Whither The Future of Nations?

How do you define a people? Is it by the language that they speak, their sense of a shared history, or their cultural practices? Do people need to have a state before they can call themselves a nation?

This week, the think tank and advocacy group, Lex Libertas, hosted an intriguing conference in Pretoria. The inaugural ‘Future of Nations Conference’ (FNC) brought together civil society groups, politicians, and intellectuals, including self-described conservatives and nationalist groups, as well as a few classical liberals like myself.

Lex Libertas – meaning “law and freedom” in Latin – was founded by Dr Ernst Roets a little under a year ago. In that short time, and with all the gusto and creativity of a start-up, Roets has managed to build an impressive coalition of thinkers and supporters around a core mission: to promote a viable political dispensation in South Africa.

Roets’ thesis is that South Africa’s many crises are symptomatic of a deeper systemic problem that requires a fundamental overhaul of the political system.

The FNC was notable for the high representation of international delegates and speakers, mostly from the United States and Europe. South Africans are sometimes prone to insular thinking and naval gazing, so it was refreshing to situate our problems within the context of the issues facing the wider Western world.

Ons vir jou

As a speaker at the FNC, I was invited to attend a cocktail function the evening before the conference. The venue for this pre-event was significant: the Voortrekker Monument.

It occurred to me as I climbed the steps of the historic structure that I had never in fact visited this most symbolic heart of Afrikanerdom (the closest I had come previously is attending a rock concert at the nearby amphitheatre).

After a guided tour of the museum, which showcased the rich complexity of the Afrikaners and their place in South African history, we assembled in the lower chamber of the monument, where we listened to speeches and an ethereal performance by the polymathic musician, Chris Chameleon, and his wife, Daniella Deysel.

In his opening address, Roets drew the audience’s attention to the cenotaph located at the heart of the chamber. Every 16 December at midday a beam of sunlight shines directly onto this spot through a small aperture at the apex of the building. This symbolises the Afrikaners’ covenant with God and commemorates the 1838 Battle of Blood River, a defining event in Afrikaner identity.

Engraved upon the cenotaph is the articulation of a promise: Ons vir jou, Suid Afrika (‘We for thee, South Africa’).

In his address, Roets reflected on Afrikaners’ enduring love for South Africa and their defining traits as a people: their civic institutions, music, arts and culture, as well as their sense of stewardship over the land – exemplified by their passion for farming, hunting, and the bushveld.

Roets asked his fellow Afrikaners a provocative question: “We love our country, but does it love us?”

For despite their commitment to South Africa, Roets noted, Afrikaners are a vilified people, despised by the political elite and blamed for all the country’s problems. Yet Afrikaners cling to a failing system that no longer serves them, he said.

South Africa is not one nation, Roets argued, it is a country consisting of many nations. The Afrikaners are but one nation among many, who seek to live peacefully with the many diverse peoples of South Africa.

We have confused the state for the nation, he said.

Should Cyril Ramaphosa rename his annual Parliamentary address the ‘State of the Nations’, I mused? I decided that it would be even more appropriate to call it the ‘State of the State’.

Changing global order

The next day, the conference deliberated on the future of the political order in a changing world, with recurring themes such as self-governance, autonomy, decentralisation, and the role of the state.

I chaired a panel discussion with more of an economics focus entitled ‘Navigating the shifting global economic order’. I argued that the international system as we have known it since the end of the Second World War is changing, but what will replace it remains unclear.

“The old is dying but the new is struggling to be born,” I said in my introduction.

As national economic interests assert themselves and many countries retreat into populism and protectionism, it is important to recognise that we still live in a digitally interconnected and ‘global’ world, with abundant economic opportunity.

My panel spent some time discussing how non-state economic diplomacy can be used to bypass hostile or indifferent governments. A case in point is Solidarity’s ‘treasonous’ success in negotiating a renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in Washington DC, despite the best efforts of the South African government to jeopardise its relations with the United States.

Let my people go!

As a liberal who views politics through the prism of individual freedom – and who has a healthy scepticism towards state power – the contributions of the various speakers at the FNC compelled me to reflect more deeply on the relationship between the individual, his community, and his country.

My conclusion is that liberty does not require conformity. In fact, it necessitates an acceptance of diversity and the many dimensions of identity that make us human: cultural, linguistic, and religious.

The state matters insofar as its laws and administrative power is directed towards the preservation of life, liberty, and property. But its fundamentally coercive character is ill-suited for the advancement of cultural identity, especially in a pluralistic society such as ours.

Afrikaners learned this the hard way.

For almost half a century, the National Party ruled over South Africa using state power to serve the interests of one group of people at the expense of others. But when they lost political power, Afrikaners also lost the state – and now those institutions of state have been weaponised against them.

This is a cautionary lesson for the ‘New Right’ in other parts of the West, whose preoccupation seems to be the acquisition of state power through formal party politics.

Living better, together

The alternative to centralised statism was beautifully articulated by Princess Bhelekazi of the Mabandla Royal Family, who spoke movingly of the need for communities to empower themselves and to embrace their mutual interdependence.

“We don’t need uniformity to have unity,” she said.

The point is this: we can accept our many differences while respecting universal individual rights. And we should not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to ordering our political affairs.

Only decentralised governance, voluntary association, a reduced reliance on politicians in Pretoria, and a hard-nosed commitment to the pursuit of freedom will ensure our success.

Despite considerable challenges and struggles, the future of the Afrikaner nation – and the many other nations in South Africa – is indeed bright.

David Ansara is CEO of the Free Market Foundation.