South Africa Today: Is the Country Still Racist?

In this episode of The Perspicacious Perspective, I take a deep dive into South Africa’s complex history and its ongoing social challenges. From European settlement and colonialism to the rise and fall of apartheid, I explore how these historical forces shaped the nation’s identity. I also examine key resistance movements, the legacy of leaders like Nelson Mandela, and the policies that continue to influence South Africa’s democracy today.

I ask the tough question: Is South Africa still a racist country, or has it moved beyond its troubled past? Join me as I unpack the social, political, and economic factors that continue to shape the country—and provide a clear-eyed perspective on what progress really looks like.

Transcript

Welcome back to the Perspicacious Perspective.

I’m sure you’ve heard of Nelson Mandela and have a rough idea of the apartheid that took place in South Africa, but do you know all the details?

I didn’t anyway which is why I decided to do this episode. What I found doing the research for this episode is that South Africa is in a very uniquely complicated situation due to its history and culture. I’ll try to include everything that’s necessary to get a true grasp of South Africa’s circumstance and hopefully it will help you to have a more informed opinion of what’s going on over there.

Let’s start with South Africa’s European settlers.

·      Which European migrants settled in South Africa, how long have they been there, and what are the socio-economic demographics of South Africans with European heritage?

European migration to South Africa began in the mid-17th century. The first significant group of European settlers were the Dutch, who arrived in 1652 when the Dutch East India Company established a supply station at the Cape of Good Hope. These settlers, who later became known as Boers and eventually Afrikaners, developed a distinct culture and language—Afrikaans—derived primarily from Dutch, with influences from German, French, and local languages. In the late 1600s, French Huguenots fleeing religious persecution in Europe joined the Dutch settlers. Though small in number, they had a lasting impact, particularly in viticulture (which is the cultivation of grapes and grape vines), and were eventually assimilated into the Dutch-speaking Afrikaner community.

British colonists began arriving in significant numbers after the British took control of the Cape Colony in 1795, with permanent occupation beginning in 1806. One of the most notable waves was the arrival of the 1820 Settlers, a group of about 4,000 British immigrants who were encouraged to populate the Eastern Cape as a buffer against the indigenous Xhosa. These settlers introduced British legal, political, and educational institutions and established English as a major language in South Africa. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, additional European groups, including Germans, Portuguese, Italians, and Eastern European Jews, migrated to South Africa. Many of these individuals settled in urban centers and contributed to the country's industrial development and professional sectors.

Today, South Africans of European descent—often collectively referred to as white South Africans—make up about 7 to 8 percent of the population, or roughly 4.5 million people. This group is predominantly composed of Afrikaners and English-speaking South Africans, with smaller communities of Portuguese, Jewish, German, and other European heritage. Although apartheid officially ended in 1994, white South Africans continue to occupy a disproportionately strong socio-economic position. They are more likely to have access to quality education, own property, and hold well-paying jobs in sectors such as finance, law, medicine, and business. This economic advantage is largely a legacy of apartheid-era policies that privileged white citizens and excluded others from meaningful participation in the economy.

Nevertheless, the socio-economic landscape has shifted somewhat in the post-apartheid era. The government’s Black Economic Empowerment policies have sought to address historical injustices by promoting the inclusion of Black South Africans in business and public sectors. These changes, along with crime and economic instability, have led to noticeable emigration trends among white South Africans, particularly among the younger, skilled population who have moved to countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. Despite these challenges, white South Africans continue to enjoy higher average incomes, better access to services, and greater economic security than most other racial groups in the country.

·      What happened during the apartheid in South Africa and when did it happen?

Apartheid in South Africa was a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination that officially lasted from 1948 until the early 1990s. Although racial divisions and white minority rule had been in place long before, apartheid became the official policy when the National Party came to power in 1948. Under apartheid, South Africans were classified by race—mainly as White, Black (or African), Coloured (or mixed race), or Indian. This classification determined every aspect of life, including where people could live, work, and go to school, as well as who they could marry or associate with socially.

The government enforced strict residential segregation, removing non-white populations from areas designated for whites and relocating them to underdeveloped homelands or segregated townships. Laws such as the Group Areas Act of 1950 institutionalized these removals. Black South Africans, in particular, faced harsh restrictions. They had to carry passbooks that granted them permission to work or travel in white areas, a system known as the "pass laws." Politically, non-white citizens were completely marginalized. Black South Africans had no representation in the national government and were excluded from any meaningful participation in political life.

