IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cjssxx/v46y2020i3p455-469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Black Disenfranchisement in the Cape Colony, c.1887–1909: Challenging the Numbers

Author

Listed:
  • Farai Nyika
  • Johan Fourie

Abstract

It is generally agreed that the Cape Colony’s disenfranchisement legislation did what it set out to do: it drastically reduced the number of blacks who were eligible to vote. However, we find that empirical support for this view is weak. We argue that disenfranchisement was not as effective as is claimed. We question the literature on black disenfranchisement in the late 19th-century Cape Colony. Using a surname-matching formula in combination with manual methods, we counted voters in the Cape Colony voters’ rolls between 1887 and 1909 and found that the number of blacks who lost the right to vote in 1887 is much smaller than the 30,000 that has been claimed. Our empirical evidence shows it to be around a tenth of that number. Conversely, the number of disenfranchised white and coloured voters is larger than expected. Ours is an important contribution, as no researcher to date has systematically gone through these voters’ rolls to provide empirical evidence to support or refute the claims about disenfranchisement. The lower than expected number of disenfranchised black voters may be due to their resistance to being stripped of the franchise. The larger than expected number of disenfranchised white and coloured voters may have been due to recession and white poverty.

Suggested Citation

  • Farai Nyika & Johan Fourie, 2020. "Black Disenfranchisement in the Cape Colony, c.1887–1909: Challenging the Numbers," Journal of Southern African Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 455-469, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cjssxx:v:46:y:2020:i:3:p:455-469
    DOI: 10.1080/03057070.2020.1741177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03057070.2020.1741177
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03057070.2020.1741177?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cjssxx:v:46:y:2020:i:3:p:455-469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cjss .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.