Why liberals should support AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement

A Free Market Foundation policy head has published a robust defence of AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement, arguing that liberals who criticise Afrikaner organising while embracing other ethnic and cultural associations are acting on inconsistent, vibes based politics rather than principle. The opinion piece contends the movement's voluntary structure and freedom of association ethos align with classical liberalism, pointing to AfriForum's campaign to extend driving licence validity from five to ten years and its Private Prosecution Unit's work for non-Afrikaner victims, including Nthabiseng Sebothoma and Gabriella Engels, as evidence its activism benefits South Africans broadly, not only Afrikaners..By Martin van Staden*.For reasons that continue to mystify, many supposed classical liberals cannot help but lay into AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement with criticism they do not give to other non-liberals.I have long submitted that this is a vibes-based “unease” rather than a real critical engagement. But it is important to state the principled and practical reasons why good liberals should instead be more supportive of these institutions.I have seen ostensible classical liberals being more positively disposed towards the South African Human Rights Commission under the totalitarian Prof Tshepo Madlingozi and authoritarian social-engineering organisations like the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, than towards the Solidarity Movement and its most notable member, the civil rights group AfriForum.They can reach for any number of non-liberal positions that the latter organisations take, for instance immigration restriction. Yet the position of Solidarity and AfriForum on immigration is practically indistinguishable from that of the supposed classical liberals themselves. And while the so-called liberals, unlike AfriForum, would not meet with March and March, they would eagerly break bread with the actual Minister of Home Affairs who signs the deportation papers himself.This is a vibes-based approach to politics and activism, which they usually rationalise to themselves as a matter of “strategy” or “tactics”. Principle plays no role here whatsoever. Ultimately, it comes down to this: many liberals have a sense of unease about Afrikaners (specifically) organising, which is an unease they do not have about Zulus, Jews, or Anglos.These liberals are perfectly tolerant towards individuals who happen to be Afrikaners or Afrikaans-speaking, but the moment those individuals become Afrikaners per se, the liberal tenses up. That same liberal would sit comfortably, with a big smile, at a Zulu cultural gathering or while attending an event of the Jewish Board of Deputies. They would regard it as a great honour to meet the Zulu monarch, and might even call him “Your Majesty” out of respect, but the leaders of the Afrikaner nation – after the usual motions of “Who appointed them the leaders anyway?!” – will be regarded with suspicion, if not contempt.The principle statedIt should go without saying that these “liberals” are poor representatives of the tradition and cause of classical liberty. While they tend to apply good sense on economic policy, they would likely be more at home among the (sensible) minority of progressives and social democrats than within classical liberalism.The likes of John Locke or Frederic Bastiat would have reacted with venom if their God-given entitlement to be proud English- or Frenchmen were called into question, the way these contemporary “liberals” call Afrikanerdom into question.To be sure, I am not rejecting cosmopolitanism, which just like cultural cohesion is a perfectly valid choice of allegiance and lifestyle. I do worry, though, that cosmopolitans – in the same way as cultural authoritarians of old – are increasingly willing to hide behind “liberalism” in their quest to turn everything cosmopolitan (read: English and secular).Indeed, liberalism’s critics say that the ideology “homogenises” cultures and groups into a single (Anglocentric) cosmopolitan mass. I do not think this is true. But if it were true, I would want nothing more to do with liberalism.Liberalism rests on a clear, unambiguous commitment to freedom of association. Cultural groups, linguistic groups, and yes, even ethnic groups, are free to associate according to their preferences, provided the freedom of association of all individuals involved is respected. This requires a genuine right of exit and that the group does not impose itself on anyone outside the free association. This inherently means that the state and its organs must remain culturally, religiously, and ethnically unaligned.There is no stuttering, vagueness, or hedging in classical liberal principle on this point.When those conditions are met, group association is fully compatible with liberalism. It is a pluralist ideology, but unlike various forms of authoritarian nationalism, it is not one of compelled pluralism.Liberalism says: if you want to be a Zulu nationalist, enrol your kids in Zulu schools, support only Zulu businesses, and speak only Zulu, you are entirely at liberty to do so. You do not have to, but if you want to, you may.The principled authoritarian cosmopolitanism that is often but incorrectly called “liberalism” would tell this Zulu that he is being exclusionary, provincial, and perhaps even racist. He should support “South African”, not Zulu, identity, enrol his kids in whatever is the “best” – almost invariably English – school, support all “South African” businesses, and while they tolerate his speaking Zulu, he must also speak English. (This criticism is spared only for Afrikaners in practice, however.)An authoritarian nationalism would say that he must, as a matter of compulsion, be a nationalist, use Zulu schools, frequent Zulu businesses, and speak primarily if not only Zulu.The Solidarity Movement does not subscribe to authoritarian nationalism for Afrikaners. It is, in the best sense of the word, liberal.The principle appliedThe Solidarity Movement is premised on deep respect for voluntarism. Membership in the Solidarity trade union, AfriForum, and the various other institutions is voluntary. People pay and work to belong. There is no force, compulsion, or emotional blackmail equivalent to a mandatory tithe. Afrikaner children are not raised to bow at the feet of Kallie Kriel, Flip Buys, or Dr Dirk Hermann.It is a fully voluntary association from start to finish.There is also a real philosophical attachment to freedom within the movement. This is not limited to the freedom of Afrikaners to associate among themselves and build their own prosperity and institutions, but extends to the freedom of any group that wishes to advance itself on a voluntary basis. The underlying philosophy emphasises the freedom to cooperate and work together between groups on a voluntary, non-compulsory basis.The movement displays a high level of practical tolerance that vibes-based or hostile analyses ignore as a matter of routine.This dismissal usually stems from lack of direct engagement with the people inside these institutions and their actual work. The organisations are not composed solely of elderly white men holding extremely radical conservative mindsets. There is a wide variety of political positions: liberals, conservatives, and even elements of a non-Marxist socialism (remember, Solidarity remains a trade union).Homosexuals, atheists, non-Reformed Christians, and individuals who are not white also work at and support the institutions of the movement.Because the movement is by, from, and for the Afrikaner community, membership is obviously largely and predominantly white. This is not the result of a racial entry barrier, but simply reflects the demographic reality that the number of coloured, Indian, and black South Africans who consciously, deliberately, and sincerely decide to become Afrikaners or enter Afrikaner cultural institutions on those terms is small. But it is by no means zero.There is no queasiness within Solidarity Movement institutions about working with groups from other communities.Documented cooperation includes open and eager work with the Free Market Foundation, the Nama Afrikaner tribe, Jamangile KaMabandla royal family, Batlharo Boo Tokwana Ba Ga Masibi, Barolong Boo Seleka, Batlokoa Ba Mota, Bakgatla Ba Kgafela, Batlharo Ba Ga Motlhware, Ndebele VUKO, Royal Leaders of South Africa, and many other traditional communities. There is willingness to engage community groups from within black, coloured, and Indian communities, as well as other national formations (Portuguese, Jewish, Greek, and others).Reluctance, when it appears, virtually always comes from the other side.Taken together, the Solidarity Movement slots cleanly into the liberal framework of a free society.This does not amount to the claim that every individual or every policy preference inside the movement is classically liberal. Many members and leaders hold political and policy views that sit outside a strict liberal paradigm, which is to be expected in a large, voluntary association.Good liberals do and should continue to engage constructively with Solidarity and AfriForum on areas of disagreement.But what matters primarily is that the movement per se – its structure, methods, voluntary character, respect for association and exit, and practical work – is more compatible with liberal principle than incompatible.The practical caseBut there are also practical and tangible reasons for liberals to get behind Solidarity and AfriForum.A common criticism holds that this movement does everything solely for Afrikaners and that it cares about nobody else. There is, of course, a grain of truth in the premise: the movement is from Afrikaners, by Afrikaners, and for Afrikaners.It is based unashamedly and proudly in the Afrikaner nation.None of this implies indifference to others, that its work produces no broader benefits, or that it never acts deliberately for the benefit of others or of South Africa as a whole.The most recent concrete example is AfriForum’s sustained pressure (over years of engagement with the Department of Transport, letters, public