Resistance to apartheid emerged early, led by movements such as the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress. However, these efforts were met with harsh repression. In 1960, the Sharpeville Massacre shocked the world when police opened fire on peaceful protestors, killing 69 people. In 1976, the Soweto Uprising saw thousands of students protest against the imposition of Afrikaans in schools, again met with deadly violence.

Internationally, apartheid became increasingly condemned. South Africa faced growing isolation through economic sanctions, trade boycotts, and diplomatic pressure from the global community. By the late 1980s, internal resistance and international pressure made the apartheid system unsustainable. In 1990, President F.W. de Klerk released Nelson Mandela from prison after 27 years, signaling the beginning of major political reforms. Apartheid laws were gradually dismantled, and in 1994, South Africa held its first democratic election in which citizens of all races could vote. Nelson Mandela was elected president, marking the official end of apartheid and the beginning of a new era of democratic governance in South Africa.

·      How and when did the National Party in South Africa come to power?

The National Party came to power in South Africa in 1948, following a general election held that year. The party’s victory marked a turning point in South African history, as it initiated the formal implementation of apartheid.

The National Party had its origins in Afrikaner nationalism. It was initially founded in 1914 as a breakaway from the South African Party, motivated by dissatisfaction with British influence in South African politics. After a period of mergers and splits, the modern National Party emerged as a party championing the interests of Afrikaners, especially in the wake of World War II. Many Afrikaners felt marginalized economically and culturally, particularly in comparison to the English-speaking South African elite. The National Party tapped into this discontent, promoting a vision of racial separation, Christian nationalism, and Afrikaner identity.

In the 1948 election, the National Party formed a coalition with the smaller Afrikaner Party, campaigning on a platform of "apartheid"—a term they introduced into mainstream political language to describe their policy of strict racial segregation. The ruling United Party had supported a more moderate, though still racially hierarchical, approach. However, many white voters—especially Afrikaners in rural areas—were drawn to the National Party’s promise to entrench white supremacy, protect white labor, and curb the perceived threat of African political and economic advancement.

Although the National Party actually received fewer votes overall than the United Party, it won more parliamentary seats due to the way electoral boundaries were drawn—favoring rural constituencies, where Afrikaner support was strongest. With this narrow parliamentary majority, Malan became Prime Minister, and the National Party began to roll out the full legal and administrative framework of apartheid.

The 1948 victory allowed the National Party to entrench itself in power. Over the following decades, it expanded apartheid laws, suppressed opposition through censorship and police action, and institutionalized white minority rule. The party remained in control of the South African government until 1994, when it was finally voted out in the country’s first democratic, multiracial election.

·      What was the Sharpeville Massacre?

The Sharpeville Massacre was a tragic and pivotal event in South African history that occurred on 21 March in 1960 in the township of Sharpeville. It involved the killing of 69 unarmed Black South Africans and the injury of around 180 others by police during a peaceful protest against the apartheid government’s pass laws.

Pass laws were a cornerstone of the apartheid system, requiring Black South Africans to carry passbooks (or internal passports) at all times to control and restrict their movement. These laws were deeply resented, as they limited where Black South Africans could live, work, or travel, and subjected them to constant harassment, arrests, and humiliation.

On the day of the massacre, the Pan Africanist Congress—the breakaway group from the African National Congress—organized a nationwide protest in which participants were encouraged to leave their passbooks at home and voluntarily present themselves at police stations for arrest, overwhelming the system in a show of mass defiance. In Sharpeville, a large crowd—estimated at around 5,000 to 7,000 people—gathered peacefully outside the local police station to protest.

Initially, the demonstration was non-violent. However, as tensions rose and more people gathered, police became increasingly agitated. Without clear warning, officers opened fire on the crowd, many of whom were shot in the back while fleeing. Eyewitness accounts and later investigations revealed that the protesters were unarmed and posed no threat to the police. The sheer scale and brutality of the shooting shocked the country and the world.

The massacre marked a turning point in South African resistance history. Domestically, it led to mass arrests, the banning of both the Pan Africanist Congress and African National Congress, and the declaration of a state of emergency. It also prompted many anti-apartheid groups to reconsider their commitment to non-violence, leading to the formation of armed resistance movements.

