Call for second republic futile

“THE RESOLUTION of this problem does not depend on a democratic dialogue. It depends on, as I keep on saying, the total destruction of white civilisation, and that would mean you have no right, in fact, as a white person to claim anything in this country and perhaps in the world.” (Andile Mngxitama in Writing Transformation at the 16th Time of the Writer).

The interminable series of racist incidents are making it apparent that the “negotiations” for “a transition from slavery by coercion to slavery by consent”, which ushered in the so-called post-apartheid “new” South Africa, only postponed the inevitable collapse of white South Africa, stemming from the betrayal of the question of historic justice, namely to whom does the land belong? To whom does Azania belong? To whom does South Africa belong? The order of the questions is not accidental.

The inevitable collapse of South Africa has motivated ideologues from the Congress tradition, such as the Rivonia Circle and Eddy Maloka, to persist with the desire of “integrating into a burning house”, namely white South Africa, a futile attempt to redeem white South Africa by the so-called black South Africans. This was registered through an article by Maloka in which he calls for a “second republic” of South Africa.

To fully comprehend the call for a “second republic” of South Africa, we must understand the origin of South Africa itself. The origin of South Africa should be traced to the conquest of the land and the indigenous people in a series of wars of colonisation since 1652.

If we follow historians such as Motsoko Pheko and Felix Chami, the land that belonged to the indigenous people was called Azania (the land of black people) by its rightful owners since time immemorial.

This Azania was independent before land dispossession, which established white settler colonialism and its racial polities called republics and colonies. It is in this sense that independent Azania belonged to the Indigenous people, currently without their land in a “democratic” South Africa.

South Africa was built by white settlers based on the demise of an independent Azania. The first South Africa as a white settler republic was created by Dutch settlers as the Zuid-afrikaansche Republiek or the South African Republic in 1852.

This first white settler republic was built on the land that was dispossessed from the indigenous people since 1652.

This is how South Africa, as a white settler republic, belonged to white settlers, even to this day. The idea of South Africa, whether as a white settler republic or white settler union, thus the white man’s country, traces its roots to 1652 and formally to the first republic of 1852. South Africa, be it as a white republic or a union, was built on the conquest of the indigenous people, the rightful owners of the territory in wars of colonisation, beginning with the Battle of Salt River in 1510.

This conquest since 1652 was consolidated in 1902 when the white settlers reconciled to create a white settler union in 1910 by suspending the ripping apart of the conquered land of the indigenous people into two colonies and two republics. This white settler union was symbolically celebrated through the two buildings of the Union Buildings, which now “accommodate” the black government of the so-called post-apartheid new South Africa since 1994.

The Dutch settlers who created the first white settler republic in 1852, based on their Calvinist chosen people delusion, symbolically celebrated through the Voortrekker Monument, resented their 1902 reconciliation with the English settlers and wanted another white settler republic.

In 1961, on the premise that South Africa is their racist God-given gift, the Dutch settlers restored their 1852 white settler republic on the land they dispossessed from the conquered Azanians since 1652.

These two white settler republics and union excluded the indigenous people, who were only integrated in 1994 to create a so-called new South Africa with rainbow nation colours to decorate whiteness and its power. Because the land was not restored to the indigenous people in 1994, this post-apartheid new South African republic remains a white settler republic.

The conquered indigenous people were merely incorporated into a republic created by whites and for whites since 1852.

So, will the second republic resolve this historic question of justice, namely the urgent need to restore the land to its rightful owners since time immemorial? Will the second republic resolve the national question through decolonising rather than democratising what Mogobe Ramose calls conqueror South Africa?

This is important because, as a matter of historical truth, despite what the Kliptown Charter/freedom Charter and the rambling preamble of the current Constitution, South Africa, which has seen a couple of white settler republics, has never belonged to those who live in it, black and white. Bunting and Roux, in 1928, knew this very well when, as white settler communists they were hostile to the idea of a black republic.

Will the second republic remain the white republic that South Africa is? Or should the indigenous people, conquered in wars of colonisation since 1652, call for an independent Azania like their fellow blacks of Haiti did in 1804 when they declared Haiti independent from European conquerors?

It is important to note that the Congress tradition’s call for a second republic is dubious. This is because white South Africa became a republic at least two times before the “transition period”.

This implies that the so-called new republic of South Africa, based on the annoying fantasy of the rainbow nation, was the third republic since 1852. Maloka’s call is actually for the fourth republic of the South African project.

But due to the naive doubleconsciousness of black South Africanism (seeking integration into white South Africa since 1910), the first two racially exclusive republics pioneered by white settlers are ignored.

The call for a “second republic” is a waste of time since South Africa will remain white and, for whites who continue to integrate the so-called black South Africans.

This is the political vision of the black liberal tradition as exemplified by Congress tradition since the emergence of “civilised natives” confused by white settler liberalism in the Cape colony.

The political visions of the black radical tradition premised on the negation of white civilisation envision the destruction of South Africa as a white settler colony/republic.

This tradition comprises of the Azanian stream and the Africanist stream. The Azanian stream seeks unrealistically to integrate whites on the terms of the African majority, ala Sobukwe’s African tree and Biko’s African table. The Africanist stream of Lembede with which we align ourselves uncompromisingly pursues the rejection of both whites and white South Africa and calls for a new Africa/independent Azania for the natives only.

“Look at us, we have been here before. Long before others came to our shores. Long before other conquerors came.” (Don Mattera in

The call for a ‘second republic’ is a waste of time since South Africa will remain white and, for whites who continue to integrate the so-called black South Africans