The Union of South Africa was a shotgun marriage (revisited)

South Africa's creation was thanks to an act of British legislation (The South Africa Act passed in 1909) establishing a parliamentary regime along the lines of the Westminster model, the irony here is that the England then, as well as today, does not have a constitution. Yet, for example, Tanzania's constitution (1955) was one of the most complex ever written, mainly to exclude the more belligerent nationalist. Further changes were made which included a tripartite voting provisions that each voter on the roll had to cast his vote for one person of each race, on pain of invalidation.... They went out of their way to complicate a constitution, even when there were no problems (fundamentally) of race.

The creation of South Africa reversed the natural independent status of various people and at the same time created a mechanism against self determination, which was expressed prior to the 'union' it has also been the direct result of the friction which later followed and is still happening in this 'marriage.' Apartheid was a result of the white's concern on becoming a oppressed minority. The international capitalist appeared to have used this unfolding political machine to great success as it later gave them the opportunity to reclaim South Africa under the covert guise of the post Apartheid regime who are financed and propped up by them. After all, international capitalist went to great lengths to set up and impose the State of South Africa (a 'republic' in name only) - even to the point of killing off 50% of the Boer child population in concentration camps. Today, over 3 000 Boers have been murdered. It seems that history is repeating itself.

What about the future?

a) A white president is elected after Zuma.

b) Nelson Mandela passes on.

c) Civil war breaks out – the losers? The majority race group. (Like it was during the Apartheid years...)

d) Independence of the Western Cape