Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:26:51.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Transkeian Council System 1895–1955: An Appraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

W. D. Hammond-Tooke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For sixty-one years, from 1895 to 1955, the area known as the Transkeian Territories was the scene of an ‘experiment’ in local government based on district councils of elected members under the chairmanship of White magistrates. These councils were essentially advisory, and initiated proposals for expenditure on a range of parochial matters such as the building and maintenance of roads and bridges, water conservation, postal services and fencing. The twenty-six district councils were integrated into the United Transkeian General Council, or Bunga, which met annually in Umtata, and which was composed of delegates from the District Councils and the magisterial District Chairmen. The General Council operated engineering and agricultural departments, and spent considerable sums on soil and water conservation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1968 , pp. 455 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report on Native Laws and Customs 1883 (G.4-'83), pp. 42–6. J. Ayliff, in a minority report, opposed this view, stating: ‘A generation or two must elapse before they will imbibe democratic ideas and realize that there is such a thing as governing the people by the people’ (Annexure no. v). At the same time the Commission recommended that Whites and duly qualified Africans should be represented in the Cape Parliament, duly registered African voters being excluded from voting for members of the Native Council, but being eligible for election thereto.Google Scholar

2 This term must be used with caution, if at all. Access to grazing and natural products was free to all, but residential and arable lands, once allotted, remained in the exclusive use of the holder, provided that they were effectively exploited.

3 G.20–'81, p. 39.

4 McLoughlin, A. G., ‘The Transkeian System of Native Administration’ (1936), unpublished MS in Cory Library, Rhodes University, p. 22;Google ScholarBrookes, E. H., The History of Native Policy in South Africa, 108: ‘The whole lines of the Glen Grey System were clearly sketched out by Captain Blyth in a Memorandum dated 13 January 1882 (Cape Native Blue Book, 1882, p. 6)’.Google Scholar

5 Namely Fingoland (1877), Tembuland (1877), Gcalekaland (1878), E. Griqualand (1878), Mount Ayliff (1886), E. Pondoland (1894), W. Pondoland (5894). See Brownlee, F., The Transkeian Territories: Historical Records.Google Scholar

6 The demarcation of locations had begun earlier. The first locations were established in 1849, among the Mfengu of the Ciskeian Division of Victoria.

7 MacQuarrie, J. W. (ed.), Reminiscences of Sir Walter Stanford, II (V.R.S., Cape Town, 1958), 11.Google Scholar

8 Canon, Mullins in The Net (1883),Google Scholar quoted by Lewis, C. and Edwards, G. F., Historical Records of the Church of the Province of South Africa.Google Scholar

9 McLoughlin, op. cit. 44.Google Scholar

10 MacQuarrie, (ed.), op. cit. 3.Google Scholar

11 Davenport, T. R. H., The Afrikaner Bond 1880–1900 (Cape Town, 1966), 121. I have relied heavily on his account for the period immediately before 1894.Google Scholar

12 The Boards, also established under the Act, consisted of three members, resident holders of land, appointed by the Governor, ‘after consideration of the wishes and recommendations of the resident holders of land in the location’. Headmen were eligible for membership. Members held office for one year but were eligible for re-election.

13 Cape Hansard (1894), 366–7.Google Scholar

14 McQuarrie, J. W. (ed.), op. cit. 162.Google Scholar

15 Minutes of Evidence taken Before the Select Committee on the Glen Grey Act: Report (1903), 155,Google Scholar

16 By Act no. 23 of 1920 the District Council System was extended to certain other sreas, namely eight districts in the Ciskei; Mafeking, Marico, Taung and Rustenburg in the Western Transvaal; six districts in the Northern Transvaal and two in Natal (see Rogers, , Native Administration in the Union of South Africa (revised edition), 1948, 67).Google Scholar Provision in the Act was also made for the establishment of General Councils, but this was only implemented in the Ciskei (by Proclamation no. 34 of 1934). In the Transkei the predominantly White-occupied district of Mount Currie was excluded.

17 Rogers, H., Native Administration in the Union of South Africa (1933), 55.Google Scholar

18 Detailed descriptions of the formal structure and work of the Council System will be found in: Brookes, E. H., History of Native Policy in South Africa (1927), 108–18, 248–81;Google ScholarRogers, H., Native Administration in the Union of South Africa (1933), 43–75;Google ScholarKenyon, J. T., An Address on the General Council Administrative System of the Transkeian Territories, n.d. (ca. 1932).Google Scholar

19 A detailed account of Hertzog's Native policy will be found in Tatz, C. M., Shadow and Substance in South Africa (1962).Google Scholar

20 Lord, Hailey, An African Survey (2nd ed. 1945), 530.Google Scholar

21 Jabavu, D. D. T., The Black Problem (1920), 23.Google Scholar

22 A number of councillors had teaching qualifications, although they had not always practised as teachers, and this note shows the conversion of this training into academic terms, for purposes of tabulation. Thus entrance to the NPL (Native Primary Lower, a three-year course) is a St. VI certificate, for NPH (Native Primary Higher), the St. VIII.

23 Hunter, M., Reaction to Conquest (1936), 432.Google Scholar

24 Proceedings (1929), 185.Google Scholar

25 Proceedings (1925), 202–4.Google Scholar

26 Op. cit. 122–4.

27 Proceedings (1926), 259–26.Google Scholar

28 Proceedings (1927), 39–3.Google Scholar

29 The bills were referred to Select Committees in 1926, 1927 and 9928, and, in February 1929 a joint sitting of both Houses considered the Natives' Parliamentary Representation Bill. The Union Native Council Bill was dropped completely. Hertzog's Bills were further modified by Joint Select Committees sitting between 1930–5 (see Tatz, C. M., op. cit. chap. V).Google Scholar

30 Proceedings (1936), 281–6.Google Scholar

31 Proceedings (1939), 114–15.Google Scholar

32 Proceedings (1935), 102.Google Scholar

33 Proceedings (1941), 48.Google Scholar

34 W. D. Hammond-Tooke, ‘Tribal cohesion and the incorporative process in the Transkei, South Africa’, in Middleton, J. and Cohen, R. (eds.), From Tribe to Nation (forthcoming).Google Scholar

35 See Hammond-Tooke, W. D., ‘Chieftainship in Transkei political development’, J. Mod. Afr. Stud. II, 4 (1964), 513-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Especially as it was associated with the apartheid policy of the government and was coupled with the abolition of the Native Representative Council: just as the establishment of the General Council System was associated with the withdrawal of franchise rights in 1895.

37 Hammond-Tooke, W. D., 1964, op. cit.Google Scholar