Internationally, Sharpeville exposed the brutality of apartheid to the global community. The United Nations condemned the killings, and March 21 later became International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In South Africa, it is now commemorated as Human Rights Day.

·      What happened during the Soweto Uprising?

The Soweto Uprising was a major protest by Black South African students that began on 16 June 1976 in the township of Soweto, near Johannesburg. It was sparked by widespread anger over the apartheid government’s policy of forcing Black students to learn Afrikaans—the language of the ruling white minority—alongside English in schools. This was seen not only as an attempt to impose the language of the oppressor but also as part of the broader system of inferior education provided to Black South Africans under the Bantu Education Act.

On the morning of June 16, thousands of students from schools across Soweto organized a peaceful march to protest the new language policy. They carried placards with slogans like “Down with Afrikaans” and “If we must do Afrikaans, Vorster must do Zulu,” referring to then-Prime Minister John Vorster. The protest was meant to be nonviolent, but tensions quickly escalated when police confronted the marchers.

As students gathered, police opened fire on the crowd without warning, killing at least 176 people, although some estimates suggest the death toll was much higher. The first known victim was Hector Pieterson, a 13-year-old boy whose death was captured in a now-iconic photograph that came to symbolize the brutality of the apartheid regime. Hundreds of others were wounded in the ensuing chaos, as police used live ammunition, tear gas, and batons against the students.

The uprising did not end that day. It spread rapidly to other townships and cities across South Africa, with youth taking to the streets in protest. The government responded with a brutal crackdown, leading to further deaths, arrests, and a national crisis. Over the following months, clashes between youth and security forces continued, and schools across the country were affected.

The Soweto Uprising was a turning point in the struggle against apartheid. It marked the beginning of a new era of resistance, particularly among young people, and drew international attention to the oppression faced by Black South Africans. It also helped revive the internal anti-apartheid movement, as many young activists fled the country to join exiled liberation movements, including the African National Congress, and Pan Africanist Congress.

Today, June 16 is commemorated as Youth Day in South Africa, honoring the bravery and sacrifices of the students who stood up against apartheid’s unjust education policies.

·      What was Nelson Mandela’s role in ending the apartheid in South Africa?

Nelson Mandela played a central and transformative role in ending apartheid in South Africa. As a leader of the African National Congress, a symbol of resistance, and eventually the first Black president of South Africa, Mandela helped guide the country from a deeply divided, racially segregated society to a multiracial democracy.

Mandela’s political activism began in the 1940s, when he co-founded the African National Congress Youth League, which pushed for more radical action against the apartheid regime. In the 1950s, he rose to prominence through campaigns of civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance, such as the Defiance Campaign and the drafting of the Freedom Charter—a visionary document calling for equality and democratic rights for all South Africans. However, after the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 and the banning of the African National Congress, Mandela came to believe that nonviolent protest alone was no longer effective.

In 1961, Mandela co-founded the "Spear of the Nation", the African National Congress’s armed wing, which carried out sabotage against government installations. In 1962, he was arrested and later sentenced to life imprisonment during the infamous Rivonia Trial for his role in planning acts of resistance. He would spend the next 27 years in prison, mostly on Robben Island, becoming an international symbol of the struggle against apartheid.

Despite being imprisoned, Mandela's influence only grew. His name became synonymous with the fight for freedom, and global campaigns calling for his release gained momentum. Throughout the 1980s, as South Africa faced increasing internal resistance and international pressure through economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation, the apartheid regime began to falter.

In 1990, under President F.W. de Klerk, the South African government released Mandela from prison. His release was a watershed moment, and he quickly assumed a key leadership role in negotiations to end apartheid. Mandela worked tirelessly to avoid civil war, promote national reconciliation, and lead discussions that resulted in the dismantling of apartheid laws and the drafting of a new democratic constitution.

In 1993, Mandela and de Klerk were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to peacefully end apartheid. The following year, South Africa held its first multiracial democratic elections, and Mandela was elected President in 1994. As president, he focused on national unity, racial reconciliation, and laying the foundation for a more inclusive society.

Mandela's leadership—marked by forgiveness, vision, and unwavering commitment to justice—was instrumental in bringing about the peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy, making him not just a national hero but a global icon of human rights.

