South Africa’s Multiple Worldviews: Reflections on the Prospects for Ideological Unity in the RSA

South Africa’s deepest divide is ideological: classical liberalism and the NDR envision fundamentally different countries.

Photo by engin akyurt on Unsplash

First published on OntLaer/Substack on 16 July 2026

Given the overwhelming political support enjoyed by the ANC and more radical parties such as the EFF and MKP, as well as their ideological foundations that do not differ substantially from one another, how can we ever hope to become a united nation in South Africa?

If there were naturally no other ideological currents in South Africa opposing the above-mentioned ideological bloc, it would — at least in theory — have been relatively easy. I deliberately say “in theory”, because there is indeed rivalry between the mentioned parties, but it is more often — perhaps almost always — about power rather than the finer points of ideology. Purely in ideological terms, the majority ideology in South Africa is therefore one that is directly at odds with classical liberal ideology.

Unfortunately for the large ideological bloc consisting of the ANC, EFF and MKP, there is also significant support for classical liberal thought in South Africa. By this I mean the political and economic ideology that places the individual at the centre of society and holds that the government’s primary role is to protect individual freedoms, private property and free markets. The DA’s policy, and that of a few other smaller parties, probably comes closest to classical liberal ideology. It is also the ideology that underpins the existence of South Africa’s private sector. Unfortunately for the large ideological bloc of the ANC, EFF and MKP, South Africa’s private sector is moreover particularly influential both nationally and internationally.

Next, I contrast classical liberal ideology with the more or less uniform ideology of the ANC, EFF and MKP, which for all practical purposes is enshrined in the ANC’s National Democratic Revolution (NDR). This means two fundamentally opposing worldviews are being set against each other. Where classical liberalism focuses on the individual and negative freedom — freedom from state interference — the NDR is directed at the collective and the use of transformative state power to shift historical power relations.

According to classical liberalism, the state is at most a “necessary evil” with a strictly limited role: a so-called night-watchman state. Its only function is to protect individuals against violence, theft and breach of contract. The state must remain politically neutral and may not attempt to actively reform society or the economy.
According to the NDR, by contrast, the state is an instrument of revolution. The state is not neutral; it is precisely an instrument that must be taken over and used by the large bloc of the ANC, EFF and MKP to achieve the goals of the revolution. The state must be an active, interventionist “developmental state” that transforms society and redistributes wealth.

Classical liberalism is synonymous with individualism: the individual is the highest moral and political unit. Rights belong to individuals. People must be judged on their own merits and actions, regardless of race, class or background.
The NDR, on the other hand, stands for collectivism. Society is viewed largely through the lens of historical group identities, especially race and class. The NDR focuses on the upliftment of the black majority in general — in other words, “Africans”. It often refers to “the people” as the driving forces (“motive forces”) of the revolution. Individual rights are usually subordinated to the goals of the collective.

Classical liberalism advocates a laissez-faire approach: the free market, driven by private property rights, free competition and the law of supply and demand, is the best way to create wealth and ensure freedom. The state should not interfere in markets or redistribute wealth.
The NDR advocates a mixed economy with socialist goals. It views unregulated capitalism as a system that perpetuates injustice and inequality. It calls for state-controlled sectors, including through state-owned enterprises, as well as aggressive regulation such as Black Economic Empowerment and land redistribution, to transform so-called “monopoly capital” — which is often simply regarded as white capital.

Classical liberalism believes in the separation of powers. To prevent tyranny, state power must be divided. The judiciary, civil service, police and military must be independent, politically neutral and merit-based. Legislative and executive authority must function separately and independently.
The NDR, by contrast, believes in hegemony. It stipulates that the state must gain control and influence over all centres of power, or the “levers of power”, in society. This includes not only parliament, but also the civil service, judiciary, academia and the economy. This justifies a policy of cadre deployment, whereby loyal cadres are appointed to decision-making and executive positions over neutral technocrats to ensure that all institutions advance the revolution.

I conclude by repeating what I said in the introduction: How can we ever hope to become a united nation in South Africa? How does one bring the North Pole and the South Pole together? After all, only Schrödinger’s cat can be both there and not there at the same time.

There are, of course, possible solutions such as federalism and self-determination, about which I have already written.
Lex Libertas is probably the most serious seeker of a solution to our country’s ideological incompatibilities. The Solidarity Movement, with its many initiatives that function in parallel with the larger South African state, also gives practical expression to a model within which opposing ideologies can exist alongside each other. The Solidarity Movement is of course not an example of pure classical liberalism. There are reasons for this that I cannot go into now.

Sakeliga, the Free Market Foundation and the Institute for Race Relations promote policies that align with classical liberalism — and do so consistently. The DA professes it, but often deviates from it in practice for the sake of pragmatism: voters must be attracted, and trying to do so in South Africa with pure classical liberal ideological purity is an impossible task.
There is therefore a possibility that the DA could lose its recent electoral gains again if the large bloc of the ANC, EFF and MKP moves closer together — something that some analysts see as a future possibility. The DA does not necessarily win support because of its ideology, but rather because of voters’ dissatisfaction with the ANC government’s lack of performance.

Unfortunately, classical liberalism is not an ideology that can be easily sold in a society where the dominant narrative — and the justification for the principles of the NDR — has already been entrenched among the broader population for decades. It is nevertheless encouraging that the opinion polls of the Institute for Race Relations and the Social Research Foundation increasingly indicate that more and more citizens are pursuing the same values, many of which are compatible with classical liberalism.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the broader population will not once again succumb to the seductive rhetoric of the NDR. If the large bloc of the ANC, EFF and MKP moves closer together in future, in one permutation or another, their combined persuasive power will be very difficult to overcome.

Piet Du Plessis is a retiree with a long history of applied socio-economic development. A liberated Afrikaner who has moved beyond self-flagellation and believes that he has been freed to live out his cultural pride and values, and to proclaim them openly when appropriate.