Artikels Archives - Solidariteit Beweging

Liberals must become conservative to save liberty

Posted on July 13, 2026October 16, 2026 by René van der Vyver

My primary school rugby coach used to tell us, “Play the ball, not the man.” Mr Barkhuizen’s advice has stayed with me ever since, and I still try to live by it. A person is measured by the battles they choose to fight, and I’ve never had much time for pettiness or personal attacks. If you throw mud, you end up dirty yourself. It was John F. Kennedy who said that “the problem with radicals is not their views, but their intolerance.” Democratic maturity requires the willingness to tolerate those who disagree with you.

NP van Wyk Louw made a similar plea for what he called an “open conversation”: “The flow of ideas is to a nation what blood circulation is to the body. The flow of ideas involves freely expressing your opinion and listening attentively to other people’s views; it’s reciprocal…”

I must admit, however, that I recently forgot my old rugby coach’s lesson when Max du Preez claimed, among other things, that the leaders of the Solidarity Movement are not merely democratic opponents of the ANC, but are actively undermining the state. That’s an accusation of treason! That was only one of many insults. According to him, we are, naturally, racists who clung to apartheid in our youth and still long for its return. For historical reasons, playing the race card against Afrikaners remains an easy and popular tactic. It may be effective politics, but it is still dirty play.

Let me restate the obvious. We do not long for the South Africa of the National Party, but neither do we look forward to the future offered by the ANC. We do not want the “old” South Africa back, but neither are we content with the decaying “new” South Africa. That is why we are not working towards either the old or the new South Africa, but towards a different South Africa. We oppose the ANC, yet we love this country and all its people.

As a young student, I never believed the ANC would successfully govern a modern state. The Chinese philosopher Jia Yi explained the reason as early as the second century BC: the qualities required to wage a successful liberation struggle are fundamentally different from those required to govern a country successfully.

My concerns about South Africa’s new political dispensation were never rooted in opposition to democracy or freedom. On the contrary, they arose precisely because federalism is a prerequisite for sustainable democracy and lasting liberty. I saw the ANC as an equality movement disguised as a freedom movement, convinced that in its pursuit of equal outcomes it would ultimately place freedom itself at risk.

Democracy in Africa

Historian Martin Meredith captured my concerns well in Africa: 50 Years of Independence: “Africa’s political record since independence has been sobering. Over the course of three decades, not a single head of state allowed himself to be voted out of office. Of roughly 150 African leaders, only six relinquished power voluntarily, some only after decades in office. Among approximately 50 African states, almost all became one-party states or military dictatorships, while opposition parties were outlawed in 32 of them. Where elections were held, they largely served to legitimise the incumbent and reinforce the ruling party’s grip on power. Between 1960 and 1989, some 150 elections took place across twenty-nine African countries, yet opposition parties failed to win a single parliamentary seat. Only three countries – Senegal, Botswana, and the tiny Gambia – maintained multi-party systems and held regular free and fair elections”.

Socialism

The many conversations I had with COSATU leaders before 1994, several of whom would later occupy senior positions in government, convinced me that they remained committed to socialism. The words of Judge Jan Steyn have stayed with me ever since: “It is naive to believe that one can adopt the basic economic tenets of socialism, without also inheriting its authoritarian political structures and limitations of personal freedom. There is ample evidence to substantiate the argument that there is a real and unbreakable connection between economic and political freedom, both of which may be lost if the state unduly expands its role in society.”

Federalism

I was equally convinced that federalism was essential if a country as geographically vast and demographically diverse as South Africa was to be governed successfully. The liberal thinker Olive Schreiner expressed this brilliantly: “The special danger of centralized democratic States is always the tendency to fall a prey to the tyranny of sections, of large interests, or of strong individuals. The walls of each self-governing State [in a federation] are so many barricades, each one of which must be broken down before any oppressive over-domination can absolutely succeed; and, behind any one of which a successful resistance may take place when others have fallen. In short, federalism makes for freedom.”

Anger

I have no objection to people criticising us. That is part of democracy and part of the “open conversation” I referred to earlier. What troubles me, however, is the bitterness displayed by commentators such as Max du Preez. He is not simply trying to persuade his readers that we are wrong; he wants them to believe that we are evil. My own explanation of this: if we had merely been wrong, he would not be angry with us. He is angry because, in his view, we should never have been right about what an ANC government would ultimately mean for South Africa. His dreams have become nightmares, and now he blames those who warned that the storm was coming. It is rather like someone whose house has been washed away becoming furious with the weather forecaster, instead of acknowledging that he ignored every warning and took no precautions.

Conservatism

I understand Max’s opposition to apartheid. I grew up in a home where it was regarded as both morally wrong and fundamentally unworkable, and where people believed that a better alternative had to be found.

What I do find puzzling is that he continues to cling to ideas from a different era. Rather than confronting the root causes of South Africa’s deepening crisis, he remains preoccupied with its symptoms – corruption, maladministration, and state failure.

The fundamental mistake made by Du Preez and many of his contemporaries was that they never changed gears after 1994. They may dislike hearing this, but liberals who spent the 1980s dismantling an illiberal system should have become conservatives once constitutional democracy had been established. Instead, many remained intellectually trapped in the struggles of the past.

Few have expressed this necessity more eloquently than Samuel Huntington: “Historically, American liberals have been idealists, pressing forward toward the goals of greater freedom, social equality, and more meaningful democracy. The articulate exposition of a liberal ideology was necessary to convert others to liberal ideas and to reform existing institutions continuously along liberal lines.

“Today, however, the greatest need is not so much the creation of more liberal institutions as the successful defence of those which already exist. This defence requires American liberals to lay aside their liberal ideology and to accept the values of conservatism for the duration of the threat. Only by surrendering their liberal ideas for the present can liberals successfully defend their liberal institutions for the future.”

