The renewed push for Western Cape secession is marketed as pragmatic, efficient and even progressive. Its advocates speak the language of governance, service delivery, economic sustainability and local autonomy. Yet beneath this technocratic veneer lies a far older and more dangerous political construct: divide and rule, the foundational strategy of colonial domination.

This proposal does not arise in a historical vacuum. It emerges in a country shaped by centuries of conquest, land theft, labour exploitation and racial hierarchy. Against this backdrop, the idea of carving out a predominantly wealthy, white-dominated enclave from a struggling post-apartheid state must be interrogated not merely as a constitutional or economic issue, but as a moral and historical one. History teaches us that when the powerful seek separation, it is rarely for mutual benefit. It is almost always to preserve privilege.

Divide and Rule: The Colonial Blueprint

From India to Palestine, from Africa to the Caribbean, colonial powers perfected one governing strategy above all others: fragment the colonised, exploit difference and rule the pieces. Artificial borders, ethnic partitions and racial hierarchies were not accidents of empire; they were its logic. A divided people cannot mobilise. A splintered society cannot challenge power.

The Western Cape secession project mirrors this logic. By proposing territorial separation under the banner of efficiency, it seeks to isolate wealth from poverty and shield privilege from redistribution. This is not federalism. It is economic withdrawal.

Who Drives This Project — and Why It Matters

The most vocal and well-funded proponents of Western Cape independence are overwhelmingly white, wealthy and economically powerful. This is not incidental. It reflects a broader strategy to consolidate economic advantage while escaping national obligations. The sudden proliferation of splinter political movements, heavily funded during the 2024 elections, should be read as an early phase of this realignment.

This project does not represent the interests of Khayelitsha, Mitchells Plain, Gugulethu, Delft, Langa or Bonteheuwel. It is about securing elite ecosystems concentrated in the Atlantic Seaboard, Constantia, Stellenbosch, Paarl and corporate districts. The poor are not being liberated; they are being repositioned as labour pools within an economy they do not own or control.

Secession as the Preservation of Economic Apartheid

Formal apartheid may have collapsed, but economic apartheid remains intact. Land, capital, property, business ownership and financial power remain overwhelmingly concentrated in white hands. Secession offers a mechanism to freeze this inequality into sovereign permanence.

An independent Western Cape would enable elite interests to design a hyper-efficient neoliberal microstate, one in which black and brown people remain workers, service providers and labour reservoirs, but not owners, power brokers or decision-makers. This is domination without overt racial law: economic control without political accountability.

Modern exploitation no longer requires chains. It operates through wage dependency, housing exclusion and debt. In such a state, the working poor would be priced out of property ownership, locked into precarious labour markets and excluded from economic mobility. They would serve an economy whose profits they cannot share and whose direction they cannot influence.

This is not freedom. It is neo-feudalism — a polished system built on historical dispossession.

The Governance Myth

Secessionists argue that the Western Cape deserves autonomy because it is better governed. This framing is deeply dishonest.

First, the province’s relative success rests on inherited advantages: colonial infrastructure, strategic ports, tourism wealth, historical capital accumulation and skilled labour concentration. These are not neutral achievements; they are products of racialised privilege.

Second, good governance does not confer the moral right to abandon national responsibility. If that logic were accepted, wealthy suburbs everywhere could secede from struggling cities. That is not governance. It is economic segregation replayed.

At its core, Western Cape secession resurrects the logic of racial homelands, inverted for elite benefit. Where apartheid created Bantustans to contain black populations, this project seeks to create a white-dominated economic enclave insulated from redistribution. It may not speak the language of race, but it operates through race-coded economics.

Fear, Not Freedom

Secession is driven less by service and upliftment than by anxiety: fear of equality, demographic change, redistribution, land reform and economic transformation. This explains why secessionist rhetoric is saturated with crime panic and collapse narratives. These fears mobilise withdrawal instead of engagement.

One of South Africa’s greatest post-apartheid achievements was avoiding civil war. That fragile peace rested on a shared national destiny and collective responsibility. Secession splits this moral compact. It signals: we will secure ourselves and abandon the rest. That is the opposite of nation-building.

The Real Struggle

South Africa’s crisis is not territorial. It is economic. It is about land justice, capital redistribution, education and labour dignity. Secession avoids this struggle. It abandons it. In doing so, it reproduces the oldest colonial instinct of all: protect the centre of power, fragment the rest and rule the pieces.

South Africa does not need more borders. It needs more justice. It does not need new flags. It needs economic liberation. And it does not need elite exit strategies built on wealth accumulated through colonial exploitation.

* Shabodien Roomanay is the board Chairman of Muslim Views Publication, founding member of the Salt River Heritage Society, and a trustee of the SA Foundation for Islamic Art. 

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. 

Source link