If Afrikaners never took power in 1948, declared a republic in 1961 and South Africa remained a "dominion" like Australia or Canada, what would be different?
It be full of kaffirs still
>If Afrikaners never took power in 1948
In fairness all the three previous PMs of South Africa before union had been Afrikaners.
There would still be the problem that although they're might not be "Apartheid" coloureds, blacks and Indians were still second and third class citizens before then with less rights than whites. So there would still be pressure from the outside world to end minority white rule, and that's assuming the Smuts United Party kept power even if they won in 48.
Also unless there was a large immigration from the British Isles the majority of whites would still be Boers and therefore be less inclined to vote against a republic (assuming a referendum was still whites only). That being said after the National Party got power there did place strict limits on immigration precisely because they didn't want British immigrants.
>If Afrikaners never took power in 1948
In fairness all the three previous PMs of South Africa before union had been Afrikaners.
There would still be the problem that although they're might not be "Apartheid" coloureds, blacks and Indians were still second and third class citizens before then with less rights than whites. So there would still be pressure from the outside world to end minority white rule, and that's assuming the Smuts United Party kept power even if they won in 48.
Also unless there was a large immigration from the British Isles the majority of whites would still be Boers and therefore be less inclined to vote against a republic (assuming a referendum was still whites only). That being said after the National Party got power there did place strict limits on immigration precisely because they didn't want British immigrants.
