DIE BALFOUR-VERKLARING GEE SOEWEREINE ONAFHANKLIKHEID AAN DIE UNIE, 1926

Met ’n verkiesingsoorwinning in 1924 het generaal Hertzog het Eerste Minister in die plek van generaal Smuts geword. Vir hom was dit uiters belangrik dat die onafhanklikheid wat Suid-Afrika toenemend geniet het, ook formeel erken moes word. In praktyk was die Suid-Afrikaanse parlement nie meer onderhorig aan dié van Brittanje nie. Hulle was eintlik gelykes onder die Britse Kroon. By die jaarlikse Rykskonferensie (waar regeringshoofde van al die selfregerende Britse gebiede beraadslaag het) het hy in 1926 ’n goed begronde betoog gelewer. Dit het daartoe gelei dat die betrokke Britse minister, Lord Balfour, openbaar verklaar het dat Suid-Afrika en ander “dominiums” (Kanada, Australië en Nieu-Seeland) onafhanklik van Engeland staan. Die teks van sy verklaring word hier weergegee omdat dit kort en kragtig is, hoewel die Statuut van Westminster in Brittanje en die Statuswette in Suid-Afrika formele beslag daaraan gegee het:

1. The Status of Great Britain and the Dominions.

The Committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a Constitution for the British Empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried.

There is, however, one most important element in it which, form a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development – we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equa in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual co-operation easy.

Such a Criticism, however, completely ignores the historic situation. The rapid evolution of the Overseas Dominions during the last fifty years has involved many complicated adjustments of old political machinery to changing conditions. The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made this impossible of attainment by the way of federation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it has been steadily sought. Every self-governing member of the Empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever.

But no account, however accurate, of the negative relations in which Great Britain and the Dominions stand to each other can do more than express a portion of the truth. The British Empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its life-blood. Free co-operation is its instrument. Peace, security, and progress are among its objects. Aspects of all these great themes have been discussed at the present Conference, excellent results have been thereby obtained. And, though every Dominion is now; and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled.

Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our Inter-lmperial Relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery – machinery which can, from time to time, be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world. This subject also has occupied our attention. The rest of this Report will show how we have endeavoured not only to state political theory, but to apply it to our common needs.