline". The real reason was the way that Hird had been teaching sociology. (13)

On 2nd April the newspaper carried an interview with Dennis Hird: "I have received hundreds of letters of sympathy from past students....There can be no foundation of any sort, technical or otherwise, for the statement that I have failed to maintain discipline. The fact that I have the love of hundreds of students, past and present, and that they would do anything for me, is surely the answer to that." The journalist added "the workingmen students of Ruskin College were as determined as ever that under no circumstances would they consent to Mr. Hird's going.... As matters stand at present it is clear that only the reinstatement of Mr. Hird can save serious trouble." (14)

The following day the newspaper carried an editorial on the dispute: "We are far from wishing to take any side in the controversy, but the unanimity of the students in their support of Mr. Hird, the dismissed Principal, is a fact which cannot be ignored. It may be that the students are mistaken as to the reason for his dismissal, but there is no doubt of the genuine affection they have for their Principal and the reality of their conviction that his dismissal is associated with an organic change in regard to the College.... Ruskin College is an effort to permeate the working classes with ideals and culture, which, while elevating and benefiting the students, will not divorce them from their own atmosphere but will serve to make that atmosphere purer and better." (15)

The Ruskin authorities decided to close the college for a fortnight and then re-admit only students who would sign an undertaking to observe the rules. Of the 54 students at Ruskin College at that time, 44 of them agreed to sign the document. However, the students decided that they would use the Plebs League and its journal, the Plebs' Magazine, to campaign for the setting up of a new and real Labour College. (16)

Dennis Hird received very little support from other advocates of working-class education. Albert Mansbridge, the
founder of the Workers' Educational Association (WEA) in 1903, blamed Hird's preaching of socialism for his dismissal. In a letter to a French friend, he wrote "the low-down practice of Dennis Hird in playing upon the class consciousness of swollen-headed students embittered by the gorgeous panorama ever before them of an Oxford in which they have no part." (17)

Noah Ablett took the lead in establishing an alternative to Ruskin College. He saw the need for a residential college as a cadre training school for the labour movement that was based on socialist values. George Sims, who had been expelled after his involvement in the Ruskin strike, played an important role in raising the funds for the project. On 2nd August, 1909, Ablett and Sims organised a conference that was attended by 200 trade union representatives. Dennis Hird, Walter Vrooman and Frank Lester Ward were all at the conference. (18)

Sims explained that the "last link which bound Ruskin College to the Labour Movement had been broken, the majority of the students had taken the bold step of trying to found a new college owned and controlled by the organised Labour Movement." (19) Ablett moved the resolution: "That this Conference of workers declares that the time has now arrived when the working class should enter the educational world to work out its own problems for itself." (20)

The conference agreed to establish the Central Labour College (CLC). The students rented two houses in Bradmore Road in Oxford. It was decided that "two-thirds of representation on Board of Management shall be Labour organisations on the same lines as the Labour Party constitution, namely, Trade Unions, Socialist societies and Co-operative societies." Most of the original funding came from the South Wales Miners' Federation (SWMF) and the National Union of Railwaymen (NUR). (21)

Dennis Hird agreed to act as Principal and to lecture on sociology and other subjects, without any salary. George Sims worked as its secretary and Alfred Hacking was employed as tutor in English grammar and literature. Fred Charles accepted a post as tutor in industrial and political history. The teaching staff was supplemented by regular visiting lecturers, such as Frank Horrabin, Winifred Batho, Rebecca West, Emily Wilding Davison, H. N. Brailsford, Arthur Horner and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence. In 1910 William Craik was appointed as Vice-Principal.

The Plebs Magazine pointed out the main objectives of the Central Labour College: "The education given at the Central Labour College to the selected working men of the Labour Movement is to serve essentially as a means for the education of the workers throughout the country. Arrangements are being made in this direction, and we hope to be able to announce at no distant date the inauguration of a systematic provincial scheme of working-class education. The training of men for the purpose of going out into the industrial world to train their fellow-workers concerning those questions which so vitally affect their everyday life, is a work, we feel certain, that will in a short time give to the Labour Movement the intelligent discipline and solidarity it so much needs. (22)

In 1910 William Craik was appointed as Vice-Principal. The following year the college moved to London. "Very soon after the College arrived in Kensington it began to conduct evening classes, both within and without, for the working men and women in the district, and to extend their range. Not many years were to pass before there was hardly a suburb in Greater London without one or more Labour College classes at work in it. Nothing like this, needless to say, would have been possible had the College remained in Oxford." (23)

John Saville has argued that the Central Labour College provided the kind of socialist education that was not provided by Ruskin College and the Workers' Educational Association. "What we have in these years is both the attempt to channel working-class education into the safe and liberal outlets of the Workers' Educational Association and Ruskin College, and the development of working-class initiatives from below; and it is the latter only which made its contribution to the socialist movement - and a considerable contribution it was." (24)

Bernard Jennings agrees with Saville on this point and points out that Richard Tawney, A. D. Lindsay and Archbishop William Temple were all supporters of Ruskin College and the WEA over the Central Labour College: "There is no doubt that the establishment preferred the WEA and Ruskin to the Labour college movement, a fact exploited quite brazenly by the WEA in the 1920s. Temple, Tawney and A. Lindsay all warned the Board of Education and the LEAs that unless they supported the WEA and respected its academic freedom, workers' education would fall to the CLC." (25)

The Central Labour College was always short of money. The Plebs Magazine was used to raise funds. "Your cash will be used to good purpose - make no doubt of that. The CLC flag has been kept flying up to now by the pluck, devotion and enthusiasm of the garrison. Only those, perhaps, who - like the present writer - have had an occasional glimpse behind the scenes, know the extent of the devotion and that enthusiasm. What are you going to do about it?" (26)

Dennis Hird suffered for many years with thrombosis. He became very ill in 1913 and was confined to his bed for over a year. He returned to work in 1914 but in May 1915 he was forced back to his bed. William Craik and George Sims took over most of his details. However, Craik and Sims were conscripted into the British Army in 1917 and it was forced to close until the end of the First World War. (27)

William Craik visited Hird in 1919 and "despite the tediousness of his prolonged confinement in bed, he was cheerful and quite hopeful of being able to return to his post." Unfortunately he did not recover and died on 13th July 1920. Craik now replaced him as Principal of the Central Labour College. (28)

According to Stuart MaCintyre: "In their first year students studied economics, industrial history, the history of socialism, sociology, English and logic or the Science of Understanding. In the second year economics and philosophy were studied at a more advanced level, along with extra classes chosen from such subjects (offered by guest lecturers) as imperialism, economic geography, trade union law, literature, psychology, languages, etc." (29)

The Central Labour College educated several future trade union leaders and Labour Party MPs. This included Arthur J. Cook, Frank Hodges, William H. Mainwaring, Ellen Wilkinson, Lewis Jones, Ness Edwards, Idris Cox, Hubert Beaumont, William Coldrick, Jim Griffiths, Harold Heslop, Morgan Phillips, Joseph Sparks, Ivor Thomas, Edward Williams, Arthur Jenkins, Will Owen, William Paling, George Dagger and James Harrison.

Aneurin Bevan went to the CLC in 1919. Bevan spent two years studying economics, politics and history at the college. It was during this period that Bevan read the Communist Manifesto and was converted to the ideas of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. (30) Bevan did not enjoy his time at college as he "was very much a loner, preferring to study on his own rather than attend classes he found dull". (31)

William Craik, the Principal of the Central Labour College, commented: "Aneurin Bevan... found it difficult to conform with some of the College rules, like the time to get out of bed in the morning and down to breakfast; but then he was always late in getting to bed! He took a delight in debating with other students, when he could, into the small hours of the morning, the merits of direct action and the demerits of parliamentary action... Unlike most of the other students he rarely wrote for Plebs... It was the spoken word, not the written word, for which he had an outstanding flair." (32)

In 1919 William H. Mainwaring became vice-principal of the Central Labour College. He also taught courses on advanced economics and imperialism. However, according to Mainwaring's biographer, Chris Williams, "he was not universally popular as a lecturer, being one target of the student strike of 1922–3". The following year he left the CLC and went to work for the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. (33)

Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) attempted to gain control of the Plebs League and the Central Labour College as it believed that "working class education can only achieve its object under the leadership of the Party", however, Craik insisted that "such education can best be provided by a specifically educational organisation, supported by all workers' industrial and political organisations and uncommitted to any sectional policy". (34)

The conservative press became concerned about how the Central Labour College taught economics. The Spectator complained that Working Men's Colleges such as the CLC were dangerous places: "The Colleges are not institutions for learning and research as such; they exist rather for the propagation of particular views. They teach Collectivism, and they turn out their pupils fully equipped apostles of that doctrine. They are seminaries rather than colleges.... The obvious source of instruction for the manual worker to turn to is the economic teaching approved of by the Trade Unions. Practically all this teaching comes from Socialists; ranging from State Socialists through Guild Socialists and Syndicalists to Marxians." (35)

In 1921 the Trade Union Congress established the National Council of Labour Colleges (NCLC) as a co-ordinating body for the movement of labour colleges. George Sims, who had been the main fund raiser for the Central Labour College, welcomed the move. He was unhappy that the National Union of Railwaymen and the National Union of Mineworkers had taken over the complete control of the CLC and feared that they might undermine academic freedom of the organisation. Sims therefore accepted the post of secretary of the NCLC. (36)

By 1929 the mining industry was in severe decline due to the Great Depression. In April a conference of the South Wales Miners' Federation voted to discontinue funding of the college. (37) Jimmy Thomas, the General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, also withdrew his support of the CLC. By July it was clear that the college could not continue to operate, and it closed at the end of the month. (38)

The Trade Union Congress decided to concentrate its funding of the National Council of Labour Colleges. The education it provided through its evening classes and week-end summer schools was "cheaper and gets to a far larger number". It continued to send trade union activists to Ruskin College, but it was not dependent on TUC scholarships. (39)

The students were all standing and had formed a ring, in the centre of which Lord Curzon spoke. Mr. Hird also advanced to the centre and stood facing Lord Curzon while he replied. The contrast between the two men was very striking. The circumstances in which they met invested the event with a distinctly dramatic colour. Lord Curzon wearing his Doctor of Laws gown - not the glittering robes of the Chancellor's office, but robes of dark coloured cloth devoid of ornamentation, as if they represented the University in mourning for the condescension implied in his visit. Not so Lord Curzon himself, however. He stood in a position of ease, supporting himself by a stick, which he held behind him as a prop to the dignity of the upper part of his body. A trifling superiority in height, increased by the use of the stick, allowed him to look down somewhat on Mr. Hird. It was easy to see that this man had been a Viceroy of India. Autocratic disdain, and the suggestion of a power almost feudal in its character, seemed stamped on his countenance.

