Reclaiming authentic liberalism in a post-Apartheid age

It is worth noting that liberalism does not offer easy fixes or quick handouts. It demands personal responsibility and respects the individual...

Photo by tom coe on Unsplash

In today’s South Africa, the meaning of liberalism has become blurred. What was once a clear and coherent political tradition grounded in individual freedom, voluntary association, and limited state power, is now routinely mischaracterised. It is either stretched to cover things it has nothing to do with or dismissed as a smokescreen for elite interests.

I find myself defending it not as just another worldview in the ideological sphere, but as the only tradition that truly takes freedom seriously.

The confusion surrounding liberalism is no accident. Rather, it reflects a deeper discomfort with the pillars at its core in a society where group identity and state intervention dominate political discourse.

Mashele’s criticism

This discomfort is captured well in the work of political analyst Prince Mashele. In 2016, in an article addressed to ActionSA leader Herman Mashaba – who was then the Mayor of Johannesburg – he rejected the idea that market freedom can meaningfully address poverty and inequality. He made a case instead for state-driven race-based redress, framing it as a necessary measure that is broadly supported by black South Africans.

Nearly a decade later, in a recent interview on Sunday World, he returned to this critique and portrayed liberalism as a self-serving instrument that is weaponised by a party like the Democratic Alliance (DA), in particular, to preserve "white privilege" and resist genuine "transformation".

At the heart of Mashele’s concern with liberalism is its commitment to the individual as the basic unit of justice and political identity. He argues that this legal and philosophical individualism, when applied to black South Africans, dissolves any collective sense of political purpose.

In his own words, it “diminishes a sense of collective consciousness” and undermines the ability of blacks to organise as a group in pursuit of justice for historically-rooted structural disadvantage. The result, in his view, is that black people come to see themselves merely as unlucky or unfortunate individuals, rather than as members of a historically disempowered group.

Though this point may seem philosophical, it is critical to understanding Mashele’s deeper divergence from liberalism.

This divergence becomes even clearer when one considers his legal views.

Mashele is not opposed to individualism per se, nor does he suggest that the individual is politically meaningless. However, he does argue that recognising black South Africans only as individuals in law is inadequate. He, therefore, supports the principle of race-based redress and believes that the law must acknowledge group-based injustice if it is to be an effective tool of "transformation". And while Mashele is a vocal critic of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) for its failure to uplift the majority, he does not reject the idea behind it. The underlying principle of race-based redress is one he continues to regard as essential.

Mashele’s outlook on redress extends beyond law and into questions of socio-economic policy. Regarding black economic empowerment, he has long maintained that quality education must be matched by state support for black industrialists and entrepreneurs.

He often cites the Apartheid government’s role in building Afrikaner capital (without endorsing the regime) to stress the importance of deliberate economic planning. Just as Afrikaners were once assisted in establishing factories and key industries, Mashele believes that the post-Apartheid state should be just as intentional in cultivating black economic power.

A similar logic shapes his views on healthcare.

In an interview in May 2024 with podcaster Mike Sham on State of the Nation, Mashele expressed concerns about the ability of the African National Congress (ANC) to implement the newly signed National Health Insurance (NHI) Act effectively. Nevertheless, he was careful to defend the principle of national health coverage itself by pointing to the United Kingdom’s model as a perceived example of how a well-managed public healthcare system can serve society at large.

The misclassification of liberalism

What emerges from Mashele’s positions on law, race, and socio-economic policy is not a liberal worldview, but a broadly social democratic one.

While he occasionally gestures toward liberal ideals such as meritocracy and market participation, the thrust of his thinking leans towards collective upliftment through state intervention. His advocacy for race-based redress in law, state-financed industrialisation, and universal health coverage, provided it is implemented effectively, places him squarely in the tradition of social democracy rather than liberalism.

Pointing this out is important because some commentators, including Mashele himself, may well characterise his views as a form of "social" or "progressive" liberalism. These labels imply a more socially responsive strand of liberalism that is supposedly distinct from the "classical" variant, which is said to only emphasise "negative freedom".

The idea here is that liberalism can, and must, evolve to become more attuned to group-based injustice. In this view, thinkers like the late American philosopher John Rawls are seen as having ushered it into a "modern" phase that can accommodate redistribution and group-based rights.

However, this attempt to retrofit liberalism into a framework it was never designed to support marks not an evolution of the tradition, but a departure from it.

