Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Opinionistas

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are not that of Daily Maverick.....

It's grossly dishonest to claim South Africa has more race laws than ever before

Anton Harber
By Anton Harber
19 Mar 2025
Facebook
13
The claim that South Africa has 142 active racial laws on the statute books is seriously misleading, containing many laws that can only be seen as race-based through deeply ideological eyes.

The claim that South Africa has 142 active racial laws on the statute books has been cited repeatedly in recent weeks.

AfriForum quotes the 142 number to show that our government is “the most race-mad government in the world”, and as an illustration of discrimination against whites: “Racially discriminatory laws were wrong in the past, and they are wrong in the present,” they write on their website.

Rightwing media, such as the website Vierkleur, says that these laws “dictate who gets access to various opportunities, resources, and rights, all based on skin colour”. The number 142 “exceeds those from the apartheid era, an alarming reality in a country that once vowed to move beyond racial segregation”.

The Free Market Foundation uses it to “to show that race law is alive and well in South Africa”.

Even independent researcher Ayanda Sakhile Zulu, writing in the Mail & Guardian, accepts it as fact: “South Africa currently has 142 race-based laws… This is a fact that all South Africans who believe in a truly just society, where all are treated equally, should be deeply concerned about.”

The claim no doubt lies behind the Democratic Alliance’s Helen Zille tweet that “there are more racist laws today than under apartheid”. Elon Musk has retweeted the 142 race laws claim to his 220 million followers on X.

And it probably motivated US President Donald Trump’s reference in his executive order to “countless (South African) government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business”.

Seriously misleading


The claim originates in an SA Institute of Race Relations website, based on research by rightwing commentator Martin van Staden. But even a quick look at his list makes it clear that it is seriously misleading, containing many laws that can only be seen as race-based through deeply ideological eyes.

Their method for defining a race law is “laughably broad”, William Shoki wrote in the New York Times earlier this year. Even laws that prohibit discrimination are listed.

The list “does not pass judgement on the desirability or not of a given law, or on whether it is relatively innocuous or not”, Van Staden told me. “It only inquires into whether the act makes or keeps race a legally relevant factor, or empowers a minister or regulator or other functionary to keep race as a legally relevant factor.”

The site itself labels these “race laws”, and the likes of Zille have stretched this to “racist laws”. And the information is used — misleadingly — to suggest South Africa is a more racial and racist society than it was under apartheid.

I chose eight laws listed as “operative” and “racial” and examined them closely. I found long-redundant laws, some that make no mention of race, some that mention race only to prohibit discrimination and some that allow for no more than recording demographic details. While there are a few that could arguably be labelled “racial”, such as the Black Economic Empowerment legislation, the claim that there are 142 active race laws is a serious distortion.

The list says more about its compilers than about the country, in that it reflects an ideological rejection of inclusiveness, representivity, anti-discrimination and any attempt at redress of South Africa’s racial and gender history.

The 1921 Bethelsdorp Settlement Act is perhaps the most ludicrous inclusion on the list. Long dormant and irrelevant, the Law Commission recommended its formal withdrawal a decade ago.

Then there is the Deeds Registries Act, which the list says was “racialised” in a 2024 amendment and which Van Staden now labels “the 2024 Group Areas Act”, comparing it to one of the most damaging and discriminatory apartheid laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJdf67PwmS8

The sole reference to race in the act is to empower the registrar to record the demographic details of a land purchaser, such as race, gender, citizenship and nationality, “for statistical and land audit purposes only”. The government would be remiss if it did not collect this information and there is no suggestion that the law is discriminatory in any way.

The 1997 SA Institute for Drug-Free Sport Act does not mention race, but is on the list because it says that in making appointments to the board, the minister shall “take into account guidelines or policies to promote equity, representivity and their redress in sport”.

Given this country’s long history of discrimination in sport and ongoing inequality in sporting opportunities, this seems a very mild attempt at redress.

The 1997 Lotteries Act is on the list because “applicants for licences must show clear and continuous commitment to the advancement, upliftment and economic empowerment of persons disadvantaged by discrimination”. It does not say race, but allows for any form of discrimination — perhaps including Afrikaners who consider themselves unfairly treated.

The 1998 Marine Living Resources Act has as one of its aims “to address historical imbalances and achieve equity in the industry” and creates a Fishing Transformation Council “to achieve fair and equitable access” to fishing rights. Again, those who drew up the list reject even the most benign attempt to achieve equity and correct imbalances.

The 1998 National Water Act states a number of times the need to “redress the results of past race and gender discrimination”. It is interesting that the compilers of the list ignore attempts to address other forms of discrimination, like gender.

Reference to race


I had to search carefully through the 1998 National Libraries Act to find a reference to race. There are none, but Van Staden tells me that the problem lies in the section that says that in making appointments to the board, the minister “must apply the principles of transparency and representivity”.

How, you might ask, does race come into the SA Weather Services Act of 2001? It seems that the problem is that the minister is required to ensure that the board is “broadly representative of South African society” and must “set policy for recruitment, training and transformation of the Weather Service”.

I could go on through the list of laws, but it is clear that many of the so-called “race laws” do little more than promote inclusivity and representivity — hardly a surprise in a country where until recently most of these positions were reserved by race and gender.

There is another critical difference between today’s laws and apartheid law. Under apartheid, racial categorisation was imposed by law and implemented forcibly by low-level bureaucrats. The current law is based on self-identification — a very different treatment of race.

Also, today’s laws are governed by our Constitution, which outlaws discrimination unless it is done for the purpose of redress for historical inequities. Anything that goes beyond that is subject to judicial scrutiny.

All of which adds up to the fact that to say that we have more race laws than ever before is grossly dishonest. DM

If you wish to comment on this issue, please send an email to [email protected]

Letters will be edited.

Categories:

Tags: