Hi, welcome to my Poliseries: an exploration of the vision each parliamentary party has for South Africa’s future. In this report, I discuss The Cape Independence Advocacy Group (CIAG): a political movement which, much like the OneSA movement, seeks to give back to the average citizen that which was taken for granted – his/her political responsibility. Albeit, the CIAG’s concern in this regard lies only with residents of the Western Cape; a fact justified by their values grounded by the moral and legal principle allowing all citizens to choose their governors, called self-determination.
A term also used by the FF+ when referring to its right to disassociate and insulate Afrikaner culture from all others. Whose use differs slightly here by the CIAG since its mission focuses more on securing a realm of governance (the Western Cape Province) governed by its residents irrespective of their creed or colour (race). Afrikaner Nationalism’ use of the term is more about the ‘purity’ of their culture as maintained by segregating it from those of others – a feat that will undoubtedly entail a governance model in that same spirit (self-governance); while this group’s use abandons cultural nationalism to focus on that more econo-political. In short, Afrikaner Nationalism dreams of a landmass owned, governed, and resided upon by only members of their racially based culture and the CIAG seeks the same but for a non-racial culture.
Founded in 2020 to, effectively, separate the Western Cape in all respects from the rest of our country, the CIAG aims to achieve its mandate legally by rallying support from its target market (residents within the province) to exploit an opportunity ‘arguably’ granted by our constitution. I say arguablyhere despite sections 1272f and 372f of the national and Western Cape constitutions respectively explicitly granting the power to call provincial referendums also to their premiers since the promulgation of legislation accordingly has, from the last amendment of the referendums act in 1983, failed to take place. So, premiers of provinces have a right to this power as has already been granted by the constitution but the ANC government, also being dominant within Parliament, is yet to legislate their access to it. Considering how their inability to access this power serves the dominant party’s centralisation, it is not difficult to figure out why and whether/not the party will argue against all efforts aimed at diluting its level of control.
One such effort is to put pressure on the legislature to hasten the promulgation of laws granting premiers access to referendum-calling powers by the DA called the Private Members Bill. Though not for the same reasons as the CIAG, the DA seeks to use said power to gain greater autonomy while remaining within the greater national governance structure, e.g., gain control over provincial infrastructure currently controlled by the national government such as policing or railways etc. Somewhat of a middle-ground between itself and the ANC: the latter does not lose its fundamental power while the former is given more leeway to run its province as it sees fit. Helen Zille, Chairperson of the DA, in an interview with The Centre for Risk Analysis’ David Ansara critiques the CIAG’s ambitions as unrealistic given, I presume, not only the ANC’s increasingly corrupt behaviour since taking power which speaks to the likelihood it will passively let power be taken from it on the basis of constitutionality; but also on whether any governing party, corrupt or not, would on that same basis simply see efforts at Cape secession as justified and not fight them.
Phil Craig, co-founder and spokesperson for the CIAG, is recorded in a video available on CIAG’s YouTube channel saying that, by virtue of being physically present in South Africa, he is bound by the terms and statutes of the constitution but that, considering how the Cape’s continued submission to the constitution is increasingly detrimental to the wellbeing of its residents, it is only logical and reasonable that those residents, should they do choose, opt-out of said submission. The constitution being the basis of all legislation means opting out of it is effectively divorcing yourself from the realm governed by all its laws; you set yourself as outside its bounds and declare yourself as no longer governed by them thereby proclaiming yourself an outlaw to the state from which you withdraw – your basic declaration of war.
Although as I understand it, Phil was not stating that outcome as one he would prefer – no; he was stating it as one probable under circumstances in which, in one way or another, the ANC government fought their every attempt at having a Cape Secession Referendum called. An outcome whose possibility must be embraced considering the prosperity of all Cape residents is at stake and the fact that the abovementioned self-proclamation of independence is supported by international law. Relying on international law to justify this declaration signals to me the GIAG’s intention to recruit like-minded interests as stakeholders to bolster its defence in its war effort. A process that would require it sells off its pound of flesh for that protection thereby leaving one master for another. Given its weakened state, at least militarily, and, at that point in the likely future, in a perpetual war against a bigger, stronger and imminent threat, I doubt the leaders of that newly announced country will have enough leverage to gain favourable terms in those deals. Most of its value lies in its internal economy which it may have to offer up to these foreign stakeholders as part of an economically one-sided deal that ends up siphoning off, piece by piece, parts of the Cape’s economic flesh.
This imaginary scenario I am painting reminds me of the Israeli-Palestine Middle East situation. I guess, for the CIAG, that may be the point since Israel is quite prosperous with the backing of the United States, albeit at the price of an enemy constantly and patiently waiting for an opportunity to strike. If this is the price of their independence, are all Cape residents making an informed decision in supporting secession? This is a move that could render Africa’s southernmost tip a war zone.
Seeing it from the CIAG’s perspective, the only difference between the abovementioned scenario and the Western Cape’s current predicament is the probable perpetual threat of violence from the ANC government. The Cape’s economic productivity is already being leeched on by the rest of the country; as South Africa’s second richest province and the fact that its union with the rest of the country subjugates it to a party-government voted for only by a minority of its residents casts, to the CIAG, that union as a parasitic relationship in favour of the current government. So: the Western Cape is ultimately controlled by a national government that, due to its track record over the last 20 years, it no longer supports and whose incompetence inflicts harm on its residents all the while benefiting from the Cape’s economic performance; the CIAG aims to free its fellow residents from this parasitic connection that prevents them from enjoying the spoils of their labour.
Okay, this move is backed up by the constitution; it is technically also backed up by current legislation since our president can call such a provincial referendum, although, politically, not so because his party would object; yet, also legislatively not quite so seeing that parliament (or legislature), led by the ANC hence, effectively, the ANC – has thus far defied the constitution in failing to grant, legislatively, provincial premiers powers to call referendums within their provinces. All of this leads to my discussion herein about the potential for war. Another aspect to consider here is whether secession is the Western Cape’s answer to a prosperous future. Despite its size relative to the country as a whole, the Western Cape is still huge; what’s to stop the government installed there post-secession from falling into the same power taps of greed and self-aggrandizement? The CIAG commits to a non-racial bill of rights it is to submit as required, I assume, by international law concerning the secession process as its assurance of a non-racist future society in the Western Cape.
With the Western Cape currently governed by the DA and the DA being heavily capitalist in orientation, whatever society is built by The Cape of Good Hope will so be done primarily atop free-market principles. To a large extent, that is despite the ANC government’s affirmative action laws and several sectors still nationalised e.g. rail and, to a lesser extent, energy, the South African economy is primarily free market. These affirmative action laws have helped critics characterise the ANC government and South African economy as racist in favour of black people; this is true but still a criticism unjustified considering that the majority of those that govern us today are partially formed by the trauma they experienced directly at the hands of a government violent in its racial discrimination only 20 years ago. In my view, the ANC’s manner of governance is simply a predictable yet, not entirely, intentional retort to that past and its culprits predetermined by its trauma.
That trauma is still present amongst the residents of the Western Cape; thus, even within a society that legislates non-racialism, that is, without thoroughly addressing that trauma, it will influence hence taint relations between Cape residents. Not to mention that they would be operating within a socio-economic and political structure that feeds on and is sustained by class feudalism, the exploitation of others by some will be a prerequisite to their envisioned prosperity – the trauma will designate those roles based on race. The ‘free’ market of South Africa has shown this: racism is outlawed and yet, despite Black people being politically powerful, historical trauma has designated the majority of those exploited to being black while the hegemonic perception remains that the majority of exploiters are white and/Afrikaner. Apartheid was a method of capitalism and capitalism one of slavery – the structure of the economy is both the question and the answer here and I argue that we now know that capitalism, in its current form, does not create the kind of society sought after by the CIAG. One inclusive, fair, just, and prosperous.
With that said and given my perspective on the natural laws around human relationship formation/maintenance and Dunbar’s number (read my other reports), centralizing at a provincial level, although a step forward, is not far enough. If they do not encourage their fellow residents to organise at a communal and family level, the Cape of Good Hope may end up, in time, where our country is today: corrupt, inefficient, and divided.
Comments