As the purport of Mr. Hird's reply reached his comprehension, Lord Curzon seemed to freeze into a statuesque embodiment of wounded dignity. For Mr. Hird was not uttering the usual compliments, but was actually rebuking the University for having neglected Ruskin College until the day of its assured prosperity. As he spoke, the students moved instinctively towards him as if mutely offering him support. Hird, who had begun with flushed cheeks and a slight tremor in his voice, now seemed inspired with an enthusiasm and dignity that only comes to a man who voices the highest aspirations of a great Movement.

In substance, he said: "My Lord, when you speak of Ruskin College you are not referring merely to this institution here in Oxford, for this is only a branch of a great democratic movement that has its roots all over the country. To ask Ruskin College to come into closer contact with the University is to ask the great democracy whose foundation is the Labour Movement, a democracy that in the near future will come into its own, and, when it does, will bring great changes in its wake".

As he concluded, the burst of applause that emanated from the students seemed to herald the dawn of the day Dennis Hird had predicted.

Without another word, Lord Curzon turned on his heel and walked out, followed by the remainder of the lecture staff, who looked far from pleased. When the report of the meeting was published in the press, the students noted that significantly enough Dennis Hird's reply was suppressed, and a few colourless remarks substituted. Very soon afterwards the Principal was made to feel that he had committed the unforgivable sin.

We are far from wishing to take any side in the controversy, but the unanimity of the students in their support of Mr. Ruskin College is an effort to permeate the working classes with ideals and culture, which, while elevating and benefiting the students, will not divorce them from their own atmosphere but will serve to make that atmosphere purer and better.

The Working Men's Colleges, the winter classes and the summer schools, it is true, go in hot and strong for teaching. economics. But what do they teach? The Colleges are not institutions for learning and research as such; they exist rather for the propagation of particular views. They are seminaries rather than colleges.

For our part, we think it absurd to blame the manual worker too much. He has never been given a chance. It is the exceptional man who goes to one of the Working Men's Colleges. In quiet and prosperous times the study of economies seemed to be useless. Things happened sufficiently well without the interference of the amateur inquirer. The ordinary man no more wanted to be an economist than he wanted to be an astronomer. He left it all to the professors. The trouble is now that we live in very disquieting and ruinous times and that every man is forced by his sufferings and anxieties to make inquiries as to why these things should be so. Practically all this teaching comes from Socialists; ranging from State Socialists through Guild Socialists and Syndicalists to Marxians.

The Marxian, with his denunciations of the "unholy trinity - rent, interest and profit," and his dream of the rule of the Proletariat," is proclaiming his apocalypse in ears made attentive by real hardships. The easy going rank-and-ffie of British Labour has so often acquiesced in the recital of the revolutionary Credo in its name that it is beginning to accept it as a commonplace, although it remains sceptical and apathetic as to the building of the New Jerusalem. "British workmen are not Socialists " is a familiar phrase. But those whom the workers pay to do their thinking for them in most cases are. Trade Unionists of the type of Thomas Burt no longer lead; Mr. Bowerman is to be placed on the shelf on the ground of age; Mr. Thomas, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Hodges - all those who count in the Labour. Movement of today, and who will he the Labour Ministers of tomorrow should Labour win a majority at the polls have pledged themselves to the principles of Collectivism. Discontent, ignorance, thoughtlessness, class consciousness may prevail, and the vote, given for the men rather than for the measures they advocate; place Socialism, passing under the colourless name of Labour, in power. If the defence is allowed to go by default, it is bound to be so, sooner or later.

We doubt whether the public at large in the least understands the pertinacity of the attack. which is being made on its existing order. Revolution to the .man in the street connotes hombs and bullets, and he sees little cause to fear an, outbreak. He is no doubt right. But there are other and surer means of bringing about revolution. To teach the citizens, present-and-future, to demand the overthrow of the Capitalist system is the avowed aim. There are agencies, such as the World Association for Adult Education and the Workers' Educational Association, which stand honourably aloof from these attempts, to poison the wells and devote themselves to the real work of assisting men and women to self-culture. But much remains to be done, especially in the direct teaching of economics.

The damage done to the country by industrial disputes, by slow and inefficient work grudgingly done, by unnecessary absenteeism, even by the psychological effects of discontent, could be enormously reduced if the employers on the one hand and the workers on the other could enter into each other's minds, realize exactly where the shoe pinches and sympathize with each other's difficulties and aspirations. Two things seem to be required: first; day-to-day information, accurate and unbiased, as to the conditions governing the state of trade and industry; and secondly - but ultimately the more important of the two - systematic instruction in the principles underlying all trade and industry, especially international trade.

(1) Bernard Jennings, Friends and Enemies of the WEA, included in Stephen K. Roberts, (editor), A Ministry of Enthusiasm (2003) page 102

(2) W. H. Steed (editor), The Burning Question of Education (1909) page 11

(3) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 52

(4) Paul Davies, A. J. Cook (1987) page 11

(5) Kenneth O. Morgan, Labour People: Leaders and Lieutenants (1987) page 72

(6) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 54

(7) Charles Stanley Buxton, Cornhill Magazine (August 1908)

(8) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 57

(9) Karl Marx, Pre-Capitalist Relationships (1894)

(10) George Curzon, Principles and Methods of University Reform (1909) page 67

(11) Bernard Jennings, Friends and Enemies of the WEA, included in Stephen K. Roberts, (editor), A Ministry of Enthusiasm (2003) page 103

(12) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 79

(13) The Daily News (31st March, 1909)

(14) The Daily News (2nd April, 1909)

(15) The Daily News (3rd April, 1909)

(16) Brian Simon, Education and the Labour Movement (1974) page 325

(17) Albert Mansbridge, letter to G. Riboud (April, 1909)

(18) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 82

(19) George Sims, speech (2nd August, 1909)

(20) Noah Ablett, speech (2nd August, 1909)

(21) Kenneth O. Morgan, Labour People: Leaders and Lieutenants (1987) page 72

(22) The Plebs Magazine (January, 1910)

(23) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 101

(24) John Saville, The Labour Movement in Britain (1988) page 32

(25) Bernard Jennings, Friends and Enemies of the WEA, included in Stephen K. Roberts, (editor), A Ministry of Enthusiasm (2003) page 105

(26) Frank Horrabin, The Plebs Magazine (February, 1915)

(27) Stuart MaCintyre, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain 1917-1933 (1980) page 74

(28) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 113

(29) Stuart MaCintyre, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain 1917-1933 (1980) page 83

(30) Francis Beckett, Bevan (2004) page 5

(31) Jennie Lee, My Life with Nye (1980) page 111

(32) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 124

(33) Chris Williams, William H. Mainwaring : Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(34) Stuart MaCintyre, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain 1917-1933 (1980) page 82

(35) The Spectator (22nd October, 1922)

(36) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 133

(37) The Times (16th April, 1929)

(38) The Times (27th July, 1929)

(39) William Craik, Central Labour College (1964) page 153

Central Labour College - History

UCM is honored to once again be named a Best College by both U.S. News & World Report and The Princeton Review.

Small classes. Big experiences. Our professors genuinely care about your success and give you one-on-one time and attention.

More support. Fewer obstacles. With your own personal success team, you’ll navigate college and land the right internships.

Learn more. Spend less. Our costs are lower than most colleges in Missouri and the national average.

Convenient schedule. Flexible environment. UCM's online courses and programs provide high-quality instruction in a supportive community of learning.

How the Electoral College Works 

Aside from Members of Congress and people holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution, anyone may serve as an elector.

In each presidential election year, a group of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groupings in each state, usually at a state party convention or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected. This is known as the winner take all system, or general ticket system.

Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December. They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the Electoral College ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and certified by a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. If no candidate receives a majority, then the President is elected by the House of Representatives and the Vice President is elected by the Senate, a process known as contingent election.

Background Checks

Hazardous Material Endorsement for Commercial Driver's Licenses
The Transportation Security Administration passed regulations requiring commercial drivers that transport hazardous materials to undergo a security screening that includes a criminal history background check. Commercial drivers in Maryland can apply for their Hazardous Material Endorsement and receive the required security screening at the same time. Detailed instructions for the application and renewal process for the Hazardous Material Endorsement can be found on the Motor Vehicle Administration website.

  • If you currently live in Maryland and the adoption will be finalized in Maryland, follow the instructions of the agency conducting your home study for a full background childcare record check.
  • If the child is being adopted from outside the United States, you may need a Gold Seal Letter in addition to the childcare record check. Check with your adoption agency for additional details.

Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) – Central Repository Customer Service:
CJIS Customer Service cannot disclose any criminal history.
CJIS Customer Service representatives can:

  • Check the status of a current background history request. You must have the reference number or a social security number.
  • Take orders for applicant fingerprint cards.
    • Download the Fingerprint Card Order Form, in PDF format. Simply complete your information, print it and fax it to 410-653-6320, or print it and mail it to CJIS-Central Repository, P.O. Box 32708, Pikesville, Maryland 21282-2708.

    CJIS Customer Service Hours:
    Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
    Baltimore City local number: 410-764-4501
    Toll free number: 1-888-795-0011
    Obtaining an Agency Authorization Number:

    There is no fee required to become an authorized agency to receive criminal background information. You must have legal or regulatory authority that authorizes your agency to receive federal and/or Maryland criminal history.

    Private employers must complete the Private Party Petition packet:
    If approved under the Private Party Petition process, the agency is only entitled to Maryland (State) criminal history record information.

        The Private Party Petition packet can be completed on-line through the provided link and

      Faxed to: 410-653-6320 or
      Mailed to: Criminal Justice Information System - Central Repository
      P.O. Box 32708
      Pikesville Maryland 21282-2708 or
      Delivered to:
      Criminal Justice Information System - Central Repository
      6776 Reisterstown Road, Suite 102
      Baltimore, Maryland 21215.

      If you are an agency providing any of the services listed below, you must complete the Application to Receive Criminal History Record Information for Employment or Licensing Purposes:

      • Adult Dependent Care
      • Criminal Justice
      • Child Care
      • Government Employment (Maryland agencies only)
      • Government Licensing (Maryland agencies only)
      • Public Housing

      When completing the Application to Receive Criminal History Record Information for Employment or Licensing Purposes:

      1. Please print or type all information
      2. List only one contact person. This is the person to whom all correspondence will be addressed
      3. Select the correct criminal background request type (only one criminal background request type per application)
      4. Print or type the requested information and

      Fax it to: 410-653-6320 or
      Mail it to:
      Criminal Justice Information System - Central Repository
      P.O. Box 32708
      Pikesville Maryland 21282-2708 or
      Delivered to:
      Criminal Justice Information - Central Repository
      6776 Reisterstown Road, Suite 102
      Baltimore, Maryland 21215.

