Suppression of Communism Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Albert John Luthuli , who was banned under this law despite his peaceful engagement, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1960 and received it in Oslo in 1961.
Memorial steles at the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg

The Suppression of Communism Act , Act No. 44/1950 ( Afrikaans : Wet op die Onderdrukking van Kommunisme ; German for example: "Law for the Suppression of Communism") was a law in South Africa that was passed by parliament on June 26, 1950 and came into force on July 17 of the same year . The law allowed for extensive restrictions and prohibitions against organizations, people and activities classified as communist. The term communism was defined very broadly, directed against any critical and oppositional attitudes in the apartheid system , even against people with clearly anti-communist positions, and served to create political offenses as well as the general criminalization of the resistance against apartheid. Many of its provisions were taken up unchanged or modified by the Internal Security Amendment Act ( Act No. 79/1976 ) in 1976 . A retroactive renaming was made. The Suppression of Communism Act and its subsequent law, the Internal Security Act of 1982, played a key role in exacerbating the domestic political situation in the country at the time.

initial situation

The government established by the National Party was faced with growing critical attitudes among all sections of the population in South Africa because of its apartheid policy. The already enacted Apartheid Legislation Acts, with the restrictions they caused in public and private life, hit the black population as well as the colored and Indian residents particularly hard . From their circle, the civil resistance was particularly noticeable. But human rights activists from the white population should also be mentioned. This included lawyers and people active in the church life in South Africa.

Purpose and goals

There were two intentions behind this law. The primary aim was to declare the South African Communist Party and all activities related to it to be unlawful organization and operation. In addition, the law aimed at a ban on periodical and other publications as well as on a ban on "communist" activities and on precautions against "other incidental matters".

The other and much more far-reaching goal arose from the term communism, which is extensively defined in Section 1 , Paragraph 1, Letter (ii). Accordingly, any activity that was not wanted by the government should be covered by the law. The offense of communism was given when the Ministry of Justice claimed to recognize the following principles in an act:

  • the doctrine of Marxian socialism or its development from Lenin or Trotsky ;
  • the doctrine of the III. Communist International (Comintern);
  • the doctrine of the Communist Information Office ( Cominform );
  • related views or opinions existed on the basis of this doctrine, which are being developed or advocated in the Union in order to pursue the fundamental principles of this doctrine or parts of it, as well as any doctrine or scheme ...
    • (a) Who intend to establish a despotic state system on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat with recognition of a political organization and to suppress or eliminate all other organizations;
    • (b) who intend to bring about political, industrial, social and economic change with the support of civil unrest or injustice, with unlawful acts or omissions ...;
    • (c) which intend, through political, industrial, social and economic change in accordance with guidelines by or under the direction of or in cooperation with any foreign government or any foreign or international institution whose purpose or one of its purposes is to establish any political , industrial, social or economic system identical to a system of another country as described in paragraph (a) or;
    • (d) which intend to encourage hostile feelings between the European and non-European races in the Union and other achievements that indicate goals as described in paragraph (a) or (b).

In further sections (paragraphs) one generally speaks of unlawful organization , i.e. of illegal organizations. The definition of an established or informal grouping can be found in Section 1 , Paragraph 1, Letter (xvii). This reveals the possibility of deliberately blurred application. Meetings were defined as a meeting of "any number of people."

Not only books but also newspapers, magazines, brochures or memoranda, leaflets and posters were regarded as publications within the meaning of the law. The prohibition could also extend to quoting a banned person. This intervened massively in the principle of freedom of expression and tried to stifle the critical discussion of the policy being practiced.

According to Section 18 of the law, its provisions also came into force on the territory of what was then South West Africa . The area of ​​South Africa and today's Namibia , as its area of ​​application, is referred to in the legal text as "Union".

Application and effects

The execution of the legal acts possible under this law was incumbent in the highest instance on the Governor-General of South Africa and the Ministry of Justice in technical responsibility .

The South African government exercised the powers described in the law on any organization or person who campaigned against the apartheid system. For enforcement of the arranged measures one was a government official used. Depending on the task at hand, he was called an officer or a liquidator .

The well-known Rivonia Trial was conducted on the basis of this Act and the Sabotage Act General Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 76/1962) .

Ban on the Communist Party of South Africa

One of the first decrees after the law was the declaration of the South African Communist Party (SACP) for unlawful organization (unlawful organization) . Because of this ban, she moved her activities underground. The party remained banned until 1990.