·      What laws or policies exist in South Africa today that are perceived as controversial or discriminatory?

In post-apartheid South Africa, a number of laws and policies have been introduced to address the deep racial and economic inequalities inherited from colonialism and apartheid. While these measures are grounded in the country’s commitment to justice and redress, some of them are viewed by various groups as controversial or discriminatory, especially where they appear to prioritize historical reparation over individual merit or universal equality.

One of the most prominent examples is the policy of Black Economic Empowerment, and its more comprehensive form, Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment. These programs are intended to increase the participation of Black South Africans—defined to include African, Coloured, and Indian groups—in the economy through measures such as preferential procurement, ownership targets, and employment equity. Supporters argue that these policies are essential for undoing the economic exclusion of the majority population under apartheid. However, critics contend that Black Economic Empowerment has disproportionately benefited a small, politically connected Black elite while creating new forms of exclusion for white South Africans and others who do not qualify under its racial criteria. It has also been accused of enabling corruption and inefficiency in public procurement, and of discouraging investment by businesses wary of regulatory burdens.

Closely linked to Black Economic Empowerment is the Employment Equity Act, which obliges medium and large employers to take active steps toward transforming the racial and gender composition of their workforce. In practice, this often means implementing affirmative action measures that favor historically disadvantaged groups in hiring and promotion. While the intent is to foster a representative workforce and dismantle entrenched racial hierarchies, critics argue that the act is effectively a system of racial preference that undermines merit and alienates skilled professionals, particularly white males and other minorities who may find themselves excluded from opportunities based on race rather than ability.

Land reform is another deeply contentious area. Given the history of land dispossession under colonial and apartheid regimes, efforts to return land to Black South Africans have been a central goal of post-1994 governments. While land reform has proceeded slowly, the debate intensified with the proposal for expropriation without compensation—a policy that would allow the state to take land without paying the current owners, if the land is deemed to be underutilized or unjustly acquired. Proponents view this as a long-overdue corrective to an enduring injustice, but opponents fear it could undermine property rights, deter investment, and destabilize the agricultural sector, drawing comparisons to the disastrous land seizures in Zimbabwe.

Controversy also extends into the realms of education and sport, where racial quotas and transformation policies are used to ensure greater representation of Black South Africans. In universities, affirmative action has influenced admissions, scholarships, and hiring, with some institutions facing accusations of reverse discrimination. In professional and national sports, particularly rugby and cricket, government-mandated targets for racial composition have prompted heated debates. While these measures are intended to broaden access and build inclusive national symbols, critics argue they can lead to resentment, lowered morale, and the perception that selection is based on race rather than merit.

Language policy has also sparked debate, particularly around the use of Afrikaans in education. Several universities have scaled back or eliminated Afrikaans as a medium of instruction, citing the need for inclusivity in a multilingual country where most citizens do not speak the language. This shift has been welcomed by those who see Afrikaans as a barrier to access, but resisted by Afrikaans-speaking communities who view it as an erosion of their cultural rights.

Taken together, these policies reflect South Africa’s ongoing struggle to balance the goals of redress and reconciliation with the principles of non-racialism and equality enshrined in its Constitution. While the intention behind them is to correct historic injustices, their implementation often provokes debate about fairness, meritocracy, and the risks of creating new divisions in a society still healing from the deep wounds of its past.

In terms of colonialism and apartheid, South Africa is unique due to the fact that the apartheid ended so recently, relatively speaking. You could try to draw a parallel to the American Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, but the apartheid would go on for another 20 to 30 years which complicates things even further. You also have the added dimension of which languages should be used in education, which inevitably discriminates against certain minorities, as well as the majority African demographic.

Evidently, affirmative action is only demoralising South Africans with European decent, and those Africans who are granted opportunities under this strategy, tend to be privileged anyway. To be honest, I’m not surprised South African Europeans are leaving in droves, especially since the government is threatening to expropriate land. But in the same breath, it’s understandable why the majority African race view the socio-economic make-up of the country as unfair.

I hope you enjoyed listening to this episode and that it helped you to understand what’s going on in South Africa better. Doing the research for this episode definitely opened my eyes up about the unique situation South Africa is in anyway. If you feel the same, subscribe to hear more content like this.

Until the next episode.