      Associated Criminal Justice Information System – Central Repository Fees

      Federal Register - Notice of Fee Increase
      Effective January 1, 2019 rates for submitting federal background checks via the Maryland Criminal Justice Information System - Central Repository increased in accordance with the fee schedule established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Cost to providers increased by $ 1.25 per fingerprint-based submission. Fingerprint-based volunteer submission increased by $.50 cents.

      Fees are required to process each criminal background record check request.

      All fees must be paid by credit card (Master Card, Visa, and Discover) or check. The Central Repository cannot accept cash or money orders.

      Checks submitted to CJIS Central Repository are electronically processed.

      Full background [state and FBI]
      for authorized agencies only
      Full background [state and FBI]
      for child care volunteers
      Maryland Mentor
      for child care volunteers
      $15.00 with certification card
      State background check only $18.00
      State background check with Gold Seal $19.00
      Criminal Justice full background No fee
      Criminal Justice state only No fee
      Attorney/Client civil $18.00
      Attorney/Client pending criminal case No fee

      There is a $20.00 fingerprint service fee per customer.

      Fingerprints may be taken at an authorized Private Provider or Government Operated Service. Make sure to check with that agency for their fingerprinting fees as fees may vary.

      When and Where Did African Slavery Take Place?

      Beginning in the 7th century to 20th century, Arab Muslims and Europeans raided Africa and traded on Africans. During this period, thousands of Africans were sent to North Africa, America, and parts of Asian countries. Slave trade went higher between 15th -19th century when Europeans sent millions of slaves to Europe from Caribbean, North, Central, and South Africa. The two transcontinental slave trades affected the economy of African states.

      How the Great Compromise and the Electoral College Affects Politics Today

      The Great Compromise was forged in a heated dispute during the 1787 Constitutional Convention: States with larger populations wanted congressional representation based on population, while smaller states demanded equal representation. To keep the convention from dissolving into chaos, the founding fathers came up with the Great Compromise. The agreement, which created today’s system of congressional representation, now influences everything from “pork barrel” legislation to the way votes are counted in the electoral college during presidential elections.

      The debate almost destroyed the U.S. Constitution.
      At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates from larger states believed each state’s representation in the newly proposed Senate should be proportionate to population.

      Smaller states with lower populations argued that such an arrangement would lead to an unfair dominance of larger states in the new nation’s government, and each state should have equal representation, regardless of population.

      The disagreement over representation threatened to derail the ratification of the U.S. Constitution since delegates from both sides of the dispute vowed to reject the document if they didn’t get their way. The solution came in the form of a compromise proposed by statesmen Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut.

      The Great Compromise created two legislative bodies in Congress.
      Also known as the Sherman Compromise or the Connecticut Compromise, the deal combined proposals from the Virginia (large state) plan and the New Jersey (small state) plan.

      According to the Great Compromise, there would be two national legislatures in a bicameral Congress. Members of the House of Representatives would be allocated according to each state’s population and elected by the people.

      In the second body—the Senate�h state would have two representatives regardless of the state’s size, and state legislatures would choose Senators. (In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, tweaking the Senate system so that Senators would be elected by the people.)

      The plan was at first rejected, but then approved by a slim margin on July 23, 1787.

      George Washington presiding over the Constitutional Convention, 1787. (Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

      Hulton Archive/Getty Images

      Smaller states have disproportionately more power in the Senate.
      At the time of the of the convention, states’ populations varied, but not by nearly as much as they do today. As a result, one of the main lingering political effects of the Great Compromise is that states with smaller populations have a disproportionately bigger voice in the nation’s Congress.

      As political scientist George Edwards III of Texas A&M University points out, California hosts about 68 times more people than Wyoming, yet they have the same number of votes in the Senate.

      “The founders never imagined … the great differences in the population of states that exist today,” says Edwards. “If you happen to live in a low-population state you get a disproportionately bigger say in American government.”

      The imbalance of proportionate power favoring smaller states in the Senate means that interests in those states, such as mining in West Virginia or hog farming in Iowa, are more likely to get attention𠅊nd money𠅏rom federal coffers.

      “In the Senate when they’re trying to get to 51 votes to pass a bill, every vote counts,” says Todd Estes, a historian at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. “That’s when the smaller states can demand amendments and additions to bills to look out for their own state’s interest.”

      The Great Compromise also skewed the electoral college.

      The principle of protecting small states through equal representation in the Senate carries over into the electoral college, which elects the president, since the number of electoral votes designated to each state is based on a state’s combined number of representatives in the House and Senate.

      That means, for example, even though Wyoming only has three votes in the electoral college, with the smallest population of all the states, each elector represents a far smaller group of people than each of the 55 electoral votes in the most populous state of California.

      The system ensures power is distributed geographically.
      Some scholars see the small-state bias in the Senate as critical. The arrangement means that power in the Senate is distributed geographically, if not by population, ensuring that interests across the entire country are represented.

      Gary L. Gregg II, a political scientist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, argues in a 2012 article in Politico that major metropolitan areas already hold power by hosting major media, donor, academic and government centers. The structure of the Senate and the corresponding representation in the electoral college, he says, ensures that the interests of rural and small-town America are preserved.

      Was that the intention of the Founding Fathers? Edwards is doubtful since, as he points out, the majority of Americans at the time of Constitutional Congress came from rural areas—not urban. “No one was thinking about protecting rural interests,” Edwards says. “Rural interests were dominant at the time.”

      Whatever the viewpoint on the fairness of the Great Compromise’s distribution of delegates to the Senate, it is unlikely to ever change. This is because equal-state representation in the Senate is specifically protected in the Constitution.

      According to Article V of the Constitution, no state can lose its equal representation in the Senate without the state’s permission. And no state is likely to willingly give up their say in the Senate.

      Master of Labour Studies (MLS) Top Colleges, Syllabus, Scope, and Salary

      Master of Labour Studies is a 2-year professional course focusing on contemporary issues related to labor welfare and labor management. A candidate seeking admission to the course must have studies Bachelor&rsquos Degree from a recognized university with minimum 50% marks in aggregate. The students are strictly selected on the basis of written test, Group Discussion, and Personal Interview. The written tests are conducted by the respective institutes for selecting students in the order of merit.

      Master of Labour Studies is quite popular in the state of Maharashtra with Mumbai University and Nagpur University being the main institutes conducting the course in full-time mode. Given under are the institutes offering the course:

      • Late Narayan Meghaji Lokhande Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies, Mumbai
      • Regional Labour Institute, Nagpur
      • Arts, Commerce Mahavidyalaya, Nagpur
      • Rambhau Pandagale Science & Management Mahavidyalaya, Nagpur

      Master of Labour Studies aims to prepare professionals and experts in labor studies, research and policymaking. The programme fosters theoretical, conceptual and practical knowledge concerning the dynamics of work, labor, labor management, and welfare.

      The average fee for Master of Labour Studies degree holders shall be between INR 12000 &ndash INR 15000. Students who successfully complete the course are likely to take up job roles in the capacity of Labour Welfare Officer, Labour Relations Manager Industrial Relations Specialist and Legal Analyst. The average annual package will be in the range of INR 3-15 Lacs depending on the skill set, caliber, and experience of the individual.

      Top Colleges for Master of Labour Studies

      Master of Labour Studies (MLS): Course Highlights

      Course Level Post Graduate
      Duration of Course 2 years
      Examination Type Annual
      Eligibility Bachelor's degree with minimum 50% marks from a recognized University
      Admission Process Entrance, Personal Interview & Group Discussion
      Course Fee INR 12,000 &ndash INR 15,000
      Average Salary INR 3 Lacs&ndash INR 15 Lacs
      Top Recruiting Areas Reliance Energy, Mahindra & Mahindra, Bajaj Steel Industries, Premier Irrigation, Bajaj Industrial and Raymond
      Job Profiles Labour Welfare Officer, Labour Relations Manager Industrial Relations Specialist and Legal Analyst

      Master of Labour Studies (MLS): What is it About?

      Masters in Labour Studies is an advanced course designed to cater to the growing complexities of modern industrial work by providing practical training, especially in the field of Labour Welfare, Personnel Management, and Industrial Relations.

      The course teaches an array of subjects that help students in handling and managing HR Development, IR and Labour welfare efficiently. Master of Labour Studies curriculum is centered on Industrial-Organizational Behaviour, Personnel Management, and Labour Welfare and incorporates placements in various government agencies and institutions like Labour Court, Labour Welfare Board, and Civic Administration.

      The in-course compulsory placements offered to students in Part I and Part II also known as concurrent placement and block placement allows students to undertake management projects of the company they are interning with giving them the chance to execute the project with the management.

      Master of Labour Studies gives very good industrial exposure to labor laws. In the long run, a Master of Labour Studies student becomes quite efficient in handling labor law issues and statutory compliances. Students holding such expertise are an asset for recruiters. In terms of remuneration, Master of Labour Studies degree is an enhancement to one&rsquos skills and individuals are likely to get promising pay package in both big and small organizations.

      Master of Labour Studies (MLS): Top Institutes

      Institute Name Location Fees in INR
      Late Narayan Meghaji Lokhande Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies Mumbai INR 15,000
      Regional Labour Institute, Nagpur Nagpur, Maharashtra INR 12,000
      Arts, Commerce Mahavidyalaya Wardha, Maharashtra INR 12,000
      Rambhau Pandagale Science & Management Mahavidyalaya Wardha, Maharashtra INR 12,000

      Master of Labour Studies(MLS): Eligibility

      The minimum eligibility for a student seeking admission to Master of Labour Studies is a bachelor&rsquos degree in any discipline with minimum 50% marks in aggregate. In case of admissions to Mumbai University, a student needs to produce eligibility certificate for the students coming from Universities other than the Mumbai University.

      Master of Labour Studies(MLS): Admission Process

      Every institute admits students through entrance exam conducted by them however few institutes might further conduct group discussion and personal interview. The entrance test is a written one which includes Essay Writing, General Knowledge sections. Admissions to the Master of Labour Studies course will be given in the order of collective merit and academic record.

      Latest Master of Labour Studies Admission Alert

      Master of Labour Studies (MLS): Syllabus and Course Structure

      Labour Economics Industrial Psychology & Organizational Behaviour
      Industrial & Managerial Economics
      Industrial Sociology Labour Welfare
      Trade Unionism & Labour Movement Industrial Relations
      Management Science Personnel Management
      Labour Legislation Labour Legislation & Administration
      Labour Research & Statistics

      Master of Labour Studies(MLS): Career Prospects

      After successful completion of the Master of Labour Studies course, students may work in various government and non-governmental departments that are dealing with labor welfare and issues. Some of the promising job areas for such postgraduates are

      Criticisms of Labor Unions

      Some business owners, industry associations, and think tanks support right-to-work laws on the grounds that requiring union membership to obtain a job reduces competition in the free-market economy. Some labor union contracts, such as those of the teacher and police unions, have been criticized for making it too difficult to fire incompetent, abusive, and violent employees.

      According to a 2019 study of 656 police union contracts across the country, for example, 73% included an appeals process in which final decisions on firing and disciplining officers were in the hands of arbitrators selected in part by the local police union. The result is that many disciplinary actions and firings of abusive police officers have been overturned.

      Some in the labor movement have called for the expulsion of police unions on the grounds that they protect violent officers. However, the AFL-CIO’s recommendations in 2020 on police reform said the best way to address police brutality was to engage police affiliates, not isolate them.

      At times labor unions have been found complicit in organized criminal activity. Defrauding of union pension funds, for example, resulted in arrests of New York subcontractors associated with the Teamsters union in 2017.


      Central College offers more than 70 strong academic programs, which include majors, minors and pre-professional advising.

      If you don’t see your preferred major on the list, talk to us. You may work with your adviser to create your own major. Or, like many incoming students, you may want to start off in the exploring program, which provides opportunities to try out different areas before making your choice.

      • Business Administration
      • Finance
      • International Business
      • Marketing
      • Student Designed
      • Writing
      • Environmental Science
      • Environmental Sustainability
      • Health and Exercise Science
      • Health Promotion
      • Physical Education
      • Strength and Conditioning
      • Instrumental
      • Vocal
      • Allied Health
      • American Studies
      • Arts Management
      • Biopsychology
      • Criminal Justice
      • Data Science (minor)
      • Gender Studies
      • Public Health
      • Visual Communication

      For students interested in dual-degree programs, Central College has articulation agreements with Allen College (nursing) and Palmer College of Chiropractic (chiropractic). For more information please contact the registrar's office.

      * Central's athletic training program is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education, 6850 Austin Center Blvd., Suite 100, Austin, TX 78731-3101. The program has chosen to voluntarily withdraw its CAATE accreditation effective July 1, 2022.

      The History of South Africa

      The aboriginal Khoikhoi people have lived in the region for millennia.

      Indigenous Africans in South Africa are descendants of immigrants from further north in Africa who first entered the northern areas of the country roughly 1700 years ago.

      White South Africans are descendants of later European settlers, mainly from the Netherlands and Britain.

      The Coloureds are descended at least in part from all of these groups, as well as from slaves from Madagascar, East Africa and the then East Indies, and there are many South Africans of Indian and Chinese origin, descendants of labourers who arrived in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

      The Far Distant Past

      Since Darwin first put forward the idea that Africa was home to the first humans, it has come to pass those archaeological findings on the continent, and South Africa in particular, have backed up the Darwinian claim.

      Modern evidence such as the skull of the Taung child, the discoveries of hominid fossils at the world heritage site of Sterkfontein caves, the ground-breaking work being done at Blombos Cave near Mossel Bay has all supported the claim that modern humans have lived in South Africa for well over 100 000 years.

      These early humans were organised in small, mobile bands of Stone-Age hunter-gatherers, who created a wealth of rock art, and were the ancestors of the Khoikhoi and San. The Khoikhoi and San, were called the “Hottentots” and “Bushmen” by the early European settlers.

      The Khoikhoi, about 2 000 years ago, adopted a pastoralist lifestyle herding sheep and, later, cattle. They sought out the pastures between modern-day Namibia and the Eastern Cape, which, generally, are near the coast. In contrast, the San hunter-gatherers adapted to local environments and were scattered across the subcontinent.

      At around the same time, Bantu-speaking farmers began arriving in southern Africa from further north, bringing with them an iron-age culture and domesticated crops. After establishing themselves in the well-watered eastern coastal region of southern Africa, these farmers spread out across the interior plateau, or “highveld”, where they adopted a more extensive cattle-farming culture.

      At several archaeological sites, such as Mapungubwe and Thulamela in the Limpopo Valley, there is evidence of sophisticated political and material cultures, based in part on contact with the East African trading economy.

      These cultures, which were part of a broader African civilisation, pre-date European encroachment by several centuries.

      The farmers did not, however, extend their settlement into the western desert or the winter-rainfall region in the south-west. These regions remained the preserve of the Khoisan until Europeans put down roots at the Cape of Good Hope.

      The early colonial period

      Portuguese seafarers, who pioneered the sea route to India in the late 15th century, were regular visitors to the South African coast during the early 1500s. The Diaz Museum in Mossel Bay showcases this history. Other Europeans followed from the late 16th century.

      In 1652, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) set up a station in Table Bay (Cape Town) and the Cape Town Castle soon followed as a fort and living quarters for the officials.

      The station was developed to provision passing ships. Trade with the Khoikhoi for slaughter stock soon degenerated into raiding and warfare.

      Beginning in 1657, European settlers were allotted farms by the colonial authorities in the arable regions around Cape Town, where wine and wheat became the major products.

      In response to the colonists’ demand for labour, the VOC imported slaves from East Africa, Madagascar, and its possessions from the East Indies.

      By the early 1700s, the colonists had begun to spread into the hinterland beyond the nearest mountain ranges. These relatively independent and mobile farmers called trekboers, who lived as pastoralists and hunters, were largely free from supervision by the Dutch authorities.

      As they intruded further upon the land and water sources, and stepped up their demands for livestock and labour, more and more of the indigenous inhabitants were dispossessed and incorporated into the colonial economy as servants.

      Diseases such as smallpox, which was introduced by the Europeans in 1713, decimated the Khoisan, contributing to the decline of their cultures. Unions across the colour line took place and a new multiracial social order evolved, based on the supremacy of European colonists.

      The slave population steadily increased since more labour was needed. By the mid-1700s, there were more slaves in the Cape than there were “free burghers” (European colonists). The Asian slaves were concentrated in the towns, where they formed an artisan class still evident today. They brought with them the Islamic religion, which gained adherents and significantly shaped the working-class culture of the Western Cape. Slaves of African descent were found more often on the farms of outlying districts.

      Resistance to colonial encroachment

      In the late 1700s, the Khoisan offered far more determined resistance to colonial encroachment across the length of the colonial frontier. From the 1770s, colonists also came into contact and conflict with Bantu-speaking chiefdoms. A century of intermittent warfare ensued during which the colonists gained ascendancy, first over the Khoisan and then over the Xhosa-speaking chiefdoms to the east.

      It was only in the late 1800s that the subjugation of these settled African societies became feasible. For some time, their relatively sophisticated social structure and economic systems fended off decisive disruption by incoming colonists, who lacked the necessary military superiority.

      At the same time, a process of cultural change was set in motion, not least by commercial and missionary activity. In contrast to the Khoisan, the black farmers were, by and large, immune to European diseases. For this and other reasons, they were to greatly outnumbered the whites in the population of white-ruled South Africa, and were able to preserve important features of their culture.

      Rise of the Zulus

      Perhaps because of population pressures, combined with the actions of slave traders in Portuguese territory on the east coast, the Zulu kingdom emerged as a highly centralised state. In the 1820s, the innovative leader Shaka established sway over a considerable area of south-east Africa and brought many chiefdoms under his dominion.

      As splinter groups conquered and absorbed communities in their path, the disruption was felt as far north as central Africa. Substantial states, such as Moshoeshoe’s Lesotho and other Sotho-Tswana chiefdoms, were established, partly for reasons of defence. The Mfecane or Difaqane, as this period of disruption and state formation became known, remains the subject of much speculative debate.

      The British colonial era

      In 1795, the British occupied the Cape as a strategic base against the French, controlling the sea route to the East.

      After a brief reversion to the Dutch in the course of the Napoleonic wars, it was retaken in 1806 and kept by Britain in the post-war settlement of territorial claims. The closed and regulated economic system of the Dutch period was swept away as the Cape Colony was integrated into the dynamic international trading empire of industrialising Britain.


      A crucial new element was evangelicalism, brought to the Cape by Protestant missionaries. The evangelicals believed in the liberating effect of “free” labour and in the “civilising mission” of British imperialism. They were convinced that indigenous peoples could be fully assimilated into European Christian culture once the shackles of oppression had been removed.

      The most important representative of the mission movement in South Africa was Dr John Philip, who arrived as superintendent of the London Missionary Society in 1819. His campaign on behalf of the oppressed Khoisan coincided with a high point in official sympathy for philanthropic concerns.

      One result was Ordinance 50 of 1828, which guaranteed equal civil rights for “people of colour” within the colony and freed them from legal discrimination. At the same time, a powerful anti-slavery movement in Britain promoted a series of ameliorative measures, imposed on the colonies in the 1820s, and the proclamation of emancipation, which came into force in 1834. The slaves were subject to a four-year period of “apprenticeship” with their former owners, on the grounds that they must be prepared for freedom, which came on 1 December 1838.

      Although slavery had become less profitable because of a depression in the wine industry, Cape slave-owners rallied to oppose emancipation. The compensation money, which the British treasury paid out to sweeten the pill, injected unprecedented liquidity into the stagnant local economy. This brought a spurt of company formation, such as banks and insurance companies, as well as a surge of investment in land and wool sheep in the drier regions of the colony, in the late 1830s.

      Wool became a staple export on which the Cape economy depended for its further development in the middle decades of the century.

      For the ex-slaves, as for the Khoisan servants, the reality of freedom was very different from the promise. As a wage-based economy developed, they remained dispossessed and exploited, with little opportunity to escape their servile lot.

      Increasingly, they were lumped together as the “coloured” people, a group which included the descendants of unions between indigenous and European peoples, and a substantial Muslim minority who became known as the “Cape Malays” (misleadingly, as they mostly came from the Indonesian archipelago).

      The coloured people were discriminated against on account of their working-class status as well as their racial identity. Among the poor, especially in and around Cape Town, there continued to be a great deal of racial mixing and intermarriage throughout the 1800s.

      1820 Settlers

      In 1820, several thousand British settlers, who were swept up by a scheme to relieve Britain of its unemployed, were placed in the Eastern Cape frontier zone as a buffer against the Xhosa chiefdoms.

      The vision of a dense settlement of small farmers was, however, ill-conceived and many of the settlers became artisans and traders. The more successful became an entrepreneurial class of merchants, large-scale sheep farmers and speculators with an insatiable demand for land.

      Some became fierce warmongers who pressed for the military dispossession of the chiefdoms. They coveted Xhosa land and welcomed the prospect of war involving large-scale military expenditure by the imperial authorities. The Xhosa engaged in raiding as a means of asserting their prior claims to the land. Racial paranoia became integral to white frontier politics. The result was that frontier warfare became endemic through much of the 19th century, during which Xhosa war leaders such as Chief Maqoma became heroic figures to their people.

      By the mid-1800s, British settlers of similar persuasion were to be found in Natal. They too called for imperial expansion in support of their land claims and trading enterprises.

      Great Trek

      Meanwhile, large numbers of the original colonists, the Boers, were greatly extending white occupation beyond the Cape’s borders to the north, in the movement that became known as the Great Trek, in the mid-1830s. Alienated by British liberalism, and with their economic enterprise usurped by British settlers, several thousand Boers from the interior districts, accompanied by a number of Khoisan servants, began a series of migrations northwards.

