Dr. Reneva Fourie

On 25 February, a delegation of far-right Afrikaners met with senior representatives of the Trump administration, seeking their support for the establishment of a whites-only, Afrikaner-only homeland.

This meeting brings to light the ongoing challenges of building a genuinely non-racial society in South Africa, more than 30 years after we embraced democracy and moved away from the ethnic-based Bantustan system.

South Africa’s constitution is regarded as one of the most progressive in the world. The collective effort of all conflicting parties in formulating our unique, post-1994 decentralisation model, with its blend of unitary and federal features, was a monumental achievement.

It was this very model that played a pivotal role in ending our centuries-long intrastate conflict. The compromises directly influenced the number of provinces agreed to and the establishment of ethnically nuanced provincial boundaries while providing for a non-racial and democratic society. A proportional representation electoral system was agreed upon to ensure that Parliament was as diverse and representative as possible.

Despite the fall of apartheid and the commitment to inclusivity enshrined in South Africa’s constitution, fringe groups continue to reject the idea of a united, democratic nation.

The far-right Afrikaner delegation’s appeal to the Trump administration is an attempt to exploit the vulnerabilities of the current political landscape to return to the past. The African National Congress (ANC) faces declining electoral support, and the Government of National Unity remains fragile.

The far-right Afrikaner delegation also seems to be banking on Trump’s practice of aligning with racist and nationalist ideologies. Given his unwavering support for the displacement of Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese in favour of the consolidation and expansion of an Israeli state, it is not surprising that he would entertain discussions about reinstating racial segregation in South Africa.

The legitimacy of their request is highly questionable. Afrikaners are not a homogeneous group; not all desire an exclusive community. Most Afrikaners see their future as part of a diverse, democratic South Africa. Furthermore, the younger generations are increasingly connecting with the broader multicultural society.

They would likely oppose being limited to an enclave. The post-apartheid period has focused on fostering a unified national identity. Creating an enclave would disrupt social cohesion, fuel resentment within society, and set a troubling precedent for further ethnic division.

Furthermore, the claim that Afrikaans is a language under threat is unfounded. Afrikaans remains an official language, spoken by a diverse population beyond white Afrikaners.

The idea that Afrikaners alone have a claim to the language is a distortion of history and an attempt to weaponise cultural identity for separatist purposes.

Implementing ethnic-based decentralisation would go against the core constitutional principles of non-racialism and equality. Establishing an Afrikaner-only enclave would violate the rights of other South Africans, restricting our freedom to move, live and work anywhere in the country. Moreover, such an intervention would jeopardise our territorial integrity, undermining the fact that South Africa operates as a unitary state.

Even if an Afrikaner enclave were to be established, it would still depend heavily on South Africa for trade, infrastructure, and labour.

The South African economy is deeply integrated, and isolating a segment of the population would narrow their economic prospects and lead to significant logistical challenges.

For example, while Orania – an Afrikaner-only enclave – has made strides in self-sufficiency, its long-term economic viability is uncertain. The town’s reliance on agriculture and unique financial systems may not be enough to sustain a larger population.

One of the most troubling rationales provided for the claim of self-determination is that Afrikaners are victims of state-sponsored persecution. These claims, often amplified in far-right circles, allege that white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners, face targeted violence and land expropriation.

However, no credible evidence supports these assertions. The South African government has not engaged in systematic violence against Afrikaners, nor has there been mass land confiscation targeting them.

South Africa continues to grapple with the legacy of the 1913 Land Act and the Group Areas Act, which forcibly displaced millions of black South Africans from their land.

Statistics reveal that white individuals control 73 per cent of privately owned land in South Africa despite constituting about 7 per cent of the population.

Additionally, the vast majority of South Africa’s unemployed are black, while white individuals hold 62 per cent of top management positions in the corporate sector.

In comparison, black managers occupy only 17 per cent of leadership roles. Addressing these historical injustices is complex and contentious, but there has been no orchestrated campaign against white citizens and, hence, no justification for the need for a Volkstaat.

South Africa cannot afford to regress to the days of apartheid, nor can it allow extremists to dictate the country’s future. A strong and united South Africa requires ongoing efforts to promote reconciliation and inclusivity.

It is heartening to know that the majority of South Africans, regardless of race or ethnicity, stand united against such divisive tactics.

We are committed to justice, economic empowerment, and equal opportunities for all citizens. This commitment will further diminish the influence of extremist movements that thrive on fear and division, and pave the way for a brighter, more inclusive future for all South Africans.

There is still a significant amount of work ahead to intentionally cultivate social cohesion and national unity, particularly in our efforts to create a progressive, non-racial, non-sexist, and pro-poor society.

While establishing provincial and local boundaries was intended to encourage ethnic integration and ensure a fairer distribution of resources and services, the existing spatial patterns have largely persisted.

The upcoming national dialogue must thoughtfully consider whether the constitution – especially Article 235, which permits self-determination – truly serves the current needs of the country.

The attempt to construct a new society on the structures of the old has proven to be a failure. We must dismantle the old systems entirely to make way for true progress.

* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security and co-author of the book ‘The Art of Power: Pursuing Liberation and Nation-Building’

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.