“Liberals should not fear this change. Is a liberal any less liberal because he adjusts his thinking so as to defend most effectively the most liberal institutions in the world? To continue to expound the philosophy of liberalism simply gives the enemy a weapon with which to attack the society of liberalism. The defence of American institutions requires a conscious, articulate conservatism which can spring only from liberals deeply concerned with the preservation of those institutions.”

“The American political genius is manifest not in our ideas but in our institutions. The stimulus to conservatism comes not from the outworn creeds of third-rate thinkers but from the successful performance of first-rate institutions.”

“Conservatism does not ask ultimate questions and hence does not give final answers. But it does remind men of the institutional prerequisites of social order. And when these prerequisites are threatened, conservatism is not only appropriate but also essential. In preserving the achievements of American liberalism, American liberals have no recourse but to turn to conservatism. For them especially, conservative ideology has a place in America today.”

The “Afrikaner Threat”

The so-called “Afrikaner threat” exists largely in the imagination of a small group of commentators. Strong, well-organised cultural communities are, alongside a free press, an independent judiciary, and a robust political opposition, essential counterweights to revolutionary movements that have lost their way.

The real tipping point for those commentators, who seem determined to tear down everything we are trying to build, came when we used our access to the US administration to urge it not to punish South Africa simply because it disagreed with the ANC government. To many on the political left, Donald Trump embodies everything they oppose in a single individual: he is white, Western, male, conservative, capitalist, Christian, powerful, and willing to exercise that power. They cannot attack him directly, so they cast us as his proxies and direct their hostility towards us instead.

Normality

Our vision is to build a strong cultural ecosystem that enables Afrikaners to continue living freely, securely, and prosperously in Africa. We believe this is the only way in which we can make a lasting contribution to the well-being of both South Africa and all its people. Our ambition is remarkably modest. We simply want to restore a sense of normality and, in doing so, help make this country a better place for everyone.

By Flip Buys, chairperson of the Solidarity Movement.

The Solidarity Movement wants to play a positive role in South Africa

Posted on June 11, 2026October 16, 2026 by René van der Vyver

South Africa is approaching the fiftieth anniversary of the 1976 Soweto uprising. The rallying cry of black youth in 1976 was: “We do not want to be taught in Afrikaans.” Fifty years later, a new cry has emerged: “You may not be taught in Afrikaans.” The 1976 slogan was a cry for freedom. The slogan of 2026 is its opposite: an attempt to deny Afrikaans speakers the freedom to receive education in their mother tongue.

For Afrikaners, this is nothing new. More than two centuries ago, on 19 July 1822, Lord Charles Somerset, Governor of the Cape, issued a directive declaring English the sole language of instruction in the Colony’s schools. The purpose was clear: to consolidate British dominance.

Concentration camps

A century later, during the Anglo-Boer War, the British established English-medium schools inside concentration camps as part of an effort to anglicise Afrikaner children. The British Director of Education, E.B. Sargant, made the objective explicit: “English must be the only language throughout South Africa.” Following the British victory, the new Governor, Lord Alfred Milner, triumphantly declared: “I have saved the British position in South Africa and have knocked the bottom out of the great Afrikaner nation for ever and ever, Amen.”

Almost a century later, the constitutional settlement of 1994 guaranteed mother-tongue education, including at university level. Afrikaans speakers believed that the lessons of 1822, 1902 and 1976 had finally been learned. They believed that everyone’s freedom to use and develop their language and culture through institutions such as schools and universities was secure. Afrikaans, at last, had been decolonised.

English

Yet the position of non-English languages has deteriorated sharply since 1994. All historically Afrikaans universities and hundreds of Afrikaans schools have, over time, been compelled to anglicise.

The BELA amendments of 2024 grant state officials the final authority over schools’ language and admission policies. This caused significant concern among Afrikaans-speaking communities because ANC politicians, acting as modern-day Lord Somersets, made it clear that they intended to use the legislation to force Afrikaans schools to change their language policies.

Broken agreements

The tensions created by these legislative amendments and political statements led to negotiations between the government and Afrikaans interest groups, resulting in two separate settlements. Those settlements were effectively abandoned almost immediately after the President proceeded with the implementation of the BELA Amendment Act. Shortly thereafter, the ANC government also reneged on an agreement concerning affirmative action that had been reached with Solidarity and facilitated by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), by introducing new racial quotas. During the same period, the President signed legislation enabling expropriation without compensation. To add insult to injury, South Africa’s highest courts ruled that the slogan “Kill the Boer” does not constitute hate speech and is therefore permissible.

These repeated breaches of formal agreements have created a profound breakdown of trust. The Solidarity Movement, which includes AfriForum, views this as a breach of the 1994 settlement itself.

The Afrikaner Declaration

In an effort to repair this growing trust deficit, Afrikaner organisations representing approximately two million people issued an Afrikaner Declaration, extending a hand of cooperation to our fellow South Africans. The declaration made three things clear: that Afrikaners see South Africa as their future; that we wish to work alongside others; and that we seek to create the conditions necessary to protect our language and culture so that Afrikaners are not alienated from their homeland, but are able to build, remain, and contribute to making South Africa a better country for all. The government did not respond.

The ANC versus South Africa

Following President Trump’s election in the United States, Solidarity used its access in Washington to argue that ordinary South Africans should not suffer the consequences of tensions between governments. We love this country, even if we do not support the ANC. We have stated unequivocally that we do not regard the situation in South Africa as a genocide, nor do we view ourselves as refugees. We do, however, believe that the ANC has breached the 1994 settlement, and that the United States has a role to play in supporting reconciliation in South Africa, just as it did before 1994.

