MIKE SILUMA | The secessionists are playing with fire

Could South Africa break up one day, ceasing to be the unitary republic as we know it today? Unthinkable as it might seem now, this is a possibility that may be creeping up on us while we blissfully doze in a collective la-la land.

Among the worrying signs around us is a rejection of some of the ideals, symbols and beliefs that form the foundation of our democratic, post-apartheid society: nonracialism, equality, inclusivity and unity, as well as an embrace of the nation’s diversity, rather than seeing it as a threat.

To start with, not long ago we saw the emergence of a group called the Cape Independence Advocacy Group, which seems to believe its followers have a divine right to exclusive ownership of the Western Cape. It has even asked US President Donald Trump (the spiritual father of the world’s white supremacists) to pressure our government into allowing a referendum on Western Cape independence.

On social media one comes across groups that purport to preserve Batswana history, but also seek the resuscitation of the Bophuthatswana bantustan and lionise its former ruler, Lucas Mangope.

This is astonishing, because Bophuthatswana was one of apartheid’s creations. In all, 10 of these abominations were established by the National Party, four of which gained “independence” recognised only by Pretoria and a small coterie of pariah states. If the nefarious plan had succeeded, no black person would be a citizen of South Africa today. Ending the bantustan system was meant to draw a line under the notion of balkanising the country into tribal enclaves and black townships divorced from a so-called white South Africa.

Festering tribalism has not spared even President Cyril Ramaphosa, as his testimony before the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) hearings into the 2021 riots revealed. Decrying tribal insults hurled at him, Ramaphosa quoted one: “iVenda alime kancane thina bantu bangempela sisalungisa izindaba zethu.” (“The Venda must wait a bit; we, the real people, are still fixing our issues.”)

With that in mind, recall that when Cape Coloured Congress leader Fadiel Adams was arrested recently, it was none other than sports, arts & culture minister Gayton McKenzie who pledged support to his “brother” even before he appeared in court, presumably because they are both coloured.

In itself, ethnic or tribal affiliation should pose no harm to society. At the same time, ethnic loyalties can become a lethal weapon when wielded by chauvinists and self-serving politicians. World history is replete with examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing, from Biafra to Rwanda and Kosovo, among other killing fields.

Meanwhile, in KwaZulu-Natal, on the subject of symbols, King Misuzulu kaZwelithini has decided that the province’s name should shed its “Natal” half, an important element of the Codesa process.

In itself, ethnic or tribal affiliation should pose no harm to society. At the same time, ethnic loyalties can become a lethal weapon when wielded by chauvinists and self-serving politicians. World history is replete with examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing, from Biafra to Rwanda and Kosovo, among other killing fields.

Not to forget the pre-democracy mass killings — the so-called black-on-black violence — fanned by the apartheid state and which claimed thousands of lives in townships and villages.

Those who wish to partition the country must ponder how this would happen in practice. First, how would the spoils be divvied up? By what right would some get to keep the Cape while others resuscitate the bantustans? And why the expectation that the rest of South Africa’s citizens would roll over and accept the dismantling of their land of birth?

The secessionists of whatever colour or tribe are playing with fire. Contrary to what they may think, the breakup of South Africa would not resemble a Sunday-school picnic.

Ironically, such disintegration, if it came to pass — whether driven by tribal chauvinists or right-wing secessionists — would be aided by the weakness of the South African state, which increasingly seems to have lost the will to govern, or to do so effectively.

This leads to a conversation we ought to have been having but which we have unwisely swept under the carpet. In its opening chapter, the constitution clearly asserts that South Africa “is one, sovereign, democratic state”. Yet elsewhere — in section 235 — it recognises “the right of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation”.

We must ask, then, what the writers of the constitution, and the parliament that voted for it in 1996, meant by “self-determination”. Would it be just about the right, for instance, to observe and promote one’s culture and language? Or could it extend to the creation of racially or tribally exclusive territories within the republic? Perhaps the creation of prohibited areas, à la apartheid, based on race, language or other unilateral criteria?

Having agreed on a constitution binding on all, one national anthem and a common flag, it seems inconceivable that the supreme law’s creators would, in the same breath, have envisaged a situation where some citizens would have the constitutional right to break the country up, carting off parts of it as their exclusive booty.

Perhaps realising how tribalism was used to divide and rule his people, Samora Machel, Mozambique’s first president, said: “For the nation to survive, the tribe must die.”

Since Machel spoke those words many years ago, the tribe as a social phenomenon has not died, whether in Africa, the UK or elsewhere. What is needed, as I see it, is not a futile attempt to kill the tribe — or race, even — but rather a way for the tribes and races to exist harmoniously together.

The South African egg has been scrambled over decades and centuries. Contrary to the assumptions of the separatists, unscrambling it will not be neat, tidy or orderly. Nor will secessionists be able to control the unpredictable outcomes. It might even turn out to be a most bloody affair, costing countless lives.