One of the more curious developments in South African politics is the tendency to describe liberalism as a centre-right philosophy. This would have surprised most liberals throughout history.

It would certainly have surprised John Stuart Mill, who advocated women's suffrage before most conservatives believed women should vote. It would have surprised Friedrich Naumann, whose social liberalism helped shape modern welfare states. And it would probably have amused Helen Suzman, who spent much of her career being denounced by the South African right as a dangerous radical.

Yet today, in many circles, liberalism is routinely associated with centre-right politics. Institutions such as the Free Market Foundation have been openly labelled as “right wing” by detractors. Defenders of markets, constitutionalism, property rights, limited government, and individual responsibility are labelled "right-wing liberals" or simply "classical liberals". In South Africa, organisations and commentators broadly associated with the liberal tradition are often grouped with the centre-right, particularly when they criticise state intervention, race-based policies, or the expansion of government power.

This raises an interesting question. If liberalism can legitimately occupy territory now considered centre-right, is there any reason it cannot also occupy territory on the centre-left? And if so, should the type of reform advocated by commentators such as Prince Mashele also be regarded as authentically liberal, whether he calls it that or not?

The answer depends less on where one sits on the political spectrum and more on what one believes liberalism is.

Liberalism Was Never Designed to Fit on a Left-Right Spectrum.

The first mistake is assuming that liberalism belongs naturally on the left-right axis at all. The modern political spectrum largely emerged from disputes over economic organisation. The left generally favoured greater economic equality and state intervention. The right generally favoured tradition, markets, and established institutions. Liberalism predates this division.

Classical liberalism emerged from struggles against absolute monarchy, aristocratic privilege, state churches, and arbitrary power. Its central concerns were liberty, consent, constitutional government, freedom of speech, freedom of association, equality before the law, and the protection of private property. These principles do not map neatly onto either modern left-wing or right-wing politics.

A liberal may oppose racial quotas while supporting same-sex marriage. They might defend free markets while supporting a social safety net. A liberal may favour strong constitutional protections while advocating significant reforms to economic institutions. The defining feature is not a position on every policy issue. It is a commitment to individual liberty and limits on coercive power.

The “classic” post-1994 South African liberal of today might claim that, while the target might have changed, they are defending the same principles as before: “Constitutional constraints, equal treatment before the law, and scepticism toward concentrated power.”

Prince Mashele's Challenge

Prince Mashele presents a useful challenge to this understanding. While strongly committed to constitutional democracy, individual dignity, and accountable government, Mashele has often argued that South Africa's liberal tradition has failed to engage adequately with persistent poverty, exclusion, and economic inequality. His critique is not that liberty is unimportant, merely that it is insufficient.

For many South Africans, formal freedom means little without meaningful opportunities to improve their lives. This argument places Mashele closer to a tradition sometimes described as social liberalism.

Mashele does not call himself a “liberal.” His proposed new party, Rescue South Africa, is explicitly non-racial. Its mission is to replace the African National Congress component in government with a much broader group of qualified, ethical South Africans. He questions whether the current Democratic Alliance’s leadership group has the capacity to staff a national Cabinet across all portfolios by itself.

So, while Mashele might not associate with the label “social liberal”, he might well qualify. Social liberals generally accept the classical liberal commitment to individual rights, constitutional government, and market economics. However, they also argue that the state has a legitimate role in creating conditions under which individuals can meaningfully exercise their freedoms. 

A person trapped in failing schools, dysfunctional infrastructure, and chronic unemployment may possess rights on paper but struggle to translate those rights into real-world opportunities. Social liberals therefore tend to support a more active state than classical liberals, while remaining committed to constitutional constraints and individual liberties.

Is that still liberalism? Many classical liberals would answer yes. Historically, liberalism has always contained multiple traditions. The liberalism of Adam Smith is not identical to the liberalism of Mill. The liberalism of Friedrich Hayek differs significantly from that of John Rawls.

A government that expands education while respecting constitutional limits may be acting within a liberal framework. A government that suppresses dissent, undermines property rights, weakens judicial independence, or treats citizens primarily as members of racial groups rather than individuals is departing from liberalism, regardless of its stated objectives. The size of the state is often less important than the nature of the state.

The real question

The debate between classical liberals and social liberals is often portrayed as a struggle over whether liberalism should move left or right. That framing might be missing the point. A liberalism concerned with poverty, social mobility, and economic opportunity is entirely plausible. Indeed, one could argue that liberalism loses much of its moral force if it ignores these issues.

Mashele's challenge is therefore not a challenge to liberalism itself. It is a challenge to a particular interpretation of liberalism. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, the broader point remains valid; if liberalism can evolve in a direction that places it closer to the contemporary centre-right, there is no reason in principle why it cannot also evolve toward the centre-left.

The test is not where it sits on the political spectrum. The test is whether it continues to place the free individual above the ambitions of the state, the demands of the collective, and the certainties of ideological fashion. That, after all, has always been liberalism's defining characteristic. Not left or right, but liberty.

Vivienne Vermaak is an award-winning journalist and keynote speaker. Vivienne is an associate of The Free Market Foundation. She writes in her personal capacity.