Banishment

A special form of sanction derived from this law was the ban . Comprehensive prohibitions and requirements against organizations and individuals were thereby issued. This resulted in considerable restrictions in professional, political and personal life for those affected. This order was often associated with a publication ban and house arrest . As a result, the regulation often led to the destruction of professional and social livelihoods. Regardless of basic human rights , the government imposed restrictions on human communication and strict daily reporting to the South African Police . These measures were taken without a court order and without prior hearing of those affected.

The arbitrariness of all determinations by the authorized minister connected with the Suppression of Communism Act even extended to actions in the area of medical assistance . With an individual additional provision (1978) to the ban order (1977) against Mamphela Ramphele , the doctor was forbidden to treat patients in two branch offices of a hospital in the Northern Transvaal.

In the period from 1950 to 1978, a ban was applied to around 1,400 people. In 1979, 152 people were under the spell. The period of these extensive restrictions was two years and could be extended to a maximum of five years. Preferably this measure was directed against intellectuals and executives of relevant organizations.

After all, there were institutions that were banned. Examples of this are the Christian Institute of Southern Africa , which received this ruling in October 1977, and the International Defense and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, banned by Justice Minister Balthazar Johannes Vorster in 1966 .

As part of the 1952 Defiance Campaign led by the African National Congress (ANC) and South African Indian Congress (SAIC) , there were mass public demonstrations in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi . Despite the peaceful mass protests, the South African government relentlessly used the Suppression of Communism Act against key players.

People who were particularly affected by the ban include Fatima Meer , Lilian Ngoyi , Albert John Luthuli , Steve Biko , Nyameko Barney Pityana , Ian Robertson (former President of the National Union of South African Students ) and Donald Woods . For some of these cases, the former Minister of Justice (1961 to 1966) Balthazar Johannes Vorster initiated the ban.

The corresponding regulations were made in Section 10 . On this basis, the Minister of Justice is granted a comprehensive right to restrict all personal freedoms. The ban goes back to regulations of the older Riotous Assemblies Act of 1929.

In Section 11 , the punishable acts are listed. It lists fines and sentences of up to ten years.

International awareness

The repression exercised on the basis of this and other apartheid laws has been observed and condemned internationally by numerous non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and by the United Nations . In particular, the ban of actually non-violent working organizations and lawyers who acted according to the rule of law was in the field of observation of the international public.

Bronze bust of Trevor Huddleston with a quote from Mandela in Bedford, England

The lawyer Joel Carlson was active as a defense attorney in political processes and in their preparation in many cases. He performed this activity as an observer for South Africa through the International Commission of Jurists (Geneva). As a trial representative for prisoners, he documented countless acts of the apartheid system, especially the torture methods used by the security authorities. His committed demeanor led to the withdrawal of his passport as part of an injunction against him. He had to flee South Africa in 1970.

Those affected by this law also included leading representatives of the South African churches, such as Trevor Huddleston , who later headed an anti-apartheid organization in the UK.

International attention was directed not only to the defense but also to the observation of the proceedings. Within court processes based on this and other laws, every South African minister since 1969 had the power to prevent testimony and the use of documents in the proceedings (legalized document suppression ) on the basis of the accompanying General Law Amendment Act (Act 101/1969 ) if he justified this with “interests of the state” and “endangering public security”. There was no possibility of revision for this .

A well-known case for the banning of organizations is the prohibition of the activity of the South African prisoners' aid organization South African Defense and Aid Found, which was founded in 1956 (banned on March 18, 1966), which is nationally and internationally seeking aid for the defense of political prisoners and victims of torture as well as for their relatives to reduce the emergency situations that often occur. The donations came from Australia , Denmark , Great Britain , the Netherlands , Norway , Sweden and the USA (Africa Fund of the American Committee on Africa) , where it had subsidiary organizations for its purposes. In this case there was no subversive activity and no evidence. However, it funded several books and films about the system's repression. This prominent example shows that the charge of communism was a pretext.

South West Africa

In Southwest Africa (now Namibia) occupied by South Africa, the law was applied arbitrarily in the same way. In South West Africa, three major strikes broke out in 1952 and 1953 because an attempt was made to displace the existing workforce in the mines by using temporary workers. That is why the Suppression of Communism Act was used against striking workers and union members. Some of them were arrested and the union movement was subsequently suppressed.

Supplementary legislation

The objectives of the Suppression of Communism Act were flanked, supplemented and modified by further legal provisions. The most important of these are:

The persecution of people and organizations that in no way cooperated with communist organizations or persons has repeatedly led to international criticism and severe sanctions . In order to be able to continue the repressive domestic policy in accordance with the ideas of the apartheid doctrine, a veiled amendment was worked on. With the Internal Security Amendment Act , Act No. 79/1976 (in force from June 16, 1976), known as the principal Act , the previous legislation in this sector was revised in essential points. In the parliamentary deliberation process, its draft version with the title Promotion of State Security Bill was available, which was then changed to the Internal Security Amendment Bill at the suggestion of a Senate member by the National Party and with the approval of the then Justice Minister . In the course of this legislation, the Suppression of Communism Act was retrospectively renamed the Internal Security Act (henceforth the Internal Security Act, Act No 44 of 1950 ). It is believed that this change was a response to longstanding international criticism of the political persecution of individuals.