      They moved to the Highveld and Natal, skirting the great concentrations of black farmers on the way by taking advantage of the areas disrupted during the Mfecane – the devastation caused by black on black warfare.

      When the British, who were concerned about controlling the traffic through Port Natal (Durban), annexed the territory of Natal in 1843, those emigrant Boers who had hoped to settle there, returned inland. These Voortrekkers (as they were later called) coalesced in two land-locked republics, the South African Republic (Transvaal) and the Orange Free State. There, the principles of racially exclusive citizenship were absolute, despite the trekkers’ reliance on black labour.

      With limited coercive power, the Boer communities had to establish relations and develop alliances with some black chiefdoms, neutralising those who obstructed their intrusion or who posed a threat to their security.

      Only after the mineral discoveries of the late 1800s did the balance of power swing decisively towards the colonists. The Boer republics then took on the trappings of real statehood and imposed their authority within the territorial borders that they had notionally claimed for themselves.

      The Colony of Natal, situated to the south of the mighty Zulu State, developed along very different lines from the original colony of settlement, the Cape. The size of the black population left no room for the assimilationist vision of race domination embraced in the Cape. Chiefdoms consisting mainly of refugee groups in the aftermath of the Mfecane were persuaded to accept colonial protection in return for reserved land and the freedom to govern themselves in accordance with their own customs. These chiefdoms were established in the heart of an expanding colonial territory.

      Natal developed a system of political and legal dualism, whereby chiefly rule was entrenched and customary law was codified. Although exemptions from customary law could be granted to the educated products of the missions, in practice they were rare. Urban residence was strictly controlled and political rights outside the reserves were effectively limited to whites. This system is widely regarded as having provided a model for the segregation that would prevail in the 20th century.

      Indian Indentured Labour

      Natal’s economy was boosted by the development of sugar plantations in the subtropical coastal lowlands. Indian-indentured labourers were imported from 1860 to work the plantations, and many Indian traders and market gardeners followed.

      These Indians, who were segregated and discriminated against from the start, became a further important element in South Africa’s population. It was in South Africa that Indian activist and leader, Mohandas Gandhi refined, from the mid-1890s, the techniques of passive resistance, which he later effectively practised in India. Although Indians gradually moved into the Transvaal and elsewhere, they remain concentrated in Natal.

      In 1853, the Cape Colony was granted a representative legislature in keeping with British policy, followed in 1872 by self-government. The franchise was formally non-racial, but also based on income and property qualifications. The result was that Africans and coloured people formed a minority of voters – although in certain places a substantial one.

      What became known as the “liberal tradition” in the Cape depended on the fact that the great mass of Bantu-speaking farmers remained outside its colonial borders until late in the 19th century. Non-racialism could thus be embraced without posing a threat to white supremacy.

      Numbers of Africans within the Cape Colony had sufficient formal education or owned enough property to qualify for the franchise. Political alliances across racial lines were common in the Eastern Cape constituencies. It is therefore not surprising that the Eastern Cape became a seedbed of African nationalism, once the ideal and promise of inclusion in the common society had been so starkly violated by later racial policies.

      The mineral revolution

      By the late 19th century, the limitations of the Cape’s liberal tradition were becoming apparent. The hardening of racial attitudes that accompanied the rise of a more militant imperialist spirit coincided locally with the watershed discovery of mineral riches in the interior of southern Africa.

      In a developing economy, cheap labour was at a premium, and the claims of educated Africans for equality met with increasingly fierce resistance.

      At the same time, the large numbers of Africans in the chiefdoms beyond the Kei River and north of the Gariep (Orange River), then being incorporated into the Cape Colony, posed new threats to racial supremacy and white security, increasing segregationist pressures.

      Alluvial diamonds were discovered on the Vaal River in the late 1860s. The subsequent discovery of dry deposits at what became the city of Kimberley drew tens of thousands of people, black and white, to the first great industrial hub in Africa, and the largest diamond deposit in the world. In 1871, the British, who ousted several rival claimants, annexed the diamond fields.

      The Colony of Griqualand West thus created was incorporated into the Cape Colony in 1880. By 1888, the consolidation of diamond claims had led to the creation of the huge De Beers monopoly under the control of Cecil Rhodes. He used his power and wealth to become prime minister of the Cape Colony (from 1890 to 1896) and, through his chartered British South Africa Company, conqueror and ruler of modern-day Zambia and Zimbabwe.

      The mineral discoveries had a major impact on the subcontinent as a whole. A railway network linking the interior to the coastal ports revolutionised transportation and energised agriculture. Coastal cities such as modern-day Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban experienced an economic boom as port facilities were upgraded.

      The fact that the mineral discoveries coincided with a new era of imperialism and the scramble for Africa brought imperial power and influence to bear in southern Africa as never before.

      Independent African chiefdoms were systematically subjugated and incorporated by their white-ruled neighbours. In 1897, Zululand was incorporated into Natal.

      The South African Republic (Transvaal) was annexed by Britain in 1877. Boer resistance led to British withdrawal in 1881, but not before the Pedi (northern Sotho) state, which fell within the republic’s borders, had been subjugated. The indications were that, having once been asserted, British hegemony was likely to be reasserted.

      The southern Sotho and Swazi territories were also brought under British rule but maintained their status as imperial dependencies, so that both the current Lesotho and Swaziland escaped the rule of local white regimes.

      The discovery of the Witwatersrand goldfields in 1886 was a turning point in the history of South Africa. It presaged the emergence of the modern South African industrial state.

      Once the extent of the reefs had been established and deep-level mining had proved to be a viable investment, it was only a matter of time before Britain and its local representatives again found a pretext for war against the Boer republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State.

      The demand for franchise rights for English-speaking immigrants on the goldfields (known as Uitlanders) provided a lever for applying pressure on the government of President Paul Kruger. Egged on by the deep-level mining magnates, to whom the Boer government seemed obstructive and inefficient, and by the expectation of an Uitlander uprising, Rhodes launched a raid into the Transvaal in late December 1895. The raid’s failure saw the end of Rhodes’ political career, but Sir Alfred Milner, British high commissioner in South Africa from 1897, was determined to overthrow Kruger’s government and establish British rule throughout the subcontinent. The Boer government was eventually forced into a declaration of war in October 1899.

      The mineral discoveries had a radical impact on every sphere of society. Labour was required on a massive scale and could only be provided by Africans, who had to be drawn away from the land.

      Many Africans responded with alacrity to the opportunities presented by wage labour, travelling long distances to earn money to supplement rural enterprise in the homestead economy.

      In response to the expansion of internal markets, Africans exploited their farming skills and family labour to good effect to increase production for sale. A substantial black peasantry arose, often by means of share-cropping or labour tenantry on white-owned farms.

      For the white authorities, however, the chief consideration was ensuring a labour supply and undermining black competition on the land. Conquest, land dispossession, taxation and pass laws were designed to force black people off the land and channel them into labour markets, especially to meet the needs of the mines.

      Gradually, the alternatives available to Africans were closed, and the decline of the homestead economy made wage labour increasingly essential for survival. The integration of Africans into the emerging urban and industrial society of South Africa should have followed these developments, but short-term, recurrent labour migrancy suited employers and the authorities, which sought to entrench the system.

      The closed compounds pioneered on the diamond fields, as a means of migrant labour control, were replicated at the gold mines. The preservation of communal areas from which migrants could be drawn had the effect of lowering wages, by denying Africans rights within the urban areas and keeping their families and dependants on subsistence plots in the reserves.

      Africans could be denied basic rights if the fiction could be maintained that they did not belong in “white South Africa”, but to “tribal societies” from which they came to service the “white man’s needs”. Where black families secured a toehold in the urban areas, local authorities confined them to segregated “locations”. This set of assumptions and policies informed the development of segregationist ideology and, later (from 1948), apartheid.

      The Anglo-Boer/South African War (October 1899 – May 1902) and its aftermath

      The war that followed the mineral revolution was mainly a white man’s war.

      In its first phase, the Boer forces took the initiative, besieging the frontier towns of Mafeking (Mafikeng) and Kimberley in the Northern Cape, and Ladysmith in Northern Natal.

      Some colonial Boers rebelled, however, in sympathy with the republics. But, after a large expeditionary force under lords Roberts and Kitchener arrived, the British advance was rapid. Kruger fled the Transvaal shortly before Pretoria fell in June 1900. The formal conquest of the two Boer republics was followed by a prolonged guerrilla campaign. Small, mobile groups of Boers denied the imperial forces their victory by disrupting rail links and supply lines.

      Commandos swept deep into colonial territory, rousing rebellion wherever they went. The British were at a disadvantage, owing to their lack of familiarity with the terrain and the Boers’ superior skills as horsemen and sharpshooters. The British responded with a scorched-earth policy which included farm burnings, looting and the setting-up of concentration camps for non-combatants, in which some 26 000 Boer women and children died from disease. The incarceration of black (including coloured) people in the path of the war in racially segregated camps has been absent in conventional accounts of the war and has only recently been acknowledged.

      They too suffered appalling conditions and some 14 000 (perhaps many more) are estimated to have died. At the same time, many black farmers were in a position to meet the demand for produce created by the military, or to avail themselves for employment opportunities at good wages. Some 10 000 black servants accompanied the Boer commandos, and the British used Africans as labourers, scouts, dispatch riders, drivers and guards.

      The war also taught many Africans that the forces of dispossession could be rolled back if the circumstances were right. It gave black communities the opportunity to recolonise land lost in conquest, which enabled them to withhold their labour after the war. Most Africans supported the British in the belief that Britain was committed to extending civil and political rights to black people. In this they were to be disappointed, as in the Treaty of Vereeniging that ended the war, the British agreed to leave the issue of rights for Africans to be decided by a future self-governing (white) authority. All in all, the Anglo-Boer/South African War was a radicalising experience for Africans.

      Britain’s reconstruction regime set about creating a white-ruled dominion by uniting the former Boer republics (both by then British colonies) with Natal and the Cape.

      The most important priority was to re-establish white control over the land and force the Africans back to wage labour. The labour-recruiting system was improved, both internally and externally. Recruiting agreements were reached with the Portuguese authorities in Mozambique, from where much mine labour came.

      Indentured Chinese Labour

      When, by 1904, African resources still proved inadequate to get the mines working at pre-war levels, over 60 000 indentured Chinese were brought in. This precipitated a vociferous outcry from proponents of white supremacy in South Africa and liberals in Britain.

      By 1910, all had been repatriated, a step made easier when a surge of Africans came forward from areas such as the Transkei territories and the Northern Transvaal, which had not previously been large-scale suppliers of migrants. This was the heyday of the private recruiters, who exploited families’ indebtedness to procure young men to labour in the mines. The Africans’ post-war ability to withhold their labour was undercut by government action, abetted by drought and stock disease.

      The impact of the Anglo-Boer/South African War as a seminal influence on the development of Afrikaner nationalist politics became apparent in subsequent years.

      The Boer leaders – most notably Louis Botha, Jan Smuts and JBM Hertzog – played a dominant role in the country’s politics for the next half century. After initial plans for anglicisation of the defeated Afrikaners were abandoned as impractical, the British looked to the Afrikaners as collaborators in securing imperial political and economic interests.

      During 1907 and 1908, the two former Boer republics were granted self-government but, crucially, with a whites-only franchise. Despite promises to the contrary, black interests were sacrificed in the interest of white nation-building across the white language divide.

      Union of South Africa 1910

      The National Convention drew up a constitution and the four colonies became an independent dominion called the Union of South Africa on 31 May 1910.

      The 19th century formally non-racial franchise was retained in the Cape but was not extended elsewhere, where rights of citizenship were confined to whites alone. It was clear from the start that segregation was the conventional wisdom of the new rulers. Black people were defined as outsiders, without rights or claims on the common society that their labour had helped to create.


      Government policy in the Union of South Africa did not develop in isolation, but against the backdrop of black political initiatives. Segregation and apartheid assumed their shape, in part, as a white response to Africans’ increasing participation in the country’s economic life and their assertion of political rights. Despite the government’s efforts to shore up traditionalism and retribalise them, black people became more fully integrated into the urban and industrial society of 20th-century South Africa than elsewhere on the continent. An educated élite of clerics, teachers, business people, journalists and professionals grew to be a major force in black politics.

      Mission Christianity and its associated educational institutions exerted a profound influence on African political life, and separatist churches were early vehicles for African political assertion. The experiences of studying abroad, and in particular, interaction with black people struggling for their rights elsewhere in Africa, the United States of America and the Caribbean, played an important part. A vigorous black press arose, associated in its early years with such pioneer editors as JT Jabavu, Pixley Seme, Dr Abdullah Abdurahman, Sol Plaatje and John Dube, served the black reading public.

      At the same time, African communal struggles to maintain access to the land in rural areas posed a powerful challenge to the white state. Traditional authorities often led popular struggles against intrusive and manipulative policies. Government attempts to control and co-opt the chiefs often failed. Steps towards the formation of a national political organisation of coloureds began around the turn of the century, with the formation of the African Political Organisation in 1902 by Dr Abdurahman, mainly in the Cape Province.

      The African National Congress (ANC), founded in 1912, became the most important black organisation drawing together traditional authorities and the educated African élite in common causes. In its early years, the ANC was concerned mainly with constitutional protest.

      Worker militancy emerged in the wake of the First World War and continued through the 1920s. It included strikes and an anti-pass campaign given impetus by women, particularly in the Free State, resisting extension of the pass laws to them. The Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union, under the leadership of Clements Kadalie, was (despite its name) the first populist, nationwide organisation representing blacks in rural as well as urban areas. But it was short-lived.

      The Communist Party, formed in 1921 and since then a force for both non-racialism and worker organisation, was to prove far longer-lasting. In other sections of the black population too, the turn of the century saw organised opposition emerging. Gandhi’s leadership of protest against discriminatory laws gave impetus to the formation of provincial Indian congresses, including the Natal Indian Congress formed by Gandhi in 1894.

      The principles of segregationist thinking were laid down in a 1905 report by the South African Native Affairs Commission and continued to evolve in response to these economic, social and political pressures. In keeping with its recommendations, the first union government enacted the seminal Natives Land Act in 1913.

      This defined the remnants of their ancestral lands after conquest for African occupation, and declared illegal all land purchases or rent tenancy outside these reserves.

      The reserves (“homelands” as they were subsequently called) eventually comprised about 13% of South Africa’s land surface. Administrative and legal dualism reinforced the division between white citizen and black non-citizen, a dispensation personified by the governor-general who, as “supreme chief” over the country’s African majority, was empowered to rule them by administrative fiat and decree.

      The government also regularised the job colour bar, reserving skilled work for whites and denying African workers the right to organise. Legislation, which was consolidated in the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, 1923, entrenched urban segregation and controlled African mobility by means of pass laws. The pass laws were designed to force Africans into labour and to keep them there under conditions and at wage levels that suited white employers, and to deny them any bargaining power. In these and other ways, the foundations of apartheid were laid by successive governments representing the compromises hammered out by the National Convention of 1908 to 1909 to effect the union of English- and Afrikaans-speaking whites. However, divisions within the white community remained significant. Afrikaner nationalism grew as a factor in the years after union.

      It was given impetus in 1914, both by the formation of the National Party (NP), in a breakaway from the ruling South African Party, and by a rebellion of Afrikaners who could not reconcile themselves with the decision to join the First World War against Germany.

      In part, the NP spoke for Afrikaners impoverished by the Anglo-Boer/South African War and dislodged from the land by the development of capitalist farming.

      An Afrikaner underclass was emerging in the towns, which found itself uncompetitive in the labour market, as white workers demanded higher wages than those paid to blacks.

      Soon, labour issues came to the fore. In 1920, some 71 000 black mineworkers went on strike in protest against the spiralling cost of living, but the strike was quickly put down by isolating the compounds where the migrant workers were housed. Another threat to government came from white workers. Immigrant white workers with mining experience abroad performed much of the skilled and semi-skilled work on the mines. As mine owners tried to cut costs by using lower-wage black labour in semi-skilled jobs, white labour became increasingly militant. These tensions culminated in a bloody and dramatic rebellion on the goldfields in 1922, which the Smuts government put down with military force. In 1924, a pact government under Hertzog, comprising Afrikaner nationalists and representatives of immigrant labour, ousted the Smuts regime.

      The pact was based on a common suspicion of the dominance of mining capital, and a determination to protect the interests of white labour by intensifying discrimination against blacks. The commitment to white labour policies in government employment, such as the railways and postal service was intensified, and the job colour bar was reinforced, with a key objective being to address what was known as the “poor-white problem”.

      In 1934, the main white parties fused to combat the local effects of a worldwide depression.

      This was followed by a new Afrikaner nationalist breakaway under Dr DF Malan. In 1936, white supremacy was further entrenched by the United Party with the removal of the Africans of the Cape Province who qualified, from the common voters’ roll. Meanwhile, Malan’s breakaway NP was greatly augmented by an Afrikaner cultural revival spearheaded by the secret white male Afrikaner Broederbond and other cultural organisations during the year of the Voortrekker centenary celebrations (1938), as well as by anti-war sentiment from 1939.


      After the Second World War in 1948, the NP, with its ideology of apartheid that brought an even more rigorous and authoritarian approach than the segregationist policies of previous governments, won the general election. It did so against the background of a revival of mass militancy during the 1940s, after a period of relative quiescence in the 1930s when black groups attempted to foster unity among themselves.

      The change was marked by the formation of the ANC Youth League in 1943, fostering the leadership of figures such as Anton Lembede, AP Mda, Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu, who were to inspire the struggle for decades to come.

      In the 1940s, squatter movements in peri-urban areas brought mass politics back to the urban centres. The 1946 Mineworkers’ Strike was a turning point in the emergence of a politics of mass mobilisation.

      As was the case with the First World War, the experience of the Second World War and post-war economic difficulties enhanced discontent. For those who supported the NP, its primary appeal lay in its determination to maintain white domination in the face of rising mass resistance uplift poor Afrikaners challenge the pre-eminence of English-speaking whites in public life, the professions and business and abolish the remaining imperial ties.

      The state became an engine of patronage for Afrikaner employment. The Afrikaner Broederbond co-ordinated the party’s programme, ensuring that Afrikaner nationalist interests and policies attained ascendancy throughout civil society.

      In 1961, the NP Government under Prime Minister HF Verwoerd declared South Africa a republic, after winning a whites-only referendum on the issue. A new currency, the Rand, and a new flag, anthem and coat of arms were formally introduced.

      South Africa, having become a republic, had to apply for continued membership of the Commonwealth. In the face of demands for an end to apartheid, South Africa withdrew its application and a figurehead president replaced the British queen (represented locally by the governor-general) as head of state.

      In most respects, apartheid was a continuation, in more systematic and brutal form, of the segregationist policies of previous governments.

      A new concern with racial purity was apparent in laws prohibiting interracial sexual activities and provisions for population registration requiring that every South African be assigned to one discrete racial category or another.

      For the first time, the coloured people, who had always been subjected to informal discrimination, were brought within the ambit of discriminatory laws. In the mid-1950s, government took the drastic step of overriding an entrenched clause in the 1910 Constitution of the Union so as to be able to remove coloured voters from the common voters’ roll. It also enforced residential segregation, expropriating homes where necessary and policing massive forced removals into coloured “group areas”.

      Until the 1940s, South Africa’s racial policies had not been entirely out of step with those to be found in the colonial world. But by the 1950s, which saw decolonisation and a global backlash against racism gather pace, the country was dramatically opposed to world opinion on questions of human rights. The architects of apartheid, among whom Dr Verwoerd was pre-eminent, responded by elaborating a theory of multinationalism.

      Their policy, which they termed “separate development”, divided the African population into artificial ethnic “nations”, each with its own “homeland” and the prospect of “independence”, supposedly in keeping with trends elsewhere on the continent.

      This divide-and-rule strategy was designed to disguise the racial basis of official policy-making by the substitution of the language of ethnicity. This was accompanied by much ethnographic engineering as efforts were made to resurrect tribal structures. In the process, the government sought to create a significant collaborating class.

      The truth was that the rural reserves were by this time thoroughly degraded by overpopulation and soil erosion. This did not prevent four of the “homeland” structures (Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei) being declared “independent”, a status which the vast majority of South Africans, and therefore also the international community, declined to recognise. In each case, the process involved the repression of opposition and the use by the government of the power to nominate and thereby pad elected assemblies with a quota of compliant figures.

      Forced removals from “white” areas affected some 3,5 million people and vast rural slums were created in the homelands, which were used as dumping grounds. The pass laws and influx control were extended and harshly enforced, and labour bureaux were set up to channel labour to where it was needed. Hundreds of thousands of people were arrested or prosecuted under the pass laws each year, reaching over half a million a year from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. Industrial decentralisation to growth points on the borders of (but not inside) the homelands was promoted as a means of keeping blacks out of “white” South Africa.

      In virtually every sphere, from housing to education to healthcare, central government took control over black people’s lives with a view to reinforcing their allotted role as “temporary sojourners”, welcome in “white” South Africa solely to serve the needs of the employers of labour. However, these same programmes of control became the focus of resistance. In particular, the campaign against the pass laws formed a cornerstone of the struggle.

      The end of apartheid

      The introduction of apartheid policies coincided with the adoption by the ANC in 1949 of its programme of action, expressing the renewed militancy of the 1940s. The programme embodied the rejection of white domination and a call for action in the form of protests, strikes and demonstrations. There followed a decade of turbulent mass action in resistance to the imposition of still harsher forms of segregation and oppression.