advocacy, and related efforts) to have the validity period of light motor vehicle drivers’ licences extended from five to ten years.It is not only Afrikaners or AfriForum members who will receive this benefit. Once the legislation takes effect, the whole country benefits. Backlogs and printer failures have affected motorists across all demographic lines.In sports, Solidarity and AfriForum have objected when teams or selectors apply racial targets or quotas that override merit as a matter of principle.A notable example in netball that I mentioned once before involved threats of legal action against Netball South Africa after a team lost its place in a final for fielding too few white players. When a black South African is excluded from a team, promotion, or opportunity because a racial quota is being pursued, the Solidarity Movement applies the same principle: public policy-derived racial discrimination is wrong.Solidarity as a trade union rejects racial discrimination in employment terms per se, which is what any union pretending to represent the interests of its whole member base must by right do.Naturally most of Solidarity and AfriForum’s activism will be confined to anti-white and anti-Afrikaner discrimination, because that reflects the legal-political reality of South Africa today. The post-1994 government’s race-based targeting of whites and other minorities has been a sustained policy feature for three decades and it has been meticulously documented.AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit has also taken cases on behalf of non-Afrikaners and non-whites.A recent example is the successful private prosecution (after the National Prosecuting Authority declined) of the assault case involving Mamelodi resident Nthabiseng Sebothoma against her neighbour. The unit also took on the case of Gabriella Engels against Grace Mugabe – neither party was white. The unit has also handled multiple gender-based violence and related matters where the state failed victims of various backgrounds..Read more:.Hijacked dialogue: Solidarity Movement, Solidarity and AfriForum withdraw from conference.When AfriForum holds municipalities to account for corruption or service failure, the accountability mechanism, if effective, benefits every resident of that municipality, not just Afrikaners.Sol-Tech and Akademia have no (as in, nil, zero) racial entry requirements.They are culturally based institutions with specific values, including Afrikaans as language of instruction and at least a culturally Christian foundation.Any student of any race who subscribes to those propositions and meets the academic and language requirements is eligible. When one spends time on the campus, one notices that they are not exclusively white institutions.AfriForum’s defence of Bokkieweek, of the right of Afrikaners to organise a cultural sporting event for their youth and to cultivate identity and heritage outside official statist boundaries, similarly defends the identical liberty for every other cultural group.Malice, hostility, and vibesThe broader movement’s work is beneficial to South Africa as a whole, despite being – perhaps because it is – premised in Afrikanerdom. Organised Afrikanerdom, working for its own benefit, simultaneously works for the benefit of the country as a whole.Unless one harbours malicious or hostile intentions towards Afrikaners, or vests too much emphasis on vibes, the interests of Afrikaners and the interests of South Africa are largely aligned. Advances for Afrikaners on the rule of law, property, educational autonomy, municipal accountability, and freedom of association necessarily serve South Africa on a broad basis, within the precise framework that classical liberalism always intended for a free society.Liberals who make themselves guilty of malice, hostility, and vibes-based criticism should undertake deep introspection..*Dr Martin van Staden is the Head of Policy at the Free Market Foundation and Editor of the Race Law Project at the South African Institute of Race Relations. He earned a Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) from the University of Pretoria and is widely published and featured on popular and academic platforms. Van Staden additionally serves as a director of both the Hayek Council for a Free World and the Free Speech Union SA, and as a fellow at both the Consumer Choice Center and Initiative for African Trade and Prosperity. Visit www.martinvanstaden.com for more..This article was first published by Daily Friend and is republished with permission..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox every morning on weekdays. Register here. Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

Why liberals should support AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement

Related Stories

Morné Mostert: ANC’s “fantasy megatropolis” faces full-scale fight from AfriForum

Hartford on Duduzane Zuma: Jacob's cool-headed heir taking MK into battle

School rugby's problem isn't diversity - it's political interference: Martin van Staden

BN Daybreak: AfriForum targets Malema; Nedbank surges; SA pitches power to China; SpaceX