From the further activities of the government a legal regulation corresponding to the concern of the Suppression of Communism Act emerged with the name Internal Security Act (Act No 74/1982).

literature

  • Manfred Kurz: Indirect Rule and Violence in South Africa . Works from the Institute for Africa Customer, No. 30. Hamburg (Institute for Africa Customer) 1981.
  • Dieter Nohlen , Franz Nuscheler (Ed.): Handbook of the Third World. Vol. 5 East Africa and South Africa . Bonn (JHW Dietz Nachf.) 1993, 3rd edition ISBN 3-8012-0205-4 .

further reading

  • South Africa. Parliament. House of Assembly. Select Committee on Suppression of Communism Act Inquiry: Report of the Select Committee on Suppression of Communism Act Inquiry / Union of South Africa . Cape Town (Cape Times Limited) 1952.
  • Corrie Gerald Haines: The United Nations Challenge to Racial Discrimination in South Africa 1946-1950 . In: African Studies, Volume 60 (2001), Issue 2, pp. 185–204.
  • Robert Pincus: Apartheid legislation. the Suppression of Communism Act . In: Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. (New York) Vol. 5 (1966), no. 2, pp. 281-297.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Brief: Indirect Dominion , 1981, pp. 105, 176.
  2. ^ SAIRR : A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa 1976 . Johannesburg 1977, pp. 44-50.
  3. ↑ Brief: Indirect Dominion , 1981, p. 111.
  4. ^ The Rivonia Trial. The historical background to Mandela's final public speech for 27 years. (accessed on January 25, 2010)
  5. ↑ Brief: Indirect Dominance, 1981, p. 108
  6. ↑ Brief: Indirect Dominion , 1981, pp. 116–117
  7. ↑ Ana CT Piçarra: The Legal Aspects of Apartheid (accessed January 13, 2010)
  8. ↑ Brief: Indirect Dominion , 1981, p. 122
  9. ↑ Brief: Indirect Dominion , 1981, p. 153
  10. ↑ Entry in www.worldcat.org
  11. ↑ Denis Herbstein: How Canon Collins and friends smuggled £ 100,000,000 to South Africa and were never found . on Canoncollins.org.uk ( Memento from September 27, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  12. ↑ African History, Banning ( Memento of the original from July 25, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (English) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / africanhistory.about.com
  13. ↑ Papers of Justice (British Section of the International Commission of Jurists), summary of activities from 1951 to 1991 (accessed January 25, 2010)
  14. ^ Journal of the International Commission of Jurists. No. 3, September 1969, p. 23 ff.
  15. ↑ a b Eric Pace: Archbishop Trevor Huddelston, 84, dies; Fought apartheid from its earliest days . The New York Times, April 21, 1998 (obituary) ( October 15, 2009 memento on the Internet Archive )
  16. ↑ Brief: Indirect Dominance , 1981, pp. 96, 187
  17. ^ Defense and Aid Fund an the United Nations. on Anc.org.za ( Memento of December 7, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) (accessed January 25, 2010)
  18. ↑ International Defense and Aid Fund for Southern Africa (IDAF) ( Memento from December 6, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) (accessed January 25, 2010)
  19. ↑ Namibia: Apartheid, resistance and repression (1945–1966) ( Memento of the original from April 20, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Website of the human rights organization EISA (accessed January 25, 2010) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.eisa.org.za
  20. ↑ Unlawful Organizations Act (Act No. 34/1960) ( Memento of the original of September 21, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , DISA library of the University of KwaZulu-Natal (PDF; 258 kB) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.disa.ukzn.ac.za
  21. ^ SAIRR: Survey of Race Relations 1962 . 1963, pp. 26-54
  22. ↑ Prohibition of Political Interference Act, Act No 51 of 1968 DISA Library of the University of KwaZulu-Natal ( Memento of the original from August 6, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / disa.nu.ac.za
  23. ↑ Note on www.sahistory.org.za (English)
  24. ^ SAIRR: Survey of Race Relations 1976 . 1977, p. 48
  25. ↑ a b Brief: Indirect Dominion , 1981, p. 105
  26. ↑ Internal Security Act, Act No. 74/1982, Schedule 1 (English)