As the great liberal thinker Friedrich Hayek reminds us, there is no such thing as "progressive" or "social" liberalism. Liberalism is a distinct political tradition with a firm commitment to individualism as a foundational legal principle. It is rooted in the sovereignty of the individual, voluntary association, equality before the law, private property, and a restrained state.

Much of the confusion about its meaning likely stems from American political discourse, where the term “liberal" refers not to liberalism, but progressivism, which is concerned with remaking society through state intervention. This is neither how liberalism has been historically understood, nor how it has been traditionally articulated in South African political discourse.

This clarification is not a matter of pedantry.

It matters because it reveals that Mashele is not a heterodox or "left-leaning liberal" at the margins of the tradition. He actually stands outside it entirely. What may appear to be an internal liberal disagreement is, in fact, a misclassification.

Mashele's vision of justice, which is collective in structure and statist in method, stands in direct opposition to the core tenets of liberalism. Realising this not only sharpens the debate; it also prevents the conflation of fundamentally different worldviews and forces us to confront what he is actually advocating.

Liberalism and social democracy

Having located Mashele within the social democratic tradition, we can now turn to our first critique.

At a fundamental philosophical level, social democracy clashes with liberalism because its commitment to the welfare state and redistributive policies inevitably involves coercion, which restricts individual freedom through excessive taxation and state intervention. This tension between collective objectives and individual freedom highlights why social democracy cannot be reconciled with authentically liberal principles.

Mashele's argument that solely grounding the law in individualism effectively obstructs efforts to address poverty and inequality is misguided. Equal treatment before the law does not imply indifference to poverty and inequality.

Liberalism affirms the freedom of every person, including the poor, to pursue a better life without unjust interference. It opposes state overreach not because it denies poverty and inequality, but because it recognises that coercive and bureaucratic redistribution often compounds the issues it seeks to resolve.

A liberal social order does not preclude quality education for black South Africans. On the contrary, it demands that they have access to it.

However, the liberal route is not through bloated departments or centralised planning. It is through market-based approaches that equip individuals with real skills that increase their access to opportunity. A well-functioning education system, which is responsive to market demand and open to innovation, is far more effective in improving life outcomes than politicised state provision.

More broadly, liberalism views the free market, which is undergirded by private property rights and individual autonomy, as the most powerful engine for social upliftment.

The People's Republic of China’s dramatic reduction in poverty, as an example, followed aggressive liberalisation and integration into the global market. Even the most lauded welfare states in Europe first accumulated wealth through economic liberalism before redistributing it. No meaningful redistribution is possible without the kind of wealth creation that only a free market economy can generate.

South Africa's challenge is not too much capitalism, but too little. We do not need state-directed racial redress. We need to liberalise.

A clear example is cannabis: fully decriminalising it would dismantle the black market and unleash black entrepreneurship. The same applies to other overregulated sectors where the state chokes enterprise at a grassroots level. It is market dynamism, and not government handouts, that produces the wealth and opportunity essential for meaningful reform.

The post-Apartheid experience offers a sobering indictment of the social democratic approach. Thirty years of state-led redress and an expansive welfare regime have failed to deliver meaningful reform. Poverty remains entrenched, youth unemployment is rampant, and dependence on government handouts has grown without building real economic capacity.

Race-based redistribution has enriched a politically connected few while doing little for the majority.

This record does not call for more intervention, but for a fundamental change in direction that restores economic freedom and removes the barriers to self-reliance and prosperity. It calls for us to put Liberty First (LibertyFirst.co.za) for a change, and pursue some of the policy recommendations that the Free Market Foundation has put forth.

The choice is clear

In confronting our country's complex challenges, the choice is clear. We can cling to an ideology that demands control and perpetuates dependency, or embrace a tradition that honours freedom, fosters innovation, and unlocks opportunity for all.

It is worth noting that liberalism does not offer easy fixes or quick handouts. It demands personal responsibility and respects the individual – within their family and community – as the architect of their own destiny.

It is not merely an abstract ideal, but a practical framework that has lifted millions out of poverty and transformed societies worldwide.

To realise meaningful reform here, we must reject the false comfort of collective entitlement and state intervention, and instead reclaim the power of the individual, the market, and the rule of law. Only then can our country build a future where freedom and prosperity are truly shared.

Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation.