Rainbowism may be noble in intent, but it has failed to take root as South Africa’s unifying civic creed. It is time to rethink nation-building through genuine pluralism rather than imposed identity.
This is a good diagnosis, I mostly agree except for the part where the rainbowist project is noble and well-intentioned. Those descriptions only apply to the liberals who fell for it, it was designed to outflank liberals by presenting a form of state power that seemingly centers liberal values while in reality being used to undermine them. That does not happen by accident.
You can also look at the fact that an attempt to introduce rainbowism was not unique to us, the US civil rights movement led to the same outcome. Even the arguments are the same, there they also argue that you only need to make sure to improve the material conditions of black Americans to make the project work. I see Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam as providing an alternative that was more in line with historical America civic nationalism, and they are paid lip service while rainbowism is pursued.
There must be a reason why you would deploy a similar ideology to two different societies? The US and South Africa share two things that made them susceptible to rainbowism: racial diversity, and a classically liberal culture. Before we became a "rainbow nation", either Afrikaner nationalism or classical liberalism was going to win. If you didn't want either, you had to deploy something like rainbowism.
I really question some of the changes that the SA liberal movement underwent during apartheid. Why was the qualified franchise abandoned? Yes, that was in line with Western countries evolution on the subject, but SA liberalism was always its own thing, our liberals didn't mind bucking global liberal trends.
Great article as always Mageba. I think you teased a follow up on alternatives at the end there, I am looking forward to it.
The argument that rainbowism has been deployed to suppress alternative visions is fair. But I approach this question from observing particular individuals like Mmusi Maimane and William Gumede, and from my own background in the spaces where this kind of politics is advanced.
I don’t think Maimane and others have bad intentions. But they are staggeringly biased and unwilling to see the writing on the wall. They won’t even entertain figures like Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, or the Honourable Elijah Muhammad. Their politics, unfortunately, remains wedded to social democracy and the welfare state.
The simple answer to the point about liberalism and the franchise is that we, as liberals, dropped the ball. At some point, we hitched democracy to the freedom bandwagon and landed ourselves in a difficult position. South Africa would be no different. Even though we had a qualified franchise in the Cape, the denial of the vote under Apartheid clearly compounded the problem.
We are now trying to do the important intellectual work of disentangling liberalism from democracy, even as the two overlap in certain respects. But I don’t think restoring a qualified franchise is possible, not under the current political conditions, and not given the weight of our history.
This is where I think the conversation about federalism and secession comes in. Democracy, as it stands, has become a mechanism for rent-seeking politics in South Africa, and the only way to loosen that grip is to pull power away from the centre. A qualified franchise might work in theory, but as I’ve said, I don’t think it is attainable. Pretoria needs to decentralise. Having said that, I’m still not convinced by the secession argument.
I’ve read your article in BizNews unpacking the logic of using secession as leverage against the centre, but I’m still not fully persuaded. Perhaps you could clarify the nuances of thisposition.
The alternatives remain open, especially to sharp thinkers like yourself. All of us need to contribute to this question of nation-building. Thank you again for the response, Sibalukhulu. I look forward to your comments and a possible contribution.
I would add the likes of Redi Thlabi and many others to the rainbowist list. They spend their days arguing against anyone, especially white people, who challenge the rainbowist assumptions. They don't really care about their black critics, I suspect because they know how little influence we have among fellow blacks.
My argument for secession (or rather for the likely political consequences of secession) is based on two assumptions:
1. The evolution of social thought proceeds according to something like the Hegelian dialetic, if you want an outcome you must first make sure that there is a dominant thesis and antithesis for which the desired outcome is a synthesis. If you just argue for what you want, you will get something else.
It is the same reason why I think we should actually be arguing for strengthening property rights with a s25 amendment of our own, ruling out squatters rights, ruling out any expropriation for any reason (except maybe war but only while the war persists) etc. Arguing to keep s25 unchanged got us the aberration of null compensation.
2. The post-WWII world order is one based on inviolable borders, not only is it in the UN charter but this is basically the one thing all great powers agree on. The consensus is fracturing with China wanting Taiwan, Russia trying to annex the Donbas and America wanting to take over Greenland.
But it's still a big taboo in international relations. World powers do not like separatist movements. That is why they still haven't recognised Somaliland after all this time, even though it is clearly the most stable part of Somalia.
So our secessionist movements are unlikely to receive external support from the great powers, this would be something to worry about because to secede by force you always need an external power to provide the arms. South Africa is stable enough that no great power wants that.
The only way secession happens is if it happens on a de fact basis, because the central government is too weak. Weakness can be caused by various factors, the most important being the central government strangling the economy.
So my support of secession will only lead to secession if the government continues to strangle the economy. Otherwise if the support for secession grows, it will only lead to concessions on decentralisation.