Rights, not grievances

Du Preez’s claim that Afrikaners, or the work of the Solidarity Movement, are driven by grievance politics is simply unfounded. We are defending our language and culture and asserting our constitutional rights and freedoms. This is not nationalism; it is cultural self-preservation. The more than 600 000 members of our Movement support our work because we offer practical solutions to challenges, including mother-tongue education, training, safety, and many other pressing concerns.

The Solidarity Movement is a proud South African, Afrikaner and African organisation. We are building the cultural ecosystem necessary to ensure that Afrikaners can continue to live, build and thrive in South Africa with confidence. In doing so, we seek to make a lasting contribution to the wellbeing of this country and all its people.

By Flip Buys, chairperson of the Solidarity Movement.

The Solidarity Movement plays a constructive role – a response to Max du Preez

Posted on May 8, 2026October 14, 2026 by René van der Vyver

Max du Preez peppers his scathing attack on Solidarity and AfriForum with liberal quantities of loaded terms such as “hardcore nationalist,” “right-wing,” “fundamentalist ideologue,” and more.

Apartheid and accusations of racism are the final trump cards that are played against an Afrikaner organisation once all the other cards have been exhausted.

We will not be intimidated by false accusations that try to silence us when we attempt to protect the human rights and interests of South-Africans, including Afrikaners.

The motivation behind the Solidarity Movement’s “we will do it ourselves, and we will do it together” strategy, is an honest attempt to work with our fellow citizens in a spirit of mutual recognition and respect, to make South Africa a better place for all. The core of our culture remains ’a Boer makes a plan’.

We certainly do not long for the past under apartheid, but neither do we look forward to the future under the ANC.

Ever since I was a student, I have therefore sought a third way as an alternative to apartheid on the one hand, and a country dominated by a revolutionary movement with totalitarian tendencies on the other. As a Christian democrat, I advocated, following the example of Conrad Adenauer, a federal model as a third way for South Africa, as it safeguards freedom for all much better.

Misinformation

Like the ANC’s Secretary-General, Du Preez blames our “misinformation” for the deterioration in relations between South Africa and the United States, even though he knows that several media houses have had to apologise to us for falsely claiming that we made allegations of a “genocide”.

In the process, Du Preez ignores the fact that the ANC government is responsible for the diplomatic dispute due to its foreign policy and certain race-based policies that hamper economic growth and job creation while contributing to racial polarisation. Secondly, he disregards Solidarity and AfriForum’s efforts to persuade American decision-makers, using factual information, not to punish the country with tariffs, sanctions, and exclusion from AGOA simply because they disagree with the ANC.

These efforts, undertaken in the national interest, have repeatedly been undermined by ANC leaders through their continued and unnecessary actions against US interests.

Our engagement with the Trump administration is not based on taking their political side against the South African government. It is, however, in South Africa’s national interest to maintain good relations with the US government, as well as other countries. The ANC government’s long-standing neglect of these relationships compelled us, out of patriotism for the country, to intervene despite our differences with the ANC.

It is also our democratic right to inform the international community when the ANC breaches the 1994 settlement, for example, through attacks on Afrikaans schools and race-based legislation.

Fire brigade

AfriForum runs around 100 projects nationwide every day to make the country a better place by improving municipal services, repairing roads, combating crime through neighborhood watches, and upholding the rule of law. These projects may serve Afrikaner interests, but they also serve the broader public interest. We cannot provide all state services without state revenue. The ANC is elected, paid, and funded through our taxes to deliver public services. We are criticized for creating a so called parallel state, yet no alternative is offered for what we are supposed to do when the ANC allows one public service after another to collapse.

Voters who, despite the rotten and corrupt government under which they suffer, repeatedly vote for the same party become accomplices rather than victims. We therefore welcome polls indicating that increasing numbers of historic ANC voters wish to free themselves from their former party.

Nor is it clear what Max’s proposal is when Afrikaners are excluded, based on race, from services for which they pay taxes. He complains more loudly about the siren of AfriForum and Solidarity’s fire engine than about the radical arsonists who are governing the country into ruin while looting it.

Let me put it bluntly: the ‘Maxists’ helped propagate the Marxists into power, and now they stand astonished at the foreseeable consequences, and are angry with us for attempting to halt the decline and implement practical rebuilding plans. The anti-apartheid industry, which previously protested loudly against the former oppressive racial dispensation, is now deathly silent about the failed racial system that replaced it in the name of redress. Basic mathematics shows that laws against 5% young whites cannot improve the chances of 95% young black people.

Normality

Our Movement does not have an evil plan to revive the past, but rather a plan to create a normal future. We simply want what the people of the Western Cape, from where Max safely writes, already have: functioning towns, an effective civil service, safety, a say in matters that affect us, good race relations, and the political, economic, and cultural freedom to live our lives as we see fit, without endless race laws and a government ruling against us.

We are not simply asking for fair rulers; we know that greater freedom is a prerequisite for normality. We do not experience it as a democracy when Mr Panyaza Lesufi, with only around 34% of the ANC vote in Gauteng, effectively holds 100% of the power over Afrikaans schools.

Demographic democracy

South Africa is not merely a country of isolated individuals that can easily be governed by a central government with a standardised policy. Credible opinion polls show that it is a country of many languages and cultures, rather than four races or a single South African identity.

This heterogeneous population has survived various governments and dispensations and is far too complex to be governed through a simplistic majoritarian system. For roughly three decades, South Africa has been a demographic democracy in which people vote more according to identity than policy. The overwhelming majority of voters do not ask: “What does my party believe?” but rather: “Who is my party?”

Voting behaviour is not similar to consumer behaviour, in which people shift their support to the best product or service. This is not unique to South Africa. It is therefore good news for freedom and democracy that the ANC has been forced into a GNU at national level, and that the upcoming local government elections are likely to produce more coalitions that may hopefully save many towns and cities from decline.

Realities

Naturally, I hope that the majority of voters will vote the ANC out of power in the near future. But hope is not a strategy, and we must work with realities rather than wishes.

As David Welsh warned: “The comparative evidence from divided societies does not offer much support for the view that the salience of ethnic or racial identities will eventually give way to voting alignments that are shaped more by, say, class, interests or ideology.”

This does not mean that I have lost hope in democracy. For democracy to be sustainable, however, a dispensation must meet the conditions required for democracy. One important condition is cultural freedom, because democracy without cultural freedom generally amounts to freedom only for the demographic majority. We do not want special favours, but we do not want to plead forever on our knees for cultural rights and -room that are in the constitution.

Weather bureau

If Max genuinely believes that we welcome racial polarisation and the failure of South Africa, then he believes many other strange things as well. A single look at the country’s population composition, economy, divisions, and political realities clearly shows that good race relations and a functioning country are in everyone’s interest. Fortunately, although political relations may be poor, good personal relationships between people remain strong.

Max is correct that I began my career at the far-right Mine Workers’ Union (MWU). That is precisely why my colleagues and I transformed the organisation into a mainstream Christian-democratic movement.

It is also true that we did not believe the ANC would govern the country as successfully as, for example, Botswana has been governed. A thorough study of ANC policy convinced us that the party still clings to an outdated ideology with which it cannot successfully govern a country with such a large modern sector.

We concluded that, due to history, Afrikaners could become a vulnerable minority group and that a self declared revolutionary government could drive the most educated out of the country, to the great detriment of the country and all its people.

Our starting point was that a strong self-help movement would become necessary to counter state decay, implement practical solutions at the grassroots level, and protect freedom, democracy, and the legitimate human rights of Afrikaners and other groups. I therefore believed it essential to transform the former MWU into a modern network of self-help organisations founded on mainstream Christian-democratic principles.

We take no pleasure in watching the country steadily decline, like it gives the weather bureau no pleasure to see a destructive storm weather, against which they had warned for so long, finally arrive.

Compete or cooperate

We do not believe that the best solution for good race relations is to compete head-on with the demographic majority for political support. We therefore strive instead for cooperation based on mutual recognition and respect. The advantage of this approach is that common viewpoints on all issues are not essential, only shared interests like to make the country a better place.

This is the essence of our engagement and cooperation with numerous black and coloured groups and leaders across the country.

The French classical thinker Alexis de Tocqueville said: “The majority will accept the minority only if the minority gives up that which it values most.” I therefore believe in Ralph Sockman’s advice: “The test of tolerance comes when you are in a majority. The test of courage comes when you are in a minority.”

We look forward to continuing to play a constructive role now that both countries have appointed ambassadors to each other’s capitals.

South Africa’s motto is unity in diversity. Our cultural identity as Afrikaners does not conflict with our national identity as South Africans. Our Movement uses the constitutional space for diversity to build a cultural ecosystem that enables long-term survival. This will enable Afrikaners to make a sustainable contribution to the well-being of the country and all its people.

By Flip Buys, chairperson of the Solidarity Movement.

Why affirmative action still divides South Africans — and why many whites oppose it

Posted on February 10, 2026October 14, 2026 by René van der Vyver

Why does affirmative action remain such a significant problem for many whites?

What reasonable person could be opposed to redress for past injustices or efforts to promote equality? Can there truly still be people who resist the advancement of blacks, or who oppose the creation of greater opportunities for blacks in occupational groups where they are poorly represented?

Are there still people who do not recognise that black empowerment and development are essential for the country? What inspired Solidarity to display banners during last year’s G20 Summit with the statement that South Africa is the most race-regulated country in the world?

These and other questions trouble those who feel some whites complain unfairly, are selfishly focused on their own problems and show little willingness to address the country’s real crises.

Poverty or inequality?

For example, consider the levels of unemployment and poverty in the country, which — although increasing rapidly among whites — remain overwhelmingly a “black” crisis.

The question, then, is why it still appears that many whites who are merely “selfishly” guarding their own privileges are, in fact, camouflaged racists who show little concern for the fate of their fellow citizens, and seek only to entrench their prosperity behind high walls, security fences and privatisation.

If this is the future, then there is none; there is no hope for white or black, poor or rich, in South Africa.

The question is whether the government’s emphasis after 1994 should not have been on the solution of poverty rather than on the redistribution of existing jobs and wealth. After all, economic growth is the fastest equaliser and the most effective, proven solution to poverty. As American economist Thomas Sowell puts it: “What do the poor most need? They need to stop being poor. And how can that be done on a mass scale, except by an economy that creates vastly more wealth? Yet the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow, and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.”

Affirmative action

But let us return to the question posed at the beginning. Why are Solidarity and so many whites negative about affirmative action? The short answer is that the outcomes after three decades have shown that the South African model of affirmative action does not work — it is counterproductive and harmful to the country and all its people.

No-one is opposed to righting what is wrong, nor is there resistance to equality or to measures aimed at achieving greater equality. The problem therefore does not lie with genuine redress, equal opportunities or the increased representation of blacks in certain job levels.

Affirmative action has been widely used around the world to protect minorities and help ensure their rightful share of the economic pie. It is normally a temporary mechanism in a free economy to achieve true equality by eliminating direct and indirect factors that hinder equality. Society can then move forward freely and equally, without state interference and characterised by true diversity.

What began more than three decades ago as an affirmative measure has resulted in a comprehensive racial distribution that is incompatible with a constitutional democracy, a functioning state and a growing economy capable of providing for all its people.

The challenge for South Africa was to apply a model developed to protect minorities, to advance majorities. Over time though, a growing gap emerged between beautiful constitutional theory and the harsh realities.

What the constitution allows has in practice hardened into a permanent state ideology that has become a higher authority than the constitution itself. Moreover, these measures no longer meet international legal requirements for timeliness, proportionality and appropriateness.

As a result, they provide ammunition for business leaders like Elon Musk to discredit South Africa on the international stage by saying there are more racial laws now than during apartheid.

The positions of the opponents of laws based on race are the following:

They consider such laws to be unconstitutional, since article 1 of the constitution states that South Africa is a nonracial state.
They argue that the laws do not comply with international law, which requires remedial measures to be temporary, proportionate and nuanced. International standards place greater emphasis on education and people’s socioeconomic status than on race. That is why the International Labour Organisation (ILO) considered Solidarity’s formal complaint and facilitated a mediation process between Solidarity and the government, which culminated in an agreement in 2024. This agreement was ratified by a court order and published in the Government Gazette, only to be breached again by the government with new racial regulations less than a year later.
This is unworkable, as the numerical ratios in the country make it impossible for laws targeting about 7% of the population to benefit the remaining 93%. There is a clear distinction between a system that protects minorities in a growing economy and one that seeks to uplift majorities in a shrinking labour market.
This constitutes an injustice against young whites under the age of 18, who comprise only 4.6% of the population. They are blamed for events that occurred before they were born, while the ANC does not take responsibility for its current actions. It also creates false expectations among the nearly 96% of young blacks that the measures directed at the 4.6% young whites will benefit them.
It is unfair, as the new dispensation was supposed to rest on a higher moral foundation than the crude racial measures of apartheid.
It harms whites without significantly benefiting blacks. If all whites were immediately removed from the labour force, black unemployment would drop by only 2.6 percentage points. The primary problem for whites is not unemployment, but underemployment (being employed in positions below their qualifications) due to the racial laws.
This is economically harmful for the country, as the World Bank and numerous other institutions have pointed out. It plays a significant role in the country’s long-standing economic stagnation. BEE compliance costs the country 2%-4% of GDP annually, equivalent to R145bn-R290bn.
It contributes significantly to the weakening and decay of numerous state institutions, as the emphasis in appointments falls more on race than on merit, while South Africa urgently needs a culture of excellence. In this way, it harms the poor through poor service delivery, which has become the “new normal” in many towns.
As a result, the most qualified people often do not get the job, since employment is driven by output-based targets rather than input-based principles.
The pursuit of equal outcomes leads to restrictions on the freedom of people and companies.
It has unintended consequences, such as enabling the system of tenderpreneurship and fostering a sense of entitlement.
It operates in the name of promoting diversity and uniformity, since all job levels are required to reflect the demographics.
It drives many job creators, high-level skills and high-net taxpayers out of the country. It has also torn so many families apart, with relatives living on different continents and children growing up without their parents or grandparents.
This is unnecessary, as given the population composition of South Africa a merit-based system would still result in the vast majority of appointments being blacks.
It leads to demographic dominance of minorities due to the imposition of the population composition on all institutions. In a country with South Africa’s varied geographical and demographic realities, not every institution can be fully representative. Therefore, the aspiration should be that institutions collectively reflect the population as a whole. Policies such as cadre deployment and “African hegemony” are aimed more at achieving dominance than at genuine correction.
It encourages a “demographic democracy”, as the ANC seeks to secure voters’ loyalty by emphasising race and racial favouritism.
That affirmative action in the workplace and BEE regulations apply to businesses means minorities’ lives and life chances in all areas are regulated by race.
The legislation obstructs the exercise of other constitutional rights, such as article 22, which guarantees freedom of choice of occupation and profession.
The South African model of affirmative action is an example of the unintended consequences that arise when a system takes on a life of its own, hardens into a state ideology, and extends far beyond the understandable correction of past injustices.
The most effective measure to promote redress and inclusive development remains economic growth, supported by input-driven programmes such as training, rather than output-driven targets that have in practice solidified into a comprehensive quota system. Such an input-driven approach provides the fastest and most natural way to achieve racial representation, without the unaffordable unintended consequences of the current system.

South Africa has the highest unemployment rate in the world, according to various sources. It is therefore urgently necessary to stimulate economic growth, create more jobs and reduce inequalities. Yet the outcomes after three decades indicate that the current model is no longer effective and that it is necessary to return to the drawing board, rather than trying to defend an unworkable and unjustifiable system.

The current redress model has not remedied the consequences of decades of apartheid, but worsened it — except for the benefit of a largely politically connected elite. At the same time it has become such a comprehensive set of racial measures that many whites feel wronged and even oppressed, as their lives are regulated by race.

After all, affirmative action is intended as a shield to help people, not as a sword to harm or dominate others.

By Flip Buys, chairperson of the Solidarity Movement.

My country is where my heart lives

Posted on October 3, 2025 by Mariska Nanni

– By Marisa Engelbrecht

Seated next to me on the aeroplane is an older woman. Her hair is almost completely grey, and deep lines of sadness trace the corners of her eyes. She is on her way to the Netherlands to visit her children. She hasn’t seen her son and his family in three years.

“The children have grown so much!” she jokes excitedly. Her granddaughter has recently become a mother, and she is travelling abroad to meet the new baby and lend a hand. Unfortunately, her husband couldn’t join her – the plane tickets are simply too expensive, but he will get a turn next year.

Her daughter lives in Australia. “She and her husband have been there nearly 20 years. The children don’t speak Afrikaans anymore. It’s so sad,” she says. “My English isn’t exactly great either, so it’s hard to communicate with them.”

