Joined Jun 2012
6,680 Posts | 786+
Texas
The common justification of the National Party for keeping blacks segregated from whites, was that to allow blacks to live freely among whites (as well as East Asians who were generally treated as whites, especially in later years) was far too dangerous and that really it's just better for everyone if blacks are kept segregated.
At the time these kinds of arguments were dismissed as simply racist and totally unfounded by most people internationally, and yet it seems that post-Apartheid South Africa has seen such a huge increase in violent crime, particularly crime aimed at whites, that it seems the National Party was probably correct in their estimations.
While it's hard to argue that the Apartheid regime wasn't fundamentally racist, it's also undeniable that the National Party's policies kept crime far more under control than the current ANC government does, and that their policies were far more effective than anything implemented in post-Apartheid South Africa.
While I don't disagree that Apartheid was undoubtedly a racist policy, equally I think the huge crime rate of post-Apartheid South Africa has vindicated the policy of Apartheid in as much as it as proved that the National Party's fears weren't just based simply on racial hatred, but on a very real fear that has become a reality in post-Apartheid South Africa.
However, it seems in reality the argument that Apartheid was justifiable on some level because of the high crime rate in South Africa now gets pretty short shrift from most people.
Most people take the view that it's far better to live in a dangerous society that is free than a safe society that is oppressive, and I guess the question of whether post-Apartheid South Africa is a success comes down to that really.
To support your argument, you need to show the crime statistics for similar crimes for several years before apartheid ended, through now. Otherwise its just a statement not supported by facts in evidence.