^{page 78 note 1} The Buthelezi Commission: the requirements for stability and development in Kwazulu and Natal, Vols. I and II (Durban, 1981). Direct references to the report will be indicated by volume and page numbers throughout the text.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} Lijphart, Arendt, The Politics of Accommodation: pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968),Google Scholar and Democracy in Plural Societies: a comparative exploration (New Haven and London, 1977). See also his ‘Governing Natal–Kwazulu: some suggestions’, in The Buthelezi Commision, Vol. II, pp. 76–84.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation, p. 71.

^{page 79 note 3} Ibid. p. 179.

^{page 80 note 1} Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies, pp. 235–7.

^{page 80 note 2} Ibid. p. 3.

^{page 80 note 3} E.g. Marquard, Leo, A Federation of Southern Africa (London, Cape Town, and Johannesburg, 1971);Google ScholarPaton, Alan, ‘Some Thoughts on the Common Society’, in Randall, Peter (ed.), Directions of Change in South African Polities (Johannesburg, 1973);Google ScholarButhelezi, Gatsha M., ‘White and Black Nationalism, Ethnicity and the Future of the Homelands’, Johannesburg, 1974;Google Scholar and Stultz, Newell M., Transkei’s Half Loaf: race separatism in South Africa (New Haven, London, and Cape Town, 1980).Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 4} van Zyl Slabbert, Frederick and Welsh, David, South Africa’s Options: strategies for sharing power (London and Cape Town, 1979).Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 1} Seiler, John, ‘Modernizing Racial Domination or Consociational Authoritarianism: the devolution of political power in South Africa’, Sixth Annual Congress, Association for Sociology in Southern Africa, Kwaluseni, Swaziland, 30 June– July 1975.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 2} Slabbert and Welsh, op. cit. pp. 161–5.

^{page 81 note 3} Adam, Heribert and Giliomee, Herman, Ethnic Power Mobilised: can South Africa change? (New Haven, 1979), especially Adam's ch. 10, ‘Political Alternatives’.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} The above summary is drawn from three presentations by Adam, : ‘Minority Monopoly in Transition: recent policy shifts in the South African state’, in The Journal of Modern African Studies (Cambridge), 18, 4, 12 1980, pp. 611–26; ‘Statement of Principles and Rationale for Constitutional Alternatives by Political and Constitutional Sub-Committee’ (written by Adam for the Buthelezi Commission); and ‘Legitimacy and the Institutionalization of Ethnicity: comparing South Africa’, Conference on ‘South Africa in the Comparative Study of Class, Race, and Nationalism’, New York, 9–12 September 1982.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 1} Adam, , ‘Legitimacy and the Institutionalisation of Ethnicity’, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} Legum, Colin (ed.), Africa Contemporary Record, 1980–81 (London and New York, 1981), pp. B746–8.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 85 note 1} The total figure also includes 1,861 classified as ‘Other’.

^{page 88 note 1} The dissentients were Japie Du Basson, a well-known chameleon amongst White politicians, who declined to sign the report on account of his membership of the Constitutional Committee of the President's Council, and Miller, R. B., Natal Leader of the New Republic Party, for whose dissent, see p. 95, below.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} The fieldwork was conducted by Intercontinental Marketing Services Africa, which undertook the major enquiry on a quota sample basis, and Market Opinion Surveys, which conducted a check on results from Whites via a postal survey. Whilst I do not seek to address the (unanswerable) question as to the ultimate validity of conducting survey operations about political matters in contemporary South Africa, I do appreciate the obvious dangers of my attempting to précis the major results in very summary form. To avoid a specious appearance of accuracy, therefore, I do not present detailed results, except where it appears particularly useful to do so.

^{page 92 note 1} Adam, Heribert, ‘Possibilities and Limits of Ethnic Conflict Resolution: South Africa in comparative perspective’, in The Buthelezi Commission, II, pp. 23–43.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 1} Schlemmer, Lawrence, ‘Change in South Africa: opportunities and constraints’, in Price, Robert M. and Rosberg, Carl G. (eds.), The Apartheid Regime: political power and racial domination (Berkeley, 1980), pp. 236–80.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 2} Ibid. p. 269.

^{page 95 note 1} Ibid. p. 270.

^{page 95 note 2} Good, Kenneth, ‘Settler Colonialism: economic development and class formation’, in The Journal of Modern African Studies, 14, 4, 12 1976, pp. 597–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a direct critique of Adam on this point, see Baker, Donald, ‘Retreat from Challenge: white reactions to regional events since 1974’, in Seller, John (ed.), Southern Africa Since the Portuguese Coup (Boulder, 1980), pp. 155–68.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 1} In a personal communication, Heribert Adam suggested to the author that registration of political groupings is a normal democratic practice. He therefore argued that the provision had no sinister intent.

^{page 98 note 1} Nolutshungu, Sam C., Changing South Africa: political considerations (Manchester, 1982), especially pp. 25–32.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 1} Report of the Commission of Inquiry [Riekert] into Legislation Affecting the Utilisation of Manpower, Part I (Pretoria, 1979);Google Scholar and Report of the Commission of Inquiry [Wiehahn] into Labour Legislation (Pretoria, 1979).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 1} Giliomee, Herman, ‘The National Party and the Future of Natal and Kwazulu’, in The Buthelezi Commission, II, pp. 44–75.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} Adam, , ‘Legitimacy and the Institutionalisation of Ethinicity’, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} Saul, John and Gelb, Stephen, The Crisis in South Africa: class defense, class revolution (New York and London, 1981).Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 1} The Star (Johannesburg, airmail weekly edn.), 31 July 1982; and The Manchester Guardian Weekly, 15 August 1982.

^{page 107 note 2} Hackland, Brian, ‘The Economic and Political Context of the Growth of the Progressive Federal Party in South Africa, 1959–1978,’ in Journal of Southern African Studies (London), 7, I, 1980, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 3} South African Institute of Race Relations, A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa, 1978 (Johannesburg, 1979), pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 4} Hackland, loc. cit.

^{page 107 note 5} Lijphart, Arendt, ‘Federal, Confederal, and Consociational Options for the South African Plural Society’, in Rotberg, Robert I. and Barratt, John (eds.), Conflict and Compromise in South Africa (Cape Town, 1980), pp. 51–75.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} First Report of the Constitutional Committee of the President's Council (Cape Town, 1982), p. 19. See also, especially, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 2} Nolutshungu, op. cit. chs. 3 and 4, passim.

^{page 110 note 1} Schlemmer, Lawrence, ‘The Stirring Giant: observations on the Inkatha and other black political movements in South Africa’, in Price and Rotberg (eds.), op. cit. pp. 99–126;Google Scholar and Kane-Berman, John, ‘Inkatha: the paradox of South African politics’, in Optima (Johannesburg), 30, 2, 1982, pp. 143–77.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} Southall, Roger, ‘Buthelezi, Inkatha and the Politics of Compromise’, in African Affairs (London), 80, 321, 10 1981, pp. 453–81.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 3} For a summary discussion of the Swazi land deal (which has been covered extensively in the South African press), see Southern African Research Service and Development Studies Group, The Land Dispute: incorporating Swaziland? (Johannesberg, 1982).Google Scholar