I listen closely as she shares a bittersweet blend of excitement and sorrow about her children. She is, however, deeply grateful that they were able to find opportunities abroad and that they are doing well. I, too, am no stranger to family and friends living overseas. We all know someone abroad – children, uncles, aunts, close friends, acquaintances, former colleagues. People who had to make the extremely difficult decision to pack up and put down new roots in a “safer” foreign land.

Last year, I had the privilege of undertaking an extensive research project with the Solidarity Research Institute, focusing on Afrikaners living abroad. Why did we do this research? Because we identified a need among our people abroad, who are directly experiencing a sense of alienation from our Afrikaner culture. The risk of disconnection is even greater among second- and third-generation emigrants, and the research repeatedly highlighted issues related to identity, alienation, values, isolation, language, heritage, and education.

What did we hope to achieve with this research? Our aim was to create a digital home for Afrikaners living abroad – a space where they can virtually experience the familiar feeling of being at home and the warmth of Afrikaner hospitality. This was, of course, no easy task, but the feedback and input we received throughout the research process were truly insightful and invaluable. We also examined initiatives undertaken by other countries to support their diaspora, exploring the structure of their projects. The difference, of course, is that other countries’ governments are mostly driving these projects. The South African government does not have such a project for Afrikaners, and we felt a responsibility to help fill this gap.

From our wish list of what we hoped to develop and offer in this virtual home, we reached out to all the institutions within the Solidarity Movement to lend a hand in building the heartbeat of this virtual world – and there it is today: MyHartland [MyHeartland or lit. “country of my heart”], the virtual cultural home for every Afrikaner living abroad.

Our launch offering includes eight sections: Afrikaans Cultural Home [Afrikaanse Kultuurhuis], My Community [My Gemeenskap], Children’s Corner [Kinderhoekie], Traditional Recipes [Boerekosresepte], the Come and Visit youth programme [Kom kuier-jeugprogram], Entrepreneurs, Jobs [Werk], and News [Nuus]. In addition, there is the opportunity for individuals to become digital citizens of MyHartland by supporting one (or more) of our ten projects. They are also welcome to create a free profile, allowing them to begin their virtual journey with MyHartland and follow us on this new path.

Pack your bags today and bring your family, close friends, uncles, aunts, acquaintances, and former colleagues along on this virtual journey to MyHartland, because our roots are grounded in our language, our culture, our identity, and our connection to one another,

regardless of where we, or our children, live in the world. MyHartland, your virtual cultural home.

Hijacked dialogue: Solidarity Movement, Solidarity and AfriForum withdraw from conference

Posted on August 12, 2025August 14, 2025 by Mariska Nanni

While the Solidarity Movement, AfriForum and Solidarity believe, in principle, in engagement and dialogue, it is clear that the so-called National Dialogue has been hijacked by the ANC. Therefore, these organisations will not participate in the first conference of the National Dialogue on Friday. The institutions also support organisations such as the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, which has taken the same decision.

According to Flip Buys, chairperson of the Solidarity Movement, national discussions to find solutions to the country’s pressing crises are essential, but all indications are that the National Dialogue at this stage will result in yet more fruitless discussions instead of action.

“The reason is that it appears that the ANC wants to hijack the intended National Dialogue to try to win back lost support, rather than to find answers to the crises,” says Buys.
“That is why the Solidarity Movement supports the various foundations that have decided not to attend the dialogue on Friday, and we will also not be there. There is no sense in placing the party responsible for the country’s decline in charge of a National Dialogue.”

Buys says the ANC is now emphasising the necessity of participating in the National Dialogue, while over the past decades the party has not been willing to engage in good faith with other stakeholders or listen to their proposals.

“The experience is that the ANC would rather conduct an ANC monologue than participate in national dialogues. The ANC has dominated all previous talks, using them merely as forums to try to sell its policies, rather than forums where they could listen to suggestions on how to adapt their unworkable policies. In addition, agreements that were reached have often been broken shortly thereafter by the ANC, only for them to stumble along alone in its socialist dead-end street, dragging the country along with it.”

Buys says the Solidarity Movement will therefore adopt a wait-and-see approach to the National Dialogue.

“We are too busy trying to address the consequences of failed ANC policies, and do not have the time to listen to their outdated blame politics and a repetition of unimaginative ideas for weeks and months on end. Our experience is that ‘community dialogues’ can bear more fruit than a state dialogue, and that discussions between communities yield more practical results. That is why we plan, in co-operation with other cultural communities, to submit a position on the country’s pressing issues to the National Dialogue, but we will not participate on Friday.”

The ANC has in the meantime given no indication that it intends to reconsider failed policy directions. The clearest signs are that since the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU), it continues to govern as if it is alone in power, and that it would rather make the country a target of US sanctions than implement policy adjustments in the national interest.

“The country needs new and fresh ideas because the old ANC ideas have failed, and it will be of no use to simply recycle them. Millions of people have suffered long enough under the ANC’s leadership,” says Buys.

People want to talk about a different dispensation

Dr Dirk Hermann, chief executive of Solidarity, says the National Dialogue has become a state dialogue, because the government is not genuinely willing to take part in an open dialogue but is pursuing its own agenda.

“People talk at workplaces, around the braai, at sporting events, and in churches about a yearning for a different dispensation. The state hears this and wants to hijack that spontaneous community dialogue.
“It was conceived in the Union Buildings by the President. The moment that happened, the National Dialogue was stillborn.”

According to Hermann, the need for dialogue came from the community itself.

“Some of the foundations were central to it. It is precisely because of a deep rift with the government that people want to talk about a different kind of dispensation. The government feels threatened by this type of dialogue and has decided to hijack it,” says Hermann.

He emphasises that the institutions’ non-participation in the National Dialogue is not against dialogue, but for dialogue.

