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.