      The Defiance Campaign of 1952 carried mass mobilisation to new heights under the banner of non-violent resistance to the pass laws. These actions were influenced in part by the philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi.

      A critical step in the emergence of non-racialism was the formation of the Congress Alliance, including the ANC South African Indian Congress the Coloured People’s Congress a small white congress organisation (the Congress of Democrats) and the South African Congress of Trade Unions.

      The alliance gave formal expression to an emerging unity across racial and class lines that was manifested in the Defiance Campaign and other mass protests, including against the Bantu education of this period, which also saw women’s resistance take a more organised character with the formation of the Federation of South African Women.

      In 1955, the Freedom Charter was drawn up at the Congress of the People in Soweto. The charter enunciated the principles of the struggle, binding the movement to a culture of human rights and non-racialism. Over the next few decades, the Freedom Charter was elevated to an important symbol of the freedom struggle.

      The Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), founded by Robert Sobukwe and based on the philosophies of “Africanism” and anti-communism, broke away from the Congress Alliance in 1959.

      The state’s initial response, harsh as it was, was not yet as draconian as it was to become. Its attempt to prosecute more than 150 anti-apartheid leaders for treason, in a trial that began in 1956, ended in acquittals in 1961. But by that time, mass organised opposition had been banned.

      Matters came to a head at Sharpeville in March 1960, when 69 anti-pass demonstrators were killed when police fired on a demonstration called by the PAC. A state of emergency was imposed and detention without trial was introduced.

      The black political organisations were banned and their leaders went into exile or were arrested. In this climate, the ANC and PAC abandoned their long-standing commitment to non-violent resistance and turned to armed struggle, combined with underground organisation and mobilisation as well as mobilisation of international solidarity. Top leaders, including members of the newly formed military wing Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) (Spear of the Nation), were arrested in 1963. In the “Rivonia Trial”, eight ANC leaders, including Nelson Mandela, were convicted of sabotage (instead of treason, the original charge) and sentenced to life imprisonment.

      See the video about the Rivonia Trial.

      In this period, leaders of other organisations, including the PAC and the New Unity Movement, were also sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and/or banned.

      The 1960s was a decade of overwhelming repression and relative political disarray among blacks in the country. Armed action was contained by the state.

      State repression played a central role in containing internal resistance, and the leadership of the struggle shifted increasingly to the missions in exile. At the same time, the ANC leadership embarked on a campaign to infiltrate the country through what was then Rhodesia.

      In August 1967, a joint force of MK and the Zimbabwean People’s Revolutionary Army (Zipra) of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (Zapu) entered Zimbabwe, and over a two-month period engaged the joint Rhodesian and South African security forces.

      Although the joint MK-Zipra force failed to reach South Africa, this was the first military confrontation between the military forces of the ANC-led alliance and white security forces.

      The resurgence of resistance politics from the early 1970s was dramatic. The Black Consciousness Movement, led by Steve Biko (who was killed in detention in 1977), reawakened a sense of pride and self-esteem in black people.

      News of the brutal death of Biko reverberated around the globe and led to unprecedented outrage.

      As capitalist economies sputtered with the oil crisis of 1973, black trade unions revived.

      A wave of strikes reflected a new militancy that involved better organisation and was drawing new sectors, in particular intellectuals and the student movement, into mass struggle and debate over the principles informing it. Rallies at black universities in support of Frelimo, the Mozambican liberation movement, also gave expression to the growing militancy. The year 1976 marked the beginning of a sustained anti-apartheid revolt. In June, school pupils of Soweto rose up against apartheid education, followed by youth uprisings all around the country. Despite the harsh repression that followed, students continued to organise, with the formation in 1979 of organisations for school students (Congress of South African Students) and college and university students (Azanian Students Organisation). By the 1980s, the different forms of struggle – armed struggle, mass mobilisation and international solidarity – were beginning to integrate and coalesce.

      The United Democratic Front and the informal umbrella, the Mass Democratic Movement, emerged as legal vehicles of democratic forces struggling for liberation. Clerics played a prominent public role in these movements. The involvement of workers in resistance took on a new dimension with the formation of the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the National Council of Trade Unions.

      Popular anger was directed against all those who were deemed to be collaborating with the government in the pursuit of its objectives, and the black townships became virtually ungovernable. From the mid-1980s, regional and national states of emergency were enforced.

      Developments in neighbouring states, where mass resistance to white minority and colonial rule led to Portuguese decolonisation in the mid-1970s and the abdication of Zimbabwe’s minority regime in 1980, left South Africa exposed as the last bastion of white supremacy.

      Under growing pressure and increasingly isolated internationally, the government embarked on a dual strategy, introducing limited reform coupled with intensifying repression and militarisation of society, with the objective of containing the pressures and increasing its support base while crushing organised resistance.

      An early example of reform was the recognition of black trade unions to try to stabilise labour relations. In 1983, the Constitution was reformed to allow the coloured and Indian minorities limited participation in separate and subordinate houses of Parliament.

      The vast majority of these groups demonstrated their rejection of the tricameral dispensation through massive boycotts of elections, but it was kept in place by the apartheid regime despite its visible lack of legitimacy. Attempts to legitimise community councils as vehicles for the participation of Africans outside the Bantustans in local government met a similar fate.

      Militarisation included the ascendancy of the State Security Council, which usurped the role of the executive in crucial respects, and a succession of states of emergency as part of the implementation of a comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy to combat what, by the mid-1980s, was an endemic insurrectionary spirit in the land.

      However, by the late 1980s, popular resistance was taking the form of mass defiance campaigns, while struggles over more localised issues saw broad sections of communities mobilised in united action. Popular support for released political prisoners and for the armed struggle was being openly expressed.

      In response to the rising tide of resistance, the international community strengthened its support for the anti-apartheid cause. Sanctions and boycotts were instituted, both unilaterally by countries across the world and through the United Nations (UN). These sanctions were called for in a co-ordinated strategy by the internal and external anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.

      FW de Klerk, who replaced PW Botha as State President in 1989, announced at the opening of Parliament in February 1990 the unbanning of the liberation movements and release of political prisoners, among them, Nelson Mandela. A number of factors led to this step. International financial, trade, sport and cultural sanctions were clearly biting.

      Above all, even if South Africa was nowhere near collapse, either militarily or economically, several years of emergency rule and ruthless repression had clearly neither destroyed the structures of organised resistance, nor helped establish legitimacy for the apartheid regime or its collaborators. Instead, popular resistance, including mass and armed action, was intensifying.

      The ANC, enjoying popular recognition and legitimacy as the foremost liberation organisation, was increasingly regarded as a government-in-waiting.

      International support for the liberation movement came from various countries around the globe, particularly from former socialist countries and Nordic countries as well as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

      The other liberation organisations increasingly experienced various internal and external pressures and did not enjoy much popular support.

      To outside observers, and also in the eyes of growing numbers of white South Africans, apartheid stood exposed as morally bankrupt, indefensible and impervious to reforms.

      The collapse of global communism, the negotiated withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola, and the culmination of the South-West African People’s Organisation’s liberation struggle in the negotiated independence of Namibia – formerly South-West Africa, administered by South Africa as a League of Nations mandate since 1919 – did much to change the mindset of white people. No longer could they demonise the ANC and PAC as fronts for international communism.

      White South Africa had also changed in deeper ways. Afrikaner nationalism had lost much of its raison d’être. Many Afrikaners had become urban, middle class and relatively prosperous.

      Their ethnic grievances and attachment to ethnic causes and symbols had diminished. A large part of the NP’s core constituency was ready to explore larger national identities, even across racial divides, and yearned for international respectability. In 1982, disenchanted hardliners split from the NP to form the Conservative Party, leaving the NP open to more flexible and modernising influences.

      After this split, factions within the Afrikaner élite openly started to pronounce in favour of a more inclusive society, causing more friction with the NP government, which became increasingly militaristic and authoritarian.

      A number of business, student and academic Afrikaners held meetings publicly and privately with the ANC in exile. Secret talks were held between the imprisoned Mandela and government ministers about a new dispensation for South Africa, with blacks forming a major part of it.

      Inside the country, mass action became the order of the day. Petty apartheid laws and symbols were openly challenged and removed. Together with a sliding economy and increasing international pressure, these developments made historic changes inevitable.

      The First Decade of Freedom

      After a long negotiation process, sustained despite much opportunistic violence from the right wing and its surrogates, and in some instances sanctioned by elements of the state, South Africa’s first democratic election was held in April 1994 under an interim Constitution.

      The interim Constitution divided South Africa into nine new provinces in place of the previous four provinces and 10 “homelands”, and provided for the Government of National Unity to be constituted by all parties with at least 20 seats in the National Assembly.

      The ANC emerged from the election with a 62% majority. The main opposition came from the NP, which gained 20% of the vote nationally, and a majority in the Western Cape. The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) received 10% of the vote, mainly in its KwaZulu-Natal base. The NP and the IFP formed part of the Government of National Unity until 1996, when the NP withdrew. The ANC-led Government embarked on a programme to promote the reconstruction and development of the country and its institutions.

      This called for the simultaneous pursuit of democratisation and socio-economic change, as well as reconciliation and the building of consensus founded on the commitment to improve the lives of all South Africans, in particular the poor. It required the integration of South Africa into a rapidly changing global environment.

      Pursuit of these objectives was a consistent focus of government during the First Decade of Freedom, seeking the unity of a previously divided society in working together to overcome the legacy of a history of division, exclusion and neglect.

      Converting democratic ideals into practice required, among other things, initiating a radical overhaul of the machinery of government at every level, working towards service delivery, openness, and a culture of human rights. It has required a more integrated approach to planning and implementation to ensure that the many different aspects of transformation and socio-economic upliftment cohere with maximum impact.

      Constitutional Court, Constitutional Hill, Johannesburg

      A significant milestone in the democratisation of South Africa was the exemplary Constitution-making process, which in 1996 delivered a document that has evoked worldwide admiration.

      So too have been the elections subsequent to 1994 – all conducted peacefully, with high levels of participation compared with the norm in most democracies, and accepted by all as free and fair in their conduct and results. Local government elections during 1995 and 1996, and then again in 2000 after the transformation of the municipal system, gave the country its first democratically elected non-racial municipal authorities.

      Since 2001, participatory democracy and interactive governance have been strengthened through the practice of imbizo, roving executive council and mayoral meetings, in which members of the executive, in all three spheres of government, including The Presidency, regularly engage directly with the public around implementation of programmes of reconstruction and development.

      The second democratic national election in 1999 saw the ANC majority increase to just short of two thirds and the election of Mr Thabo Mbeki as president and successor to Mr Mandela. It saw a sharp decline of the NP (then the New National Party [NNP]) and its replacement by the Democratic Party, led by Mr Tony Leon, as the official opposition in Parliament. These two parties formed the Democratic Alliance, which the NNP left in 2001.

      The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, helped inculcate a commitment to accountability and transparency in South Africa’s public life, at the same time helping to heal wounds inflicted by the inhumanities of the apartheid era.

      During 2003, Parliament accepted the Government’s response to the final report of the TRC. Out of 22 000 individuals or surviving families appearing before the commission, 19 000 were identified as needing urgent reparation assistance – virtually all, where the necessary information was available, received interim reparations.

      As final reparations, government provided a once-off grant of R30 000 to individuals or survivors who appeared before, and were designated by, the TRC, over and above the programmes for material assistance. There are continuing programmes to project the symbolism of the struggle and the ideal of freedom. These include the Freedom Park and other symbols and monuments, and such matters as records of history, remaking of cultural and art forms and changing geographical and place names.

      The ethos of partnership informed the establishment of the National Economic Development and Labour Council. It brings together government, business, organised labour and development organisations to confront the challenges of growth and development for South Africa in a turbulent and globalising international economy.

      The Presidential Jobs Summit in 1998 and the Growth and Development Summit (GDS) in June 2003 brought these sectors together to collectively take advantage of the conditions in South Africa for faster growth and development.

      At the GDS, a comprehensive set of agreements was concluded to address urgent challenges in a practical way and to speed up job-creating growth and development.

      Partnership between government and civil society was further strengthened by the creation of a number of working groups through which sectors of society – business, organised labour, higher education, religious leaders, youth and women – engage regularly with the President.

      In the First Decade of Freedom, government placed emphasis on meeting basic needs through programmes for socio-economic development such as the provision of housing, piped water, electricity, education and healthcare, as well as social grants for those in need.

      Another priority was the safety and security of citizens, which required both transforming the police into a service working with the community, and overcoming grave problems of criminality and a culture of violence posed by the social dislocations inherited from the past.

      Key economic objectives included job creation, poverty eradication, reduction of inequality and overall growth. There was much progress in rebuilding the economy, in particular with the achievement of macroeconomic stability and the initiation of programmes of microeconomic reform. By the end of 2004, growth was accelerating and there were signs of the beginnings of a reduction in unemployment.

      The integration of South Africa into the global political, economic and social system has been a priority for democratic South Africa. As a country isolated during the apartheid period, an African country, a developing country, and a country whose liberation was achieved with the support of the international community, it remains of critical importance to build political and economic links with the countries and regions of the world, and to work with others for an international environment more favourable to development across the world, and in Africa and South Africa in particular.

      The South African Government is committed to the African Renaissance, which is based on the consolidation of democracy, economic development and a co-operative approach to resolving the challenges the continent faces.

      South Africa hosted the launch in 2002 of the African Union (AU), a step towards further unification of Africa in pursuit of socio-economic development, the Organisation of African Unity having fulfilled its mandate to liberate Africa. President Mbeki chaired the AU for its founding year, handing over the chair to President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique in July 2003.

      In 2004, the AU decided that South Africa should host the Pan-African Parliament and it met for its second session in South Africa, the first time on South African soil, in September of that year.

      By participating in UN and AU initiatives to resolve conflict and promote peace and security on the continent – in among other countries, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Burundi and Sudan – South Africa has contributed to the achievement of conditions conducive to the entrenchment of stability, democracy and faster development.

      During the First Decade of Freedom, it acted at various times as chair of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), NAM, AU and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. It has played host to several international conferences, including the UN Conference on Trade and Development in 1996, the 2000 World AIDS Congress, World Conference Against Racism in 2001, World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, and the World Parks Congress in 2003. The country has also been represented on international forums such as the International Monetary Fund’s Development Committee and Interpol.

      Into the Second Decade of Freedom

      When South Africa celebrated 10 years of freedom in 2004, there were celebrations across the world in countries whose peoples had helped to bring freedom to South Africa through their solidarity, and who today are partners in reconstruction and development.

      As government took stock of the First Decade of Freedom in Towards a Ten Year Review, it was able to document great progress by South Africans in pursuit of their goals, as well as the challenges that face the nation as it traverses the second decade of its freedom towards 2014.

      In its third democratic elections, in April 2004, the country gave an increased mandate to the Government’s programme for reconstruction and development and for the entrenchment of the rights inscribed in the Constitution. It mandated government specifically to create the conditions for halving unemployment and poverty by 2014. Following these elections, Thabo Mbeki was appointed to a second term of office as President of South Africa – a position he relinquished in September 2008, following the decision of the National Executive Committee of the ANC to recall him. Parliament elected Kgalema Motlanthe as President of South Africa on 25 September 2008.

      Local government elections in 2006, following a long period of civic unrest as communities protested against a mixed record of service delivery, saw increased participation compared with the previous local elections, as well as increased support for the ruling party based on a manifesto for a concerted effort, in partnership with communities, to make local government work better.

      South Africa held national and provincial elections to elect a new National Assembly as well as the provincial legislature in each province on 22 April 2009. Some 23 million people were registered for the 2009 general election, which were about 2,5 million more than in 2004. About 77% of registered voters took part in the election. The results for the top five parties were as follows: the ANC achieved 65,9% the DA 16,6% the newlyformed Congress of the People 7,4% the IFP 4,5% and the Independent Democrats 0,9% of the votes cast.

      Jacob Zuma was inaugurated as President of South Africa on 9 May 2009. Shortly thereafter, President Zuma announced several changes to current government departments and the creation of new structures within The Presidency. The latter essentially comprises the Ministry for Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Administration and the National Planning Ministry, in keeping with the new administration’s approach to intensify government delivery through an outcomes-based approach, coupled with a government-wide monitoring and evaluation system.

      During 2010, much effort was dedicated into organising and shifting government onto a new plateau of efficiency and accountability.

      The Cabinet Lekgotla, held from 20 to 22 January 2010, adopted the following 12 outcomes as focus areas for government’s work:

      • an improved quality of basic education
      • a long and healthy life for all South Africans
      • all South Africans should be safe and feel safe
      • decent employment through inclusive growth
      • a skilled and capable workforce to support an inclusive growth path an efficient, competitive and responsive economic infrastructure network
      • vibrant, equitable, sustainable rural communities with food security for all
      • sustainable human settlements and an improved quality of household life
      • a responsive, accountable, effective and efficient local government system
      • environmental assets and natural resources that are well protected and enhanced
      • a better Africa and a better world as a result of South Africa’s contributions to global relations
      • an efficient and development-oriented public service and an empowered, fair and inclusive citizenship.

      A big part of making the outcomes a reality lies in escalating the extent to which departments are accountable for their delivery areas. The President has signed performance agreements with all 34 Cabinet ministers. Delivery agreements will further unpack each outcome and each output and the requirements to reach the targets. The performance monitoring and evaluation systems that have been put in place will continue to be built upon so that the work of government towards achieving these outcomes is consistently tracked.

      A significant milestone for South Africa in the Second Decade of Freedom was the successful hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™.

      The tournament, which was the first on African soil, demonstrated that South Africa has the infrastructure and capability to warrant serious investment consideration. It also showcased South Africa and its people to the world. According to FIFA, it achieved the third-highest aggregate attendance behind the 1994 FIFA World Cup in the United States of America (USA), and the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany. This figure excludes the millions of people who watched World Cup games at fan fests, fan parks and public viewing areas across the country, and in cities around the world. Government recorded that more than 1,4 million foreigners visited the country during the tournament.

      Government spent about R40 billion on infrastructure projects, and billions more on upgrading roads and airports. Improvements in public transport, security, investment and tourism have already been shown to benefit the people of our country. The hosting of the tournament also resulted in job creation. South Africans demonstrated an explosion of national pride and embraced each other, making the tournament a powerful nation-building tool.

      The 2011 local government elections, held in May, were characterised by lively and respectful campaigning with all political parties free to engage with voters in all areas. The Independent Electoral Commission highlighted decreased voter apathy and achieved an impressive 57,6% registered voter turn-out – an improvement from the previous local government elections, which scored below the 50% mark. The ANC won the highest number of seats and councils – 198 councils and 5 633 seats, constituting 62% of the vote. The DA came second with 18 councils, 1 555 seats and 23,9% support. The ANC and DA were followed by the IFP and COPE.

      As part of government’s commitment to secure a better quality of life for all, the National Planning Commission (NPC) in The Presidency finalised the draft National Development Plan: Vision for 2030 in 2011. The plan is a step in the process of charting a new path for South Africa. By 2030, government seeks to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality. The plan was the product of not just the NPC but also tens of thousands of ordinary South Africans who shared their dreams, hopes and ideas for the future.

      Also in 2011, government undertook a 10-year Census designed to assess developments and identify service-delivery needs. Census 2011 was aimed at providing comprehensive information on the population dynamics at all levels of society with the main output being the size, nature, characteristics and geographic location of South Africa’s population. More than 14 million households were visited.

      The objective of a better life for the people of South Africa, the continent of Africa and the world at large was at the heart of the country’s successful hosting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s 17th Conference of the Parties in Durban towards the end of 2011. Aware of the fact that Africa is the continent most affected by the impact of climate change, South Africa was committed to ensure that Durban delivered a fair and balanced outcome that would help secure the future of our planet. The resulting Durban Platform outcome was a coup for South Africa and the African continent.

      South Africa has continued to build on its international profile. On 1 January 2011, South Africa began its second term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for the period 2011 and 2012. South Africa serves alongside the permanent five members, China, France, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom and USA and elected members Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria and Portugal. It was the UNSC President in January 2012, which saw the adoption of Resolution 2033 that provides for closer cooperation between the UN and the AU.

      In the conduct of its international relations, South Africa is committed to garner support for its domestic priorities, promote the interests of the African continent, enhance democracy and human rights, uphold justice and international law in relations between nations, seek the peaceful resolution of conflicts and promote economic development through regional and international cooperation in an interdependent world.

      On 8 January 2012, Africa’s oldest liberation movement, the ANC, celebrated 100 years of existence. This was a historic achievement, not only for the movement, but also for South Africa, the continent and the world. Thousands of ordinary South Africans, political and religious leaders attended the centenary celebrations which were held in Mangaung, Free State, the birthplace of the ANC.

      Source: South Africa Yearbook 2011/12 edited by Louise van Niekerk and additions by ShowMe. Further information was taken from Wikipedia.

      Watch the video: Πολίτες έτρεψαν σε φυγή τον υπουργό Εργασίας Τον εντόπισαν σε καφετέρια


  1. Anatol

    Strange any dialogue turns out..

  2. Rufo

    I think, that you are mistaken. Let's discuss it. Write to me in PM, we will talk.

  3. Dayner

    I am sorry, it at all does not approach me.

  4. Cuinn

    Well done, the imaginary))))

  5. Goltigul

    Clearly, I appreciate the help in this matter.

Write a message