“The voice of the people cannot be silenced by trying to regulate it. Solidarity and the broader Solidarity Movement welcomes dialogue. We will talk to trade unions, foundations, cultural communities, and other civil society organisations. We will talk about the wider community’s frustration with the ANC-led government, and our discussions will not be hijacked. We will participate in community dialogue, but not state dialogue,” says Hermann.

ANC cannot be trusted with the process

Kallie Kriel, chief executive of AfriForum, says the crisis the country is currently in is due to the ANC’s failed policy directions, mismanagement, and corruption.

“They are the cause of the problems, and therefore they cannot be trusted to lead the process of finding solutions.”
Kriel emphasises that president Cyril Ramaphosa and his ANC-led government’s hijacking of the preparations for the National Dialogue has resulted in the dialogue degenerating into a government-driven national monologue.

Kriel further says the presidency’s ignoring of the justified concerns of the various former leaders’ foundations about the state’s hijacking of the talks is an indication that there is no interest in genuine dialogue, but that the intended talks are merely meant to serve as a platform for the president and the ANC’s political agenda.

“If the presidency is not serious about the necessity of genuine dialogue with communities, that does not mean that AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement are also not serious about it.
“We are, in fact, serious about dialogue, and that is why AfriForum has accelerated its existing programme of concluding agreements with numerous cultural communities. This effort has already led to meaningful dialogue between communities, which has brought about practical agricultural and other projects at grassroots level,” says Kriel.
“It is essential that we talk to find solutions. AfriForum therefore emphasises that the National Dialogue should shift from a state-driven process to a citizen-driven process. In the meantime, we are proceeding at full steam with discussions with other cultural communities for genuine dialogue, as well as for joint projects.”

Buys further says that it is urgently necessary for sincere discussions on national issues to take place and to lead to agreements and the essential reforms needed to prevent a slide towards a Zimbabwe-scenario.

“The ANC is responsible for most of the crises and cannot solve them alone. Therefore, we are prepared, in the national interest, to talk together about solutions, but it must not be an ANC-led process that will simply end up in another cul-de-sac. Our children deserve better,” concludes Buys.

US tariffs: ANC politics undermine SA economy

Posted on August 8, 2025August 8, 2025 by Mariska Nanni

By Flip Buys, Chairman of the Solidarity Movement

Political considerations outweigh economic factors when it comes to US tariffs. Senior ANC leaders such as Fikile Mbalula, ANC Secretary-General, and Gwede Mantashe, Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, continue to hurl insults at the US instead of working to strengthen diplomatic relations.

This despite clear warnings from US leaders that “you’re not going to insult America for free”.
Their overt political animosity towards the US government is deepening South Africa’s economic woes and driving up unemployment. Their efforts to solve the ANC’s political problems are poised to lead to economic crises that will mostly affect their voters.

Meanwhile, the ANC refuses to take the US’s insistence on necessary political reforms seriously and treats it simply as an economic issue.
The ANC is clearly stuck in the Cold War era. They continue to cling to the anti-Western political policies and alliances of the past, despite the economic crisis they are causing.

Their narrow-minded racial policy is much more about their historical anti-Western stance than about redress. Their hostility extends to bullying white citizens of South Africa as part of their deep-seated resentment at the West.

The ANC is trying in vain to resist the winds of change, clinging to the illusion that they are still the darling of the world. That is why they are constantly and unnecessarily picking fights with a superpower. This approach is bound to have grave consequences, and they will be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

Sooner or later, the ANC will realise: The past will not return, the present cannot be ignored, and the future will not fix itself.

National Dialogue: Solidarity Movement’s position on participation

Posted on August 1, 2025 by Mariska Nanni

The Solidarity Movement believes that national discussions to find solutions to the country’s pressing crises are essential, but it seems as if the National Dialogue will only result in even more useless discussions instead of action. The reason for this is that it appears that the ANC wants to hijack the intended National Dialogue to try to win back lost support, rather than find answers to the crises.
At present, the ANC is very vocal about the necessity to participate in the National Dialogue, but over the past number of decades it has not been willing hold discussions with other stakeholders in good faith and to listen to their proposals. The experience is that the ANC would rather conduct an ANC monologue than participate in national dialogues.
The ANC has dominated all previous discussions, using them merely as forums to try to sell its policies, rather than forums where they could listen to proposals on how to adjust their unworkable policies.
Added to this is the experience that agreements that had been reached were broken by the ANC shortly afterwards, only for them to continue staggering forward alone on their socialist road to nowhere while dragging the country along with them.
Therefore, the Solidarity Movement will take a wait-and-see approach to the National Dialogue. We are too busy with work to try to address the consequences of failed ANC policies, and we do not have the time to listen for weeks and months on end to their outmoded blame politics and a repetition of unimaginative ideas.
Our experience is that “community dialogues” yield more fruit than a state dialogue, and that discussions between communities produce more practical results.
Therefore, in collaboration with other cultural communities, we plan to submit a position paper on the country’s pressing issues to the National Dialogue, and initially only send an observer to the Dialogue before we decide on participation.
The ANC has not yet given any indication that it will reconsider failed policies. The best indications are that since the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU), it has continued to act as if it were ruling alone, and that it would rather make the country the target of U.S. sanctions than make policy adjustments in the national interest. The country needs new and fresh ideas because the old ANC ideas have failed, and it will be of no use to simply recirculate these ideas. Millions of people have suffered long enough under the ANC’s leadership.

Solidarity’s fight against the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act

Posted on July 30, 2024July 30, 2024 by BeweegAdministrator

What is the National Health Insurance Act?

National Health Insurance (NHI), under state control, is proposed as the single purchaser of all healthcare in South Africa. One of the most notable problems with this proposition is that as soon as a specific service is covered by the NHI, it would become illegal to receive it through any means other than the NHI. The state would therefore not just be the single purchaser, but would effectively control which health services would be available in South Africa, as well as how and by whom those services may be provided.

In June last year the National Assembly agreed to the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill making provision for the introduction of the NHI, and in December the Bill was also approved by the National Council of Provinces. Weeks before the national election in May 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Bill into law. This Act sets out to offer “free” healthcare to all citizens, including expensive medical procedures currently done in private hospitals. Although it seems like a noble notion, it is however important to note that the free healthcare the government already provides in state hospitals and clinics is already unsustainable and these facilities are in unthinkably awful conditions. The NHI is an unaffordable attempt from the state which would drastically cut the income of its citizens, as it would be mainly funded by a very small number of taxpayers.

The Minister of Finance did not budget for a reasonable amount for the implementation of the NHI, which implies that the Treasury does not foresee the actual implementation of the NHI in the near future. This was also the case with the previous submissions of the Bill, and now, with the Bill having been passed, the officials concerned still did not provide for this constitutional requirement.

Even so, the funding structure proposed in the NHI Bill makes provision for a new payroll tax, as well as for a surcharge on income tax. This is in addition to general tax revenue and a planned re-allocation of provincial budgets and conditional allocations, as well as from tax credits for medical schemes.

If the government projections made at that time are to be believed, the NHI will result in the budget deficit being further increased by about R32 billion. A more realistic calculation, as shown in a research report by the Solidarity Research Institute (SRI), shows a deficit of R295,93 billion as an absolute minimum. Treasury cannot afford a deficit of R32 billion, let alone a deficit of R295,93 billion.

Theoretically, R295,93 billion could be generated by abolishing the medical tax credit (about R30 billion) and levying the following taxes:

A 40% surcharge on income tax;
Increasing VAT from 15% to 22%;
A payroll tax of 13,4%;
Increasing corporate income tax from 27% to 45%; and
A combination of these.

In real terms, none of these is possible, because the South African taxpayer is overtaxed.

The theoretical examples given here above serve as illustration purposes only and to demonstrate the absurdity of the NHI.

The National Health Act and a victory in court

On 24 June 2024 Solidarity managed to have one of the major cornerstones of the proposed National Health Insurance (NHI) pulled down by means of its legal action when the North Gauteng High Court declared sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act unconstitutional. The court also granted a cost award against the respondents.

According to Solidarity, the state’s goal with these sections in the National Health Act clearly was to pave the way for the NHI.

“The government wants to change to a system in which health care is nationalised and health care practitioners become servants of the state so that the provision of all health care can be centrally controlled by the state. This victory thwarts those disastrous plans,” Solidarity Chief Executive Dr Dirk Hermann said.

Sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act provide that health care practitioners obtain a certificate of need (CoN) from the Department of Health before they can establish a practice in a specific area.

By declaring these sections unconstitutional, this court ruling will have an impact on the implementation of the NHI Act and will complicate the processes to implement it.

After the court ruling by the North Gauteng High Court, the Minister of Health, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, denied that the ruling on the National Health Act made the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act vulnerable, denying any connection with the NHI Act while accusing pressure groups of spreading “toxic propaganda”.

However, his own department’s spokesperson, Foster Mohale, was quoted on multiple occasions in the past, reaching this exact conclusion that the two are connected when the sections were first declared invalid in 2022.

“The ruling has serious implications for the implementation of the National Health Insurance (NHI), and the Department of Health will request that the ruling be overturned and will contest the case in the Constitutional Court,” Mohale said at the time.

Hermann says that the government does not have a track record of “doing the right thing,” and Solidarity will therefore be ready to continue the fight in court.

What are the implications of the NHI for South Africa?

Dr Eugene Brink, strategic advisor for community affairs at AfriForum, also explored the implications of National Health Insurance in an article published on Solidarity’s platform. He writes that the NHI could be very dangerous if ever fully implemented.

In his article he quotes Bloom Financial Services, which stated that the NHI would destroy comprehensive medical schemes. “Once implemented, medical schemes won’t be able to offer any health services already offered by the NHI. Medical aid will only offer you extra services not covered by the NHI.”

Brink also pointed out that all healthcare funds would be centralised (actually nationalised) in a single state-controlled fund. Given what the government as curator of tax money has caused as a result of blatant corruption and abuse, this is a chilling thought.

The medical aid fund Discovery offers further criticism in this regard, also quoted in Brink’s article: “Our strong view is that limiting the role of medical schemes would be counterproductive to the NHI because there are simply insufficient resources to meet the needs of all South Africans. Limiting people from purchasing the medical scheme coverage they seek will seriously curtail the healthcare they expect and demand. It poses the risks of eroding sentiment and of denuding the country of critically needed skills, and is impacting negatively on local and international investor sentiment and business confidence.”

Brink also refers to Prof. Nicola Theron and Dr Paula Armstrong of FTI Consulting who recently wrote that to insist that the only path to universal healthcare (UHC) is through a single pool of funds managed by the government and the erosion of the role of medical schemes as purchasers of medical services would probably contribute to the demise of a strong and well-functioning private healthcare section. It narrows consumer choice, erodes competition and may even lead to the same outcomes as recent examples of what has become of state-owned enterprises and funds. Read the full article here.

No end in sight for the fight against the NHI yet

“Solidarity is vehemently opposed to the NHI and is strongly in favour of a market approach, offering a choice to private service providers and to the public, while at the same time being in favour of an improved public healthcare system. NHI will ruin South Africa and Solidarity is preparing for a major court battle to ensure that the healthcare sector is free, safe and prosperous,” Brink concluded his article.