Talk:National Party (South Africa)

Untitled
Should this page be merged with the New National Party Page?

I suppose that depends on how "new" the NNP really is.
 * That was my first though. In fact, i was about to redirect there until i saw the line above and realised it may get controversial. Time will tell how it should best be handled

What was the name of Smuts' party?
Sources on the Internet claim that it was the "South African Party", and not the Labour party.

Smuts' party was originally the SAP then it merged with the original NP, and this was called the United Party, or 'UP' Shizzel 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Name
The name of the party was "National Party" not "Nationalist Party". �Dr.Poison 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A picture of the logo can be found at : http://www.southafrica-newyork.net/consulate/images/nnplogo.gif

One party or more
This looks a similar situation to Sinn Féin with the party dividing at one stage with what is effectively a breakaway rump carrying on the name into later years. See also Liberal Party (UK, 1989) for another party that claims to be a continuation of one that went into a merger, but is legally a different entity. Is it really fair to say there was a single National Party from 1914-2005 or was the 1934 entity a new party of refuseniks? Timrollpickering 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaders
Why isn't J.B.M. Hertzog listed as a leader of the National Party? Please correct the list. --Discott 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NPsouthafrica.jpg
Image:NPsouthafrica.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

THE PARTY HAS BEEN RELAUNCHED
Should we start a new article for the National Party which relaunched itself on the 5 August 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasabigreen (talk • contribs) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet... at the moment the so-called "relaunch" sounds like not much more than a publicity stunt, and I'm not even sure it deserves a mention as a footnote on the page about the NP. However, time will tell whether the new party proves notable or not. Zaian (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check their website out, they were registered with the IEC a week ago. Wasabigreen (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but anyone can create a website and register with the IEC. It doesn't prove they are a significant party deserving their own article... yet. Zaian (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A new article was created a while ago under National Party South Africa (their registered name) probably to resolve a redlink the the South African general election, 2009 article. They seem to have gone through some leadership squabbles, but still have candidates registered for the 2011 elections. — Gk sa (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The same party?
According to this article the National Party was disbanded in 2005, but then there is another article about the New National Party. Should the latter be considered a direct continuation of the National Party or as a new party? The fact that there exists two articles suggests that it is two different parties, but the article about the National Party said that this party was disbanded in 2005, suggesting that the New National Party is a direct continuation. This is a bit confusing to me. --Oddeivind (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support There is, indeed, little reason for the New National Party article to be anything but a redirect to this one. I support a merge of the two articles. — Gk sa (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support They were the same party, and their history under the rebranded name was brief. Greenman (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Currently this article, Herenigde Nasionale Party and New National Party (South Africa) are inconsistent about whether the different names represent formally different parties or merely a single party that went through rebranding, especially when absorbing smaller groups. Curiously the 1934 split (where there is scope for debate over whether the continuity flows into the United Party or remains with Malan's rump, and for that matter whether Hertzog unmerged out of the United Party in 1939 or was just a breakaway) hasn't yet spawned confusing articles.

"Herenigde Nasionale Party" and "New National Party" look as though they were just rebrandings rather than formally different bodies, though I acknowledge that historically a lot of parties in the Commonwealth were not arranged in a way that makes this an easy distinction. It seems logical to have a single article on the party (with maybe break-outs for individual sections of the history if it gets too long), not multiple articles saying different things. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose first proposal. Support second proposal. This is two separate proposals to merge (1) the Herenigde Nasionale Party and (2) the New National Party into this article. I Oppose merging Herenigde Nasionale Party on the grounds that it was created by an actual change in the organisation and structure in that two separate organisations merged to create it. I Support merging New National Party into this article because in this case it really was just a rebranding in a (rather weak) attempt to distance itself from it's own Apartheid past. The rebranding had no significant effect on the organisational structure of the party. Roger (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

White Supremacy
I am suggesting this be removed as the party's political ideologies but I do not expect it to be removed. I base this on the fact the the National Party was for the most part a union between "whites and colored" and that fact alone is not in keeping with "White Supremacy". Also, Indians were more included in the National Party than blacks. If it is disagreeable to remove White Supremacy then perhaps we could change it to anti-black, or something like that because that represents the true form of the national party. The national party would often include colored and Indians to keep control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.110.66 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are joking, aren't you? The National Party was expressly dedicated to a whites-only system of government. Not only that, but *every single prime minister and president* of South Africa prior to De Klerk had been involved with (and almost without exception, convicted for being involved with) pro-nazi activities, including murder, during WWII. 82.176.204.198 (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What were the party's stances on economics?
I can't find anywhere what the party's economic policies were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fartnut (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This interests me as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.112.41 (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some relevant sources:
 * "The National Party (NP) had characterised itself as the party of law and order, supporting a free market economy and being committed to a non-racial democracy in which minority and cultural rights would be protected."
 * "During the 1980s the South African government converted from a policy of heavy state intervention in the economy to the new faith in private enterprise and the free market preached by international development agencies and increasingly by third world countries and formerly socialist ones. This newfound faith of the National Party was highly political."
 * "As the 1980s ripened, the "solutions" to be offered by the market became more attractive to élites, and the ruling National Party appeared willing to jettison its traditional national social baggage almost in direct proportion to the ANC's continuing embrace of communism."

It seems that the party was originally third position and corporatist, but adopted a more economic liberal policy during the 1980s and 1990s.--Jay942942 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please STOP removing info that the party abandoned its previous support for apartheid in the early 1990s
Someone keeps removing material in the table describing the details of the party that says that the party ended its support for apartheid in the early 1990s. The article fully acknowledges that the party supported apartheid for many years, however it is very dishonest to remove all mention from the table that the party abandoned support of apartheid in early 90s.

White Supremacy Removed ?
Maoowwuuurunwuuuzhe, why are you removing white supremacy as an ideology? Gooduserdude (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Gooduserdude Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, I did not remove anything nor contribute anything to the ideology section, i just corrected the flag size and then all of a sudden, you accused my edit as "Vandalism", Please see (WP:VANDAL), it's quite far isnt it? ,also it might have been some other editors before me who edited it and i didnt look carefully enough, in a sense, it is my fault for not correcting it respectivelly. 東霄長熊 (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @東霄長熊 ok i understand, sorry this was a misunderstanding, i must have confused someone else user edit with yours Gooduserdude (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not know what is the reason for you to take back your statement, but i think it is best to keep it here. anyhow there is no point on discussing this even further. 東霄長熊 (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)