Let's take a look back at a truly influential figure in South African history, Harry Oppenheimer, as he candidly addressed the criticisms and complexities surrounding his actions and beliefs. Faced with accusations of being "multi-facial" for simultaneously supporting the Progressive Party and the South African Foundation, Oppenheimer decided to speak out directly, feeling it was too personal a charge to leave to his public relations team.
Who Was Harry Oppenheimer?
To understand his perspective, Oppenheimer believed it was essential to know "Who is Oppenheimer?". He came from a family deeply ingrained in the diamond industry. His late father had combined the diamond mines of South West Africa, and by Oppenheimer's time, his family controlled the diamond industry.
His family's business empire was vast, comprising three main groups: the Anglo-American Corporation, De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., and Rhodesian Anglo-American. As chairman, he oversaw 43 mines producing gold, diamonds, copper, and coal, along with other ventures from manufacturing to merchant banking and real estate. This empire spanned from the Cape to Kenya's borders, including South West Africa, the Federation, Mozambique, Tanganyika, the Belgian Congo, and Swaziland, with an annual wage bill of £36 million paid to 20,000 whites and 136,000 non-whites.
Oppenheimer himself was born in Kimberley, the "capital of diamonds," in 1908. He received a privileged education, attending a Johannesburg school, then Charterhouse and Christ Church, Oxford, where he earned a B.A. (Hons.) in politics, modern philosophy, and economics. His father, a former mayor of Kimberley and Member of Parliament, was particularly pleased with his focus on economics and politics. Harry followed in his father's political footsteps, winning the Kimberley seat for the United Party in the 1948 and 1953 General Elections, before eventually withdrawing from electoral politics after his father's death to focus on his business interests.
In Parliament, Oppenheimer commanded respect, especially when speaking on economic matters, though he gradually delved into the "tumultuous subject of race relations". He recalled being seen by Afrikaners as the embodiment of "Hoggenheimer," the opulent, Semitic capitalist, which he found irritating, especially since he claimed to employ very few Jews at Anglo-American. He frequently faced accusations from Nationalists of manipulating the United Party for his own ends, acknowledging he had given the party a significant amount of money (£250,000).
The Guiding Principle: Anglo-American's Prosperity
Oppenheimer explained that people often misunderstood him, particularly regarding his political labels. He was called a capitalist, a liberal, or a liberal-capitalist, with Nationalists simultaneously seeing him as "big capital" and a "sentimental liberal". His response was clear: "by South African standards I am supposed to have liberal views." He emphasized that circumstances demanded adaptability. He could be liberal, conservative, or both, as needed.
His consistent, fundamental principle throughout his career was simple: "our family business should flourish." He firmly believed that "if the situation is conducive to the progress of Anglo-American, it is also conducive to the country's progress." In fact, he boldly stated, "what is good for Anglo-American is good for South Africa".
Why the South African Foundation? A New Approach
As South Africa entered its second decade of Nationalist rule, Oppenheimer felt a new approach was desperately needed. He saw the "violent, all-out opposition to Nationalism" of the previous decade as no longer desirable, citing rising tensions among non-whites, potential isolation, and the threat of an overseas boycott. He feared that unchecked trends and an alliance with the "liberatory movement" could lead to a Nationalist defeat, but then Anglo-American would have to "share the victory with the African National Congress," something he evidently wanted to avoid, asserting that South Africa was too valuable to "jump out of our grasp".
This is where the South African Foundation came into play. It had a crucial two-fold task:
- Internally: The Foundation's immediate goal was to "take the edge off revolution" by reducing animosities among whites. With prominent newspaper representatives on its board, criticism of government racial policies would be kept "within the bounds of temperateness." The ultimate aim was to "pave the way for a merger of the two white sections" to "get rid of Dr. Verwoerd" by undermining him from within. Essentially, it aimed to "create an atmosphere in which it will be possible to arrange a coalition of the moderate elements in the Government and the Opposition".
- Externally: The Foundation would work to convince international investors that South Africa was "returning to sanity" and, while a risk, was "a good one." He believed an increased inflow of foreign capital would boost prosperity, thereby "tak[ing] the edge off the non-white's desire to revolt".
Oppenheimer viewed the Foundation's advent as a reflection of big business's necessary return to active politics, believing his colleagues had allowed the situation to deteriorate for too long.
And the Progressive Party? A Role for the Future
Some might wonder how the Progressive Party, a "rather idealistic" group, fit into this strategy, potentially undermining the Foundation's work by intensifying the struggle against the government. Oppenheimer clarified this was not the case. Having spent a quarter of a million pounds on the United Party with little to show for it, the Progressive Party represented a different, more cost-effective approach, having only cost him £5,000 and his personal blessing so far.
He saw the United Party as "quite hopeless" since 1948, floundering without a coherent political voice for big business. Even after attempts to steer it and the adoption of his "Senate Plan," internal conflicts and the leader's (Sir de Villiers Graaff) caution prevented progress.
The Progressive Party, however, had a different, long-term purpose. Oppenheimer explained that even after a merger of moderate white elements to remove Dr. Verwoerd, the fundamental problem of race relations would remain. That's where the Progressives would step in. They had already "established good relations with the African National Congress" and were expected to "equip themselves more adequately in preparation for the day when they will have to negotiate the terms of a more lasting settlement of the racial question with the non-white leaders". He saw it as "imperative" that a white political party familiar with modern African trends should begin training for future intervention.
A Vision for the "New Africa"
Oppenheimer was genuinely concerned with improving race relations, seeing it as both "good politics" and "good business". He expressed willingness to extend political power to "the more responsible section of the non-white population," even if it meant having a black man in the Cabinet, acknowledging that "Africa is changing, and we must change, too".
His vision for the future was an "exciting" one: an "industrial revolution" in Africa if the "black man's economic fetters are struck from him," leading to millions of skilled men entering the labour market and a "vast new consuming public". Crucially, he believed that "if we arrange our political affairs carefully, we can achieve all this and still retain effective political power in the hands of the white man".
He sharply contrasted this with the Nationalist Government's policies, which he claimed were "destroying white supremacy, quickly and well," and would result in an "upheaval" with "uneducated people, still in a semi-barbarous state," being put in charge.
In conclusion, Oppenheimer believed his strategy, though sometimes labeled "multi-facial," was simply "plainest common-sense". He was convinced that by allowing himself to be guided by the interests of Anglo-American, he was contributing to a vision of a stable, prosperous, and white-led South Africa adapting to the changing African landscape, preparing for a future where economic progress and controlled political evolution could go hand in hand.