I'd rather have parts of SA secede than permanent economic decline. I hope that explains it.
This is a good diagnosis, I mostly agree except for the part where the rainbowist project is noble and well-intentioned. Those descriptions only apply to the liberals who fell for it, it was designed to outflank liberals by presenting a form of state power that seemingly centers liberal values while in reality being used to undermine them. That does not happen by accident.
You can also look at the fact that an attempt to introduce rainbowism was not unique to us, the US civil rights movement led to the same outcome. Even the arguments are the same, there they also argue that you only need to make sure to improve the material conditions of black Americans to make the project work. I see Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam as providing an alternative that was more in line with historical America civic nationalism, and they are paid lip service while rainbowism is pursued.
There must be a reason why you would deploy a similar ideology to two different societies? The US and South Africa share two things that made them susceptible to rainbowism: racial diversity, and a classically liberal culture. Before we became a "rainbow nation", either Afrikaner nationalism or classical liberalism was going to win. If you didn't want either, you had to deploy something like rainbowism.
I really question some of the changes that the SA liberal movement underwent during apartheid. Why was the qualified franchise abandoned? Yes, that was in line with Western countries evolution on the subject, but SA liberalism was always its own thing, our liberals didn't mind bucking global liberal trends.
Great article as always Mageba. I think you teased a follow up on alternatives at the end there, I am looking forward to it.
The argument that rainbowism has been deployed to suppress alternative visions is fair. But I approach this question from observing particular individuals like Mmusi Maimane and William Gumede, and from my own background in the spaces where this kind of politics is advanced.
I don’t think Maimane and others have bad intentions. But they are staggeringly biased and unwilling to see the writing on the wall. They won’t even entertain figures like Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, or the Honourable Elijah Muhammad. Their politics, unfortunately, remains wedded to social democracy and the welfare state.
The simple answer to the point about liberalism and the franchise is that we, as liberals, dropped the ball. At some point, we hitched democracy to the freedom bandwagon and landed ourselves in a difficult position. South Africa would be no different. Even though we had a qualified franchise in the Cape, the denial of the vote under Apartheid clearly compounded the problem.
We are now trying to do the important intellectual work of disentangling liberalism from democracy, even as the two overlap in certain respects. But I don’t think restoring a qualified franchise is possible, not under the current political conditions, and not given the weight of our history.
This is where I think the conversation about federalism and secession comes in. Democracy, as it stands, has become a mechanism for rent-seeking politics in South Africa, and the only way to loosen that grip is to pull power away from the centre. A qualified franchise might work in theory, but as I’ve said, I don’t think it is attainable. Pretoria needs to decentralise. Having said that, I’m still not convinced by the secession argument.
I’ve read your article in BizNews unpacking the logic of using secession as leverage against the centre, but I’m still not fully persuaded. Perhaps you could clarify the nuances of thisposition.
The alternatives remain open, especially to sharp thinkers like yourself. All of us need to contribute to this question of nation-building. Thank you again for the response, Sibalukhulu. I look forward to your comments and a possible contribution.
I would add the likes of Redi Thlabi and many others to the rainbowist list. They spend their days arguing against anyone, especially white people, who challenge the rainbowist assumptions. They don't really care about their black critics, I suspect because they know how little influence we have among fellow blacks.
My argument for secession (or rather for the likely political consequences of secession) is based on two assumptions:
1. The evolution of social thought proceeds according to something like the Hegelian dialetic, if you want an outcome you must first make sure that there is a dominant thesis and antithesis for which the desired outcome is a synthesis. If you just argue for what you want, you will get something else.
It is the same reason why I think we should actually be arguing for strengthening property rights with a s25 amendment of our own, ruling out squatters rights, ruling out any expropriation for any reason (except maybe war but only while the war persists) etc. Arguing to keep s25 unchanged got us the aberration of null compensation.
2. The post-WWII world order is one based on inviolable borders, not only is it in the UN charter but this is basically the one thing all great powers agree on. The consensus is fracturing with China wanting Taiwan, Russia trying to annex the Donbas and America wanting to take over Greenland.
But it's still a big taboo in international relations. World powers do not like separatist movements. That is why they still haven't recognised Somaliland after all this time, even though it is clearly the most stable part of Somalia.
So our secessionist movements are unlikely to receive external support from the great powers, this would be something to worry about because to secede by force you always need an external power to provide the arms. South Africa is stable enough that no great power wants that.
The only way secession happens is if it happens on a de fact basis, because the central government is too weak. Weakness can be caused by various factors, the most important being the central government strangling the economy.
So my support of secession will only lead to secession if the government continues to strangle the economy. Otherwise if the support for secession grows, it will only lead to concessions on decentralisation.
I'd rather have parts of SA secede than permanent economic decline. I hope that explains it.