Cape Independence: To Understand It, You Must Ask "Why?"
(Responding to this article in the Sunday Times: https://www.sundaytimes.timeslive.co.za/opinion-and-analysis/opinion/2026-05-30-mike-siluma-the-secessionists-are-playing-with-fire/)
Mike Siluma's article on Cape Independence was a sobering read, and one that highlighted a number of critically important issues facing South Africa, just perhaps not at all in the manner Siluma had intended.
One of South Africa's greatest challenges is that, ideologically, it has been reduced to a majoritarian echo chamber. Many of its most fundamental questions have been asked and answered, not through evidence-based introspection, intellectual debate, and due consideration of other people's viewpoints, but by the deliberate and uncompromising enforcement of one world view. The majority have written the law in parliament, interpreted it through judges appointed for their ideological compliance, and established the moral framework which determines which beliefs are socially acceptable and which are not.
Such is the moral certainty that this echo chamber has engendered, that Siluma, the deputy editor of what is supposed to be a premium publication, can write about Cape Independence without even once asking the question, why is it that people would want this, let alone give this question serious consideration in his article.
As a rule, people do not want to secede from countries where they feel welcome, valued, and where their fundamental needs are being met. At the heart of most secession movements there is a grievance. Until you interrogate and understand that grievance, the opinions that you hold are almost certain to be shallow, subjective, and therefore deeply flawed.
What motivates Cape Independence?
If Siluma wants to understand Cape Independence better, then I would challenge him to reflect on some of the rather sweeping statements he makes in his article and to revisit them through the eyes of those advocating for secession.
It was extremely telling that Siluma framed secession around the rejection of non-racialism, inclusivity, unity, and embracing diversity. I would strongly argue that, in fact, the pursuit of these ideals is the very essence of Cape Independence. The problem is, in South Africa's majoritarian echo chamber, these principles have been assigned an interpretation that is discriminatory, self-serving, factually flawed, and at odds with their true meaning.
Coloured and white South Africans, especially those born after 1994, may struggle to interpret pervasive race-based policies which intentionally discriminate against them as "non-racialism", especially when those policies are designed to create barriers to their meritorious progress. It is unlikely that Afrikaners feel that diversity is being embraced when their language is being marginalised in schools and universities, and the apex court has ruled that singing "Kill the Boer" is somehow acceptable and not hate speech. And "unity" is not something the majority can impose on minorities - it requires the minority to feel loved, welcomed, and embraced.
Which brings us to the Constitution.
Understanding self-determination
It is clear that Siluma, in common with far too many other 'intellectuals', demonstrably misunderstands what self-determination is, why it is a fundamental human right - one which is binding on all states, and how it came to be accommodated in the Constitution - and not just in section 235.
Self-determination is a right which exists to protect 'peoples' (communities in the language of s235) from domination by those who are in a position to force themselves and their will upon them. Generally, South Africans understand all too well why self-determination was necessary to end colonial domination - but it seems to have passed them by entirely that it also exists to protect minorities from domination by the majority.
Critically, the right to self-determination does not originate in the Constitution. It is simply accommodated there, having arisen as a peremptory norm (jus cogens) of international law. As such, it is binding on all states, and not subject to any derogation. In short, South Africa has no legal option but to honour the right to self-determination, whether it likes it or not. By accommodating it directly in s235, and indirectly in sections 39, 231, 232, and 233, South Africa has embraced this obligation.
Perhaps better than anywhere else, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR), which South Africa has signed and ratified since 1994, explains what this means in practice: "All peoples […] shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen"
Consider this in the context of the Western Cape. A perpetual majority of the people of the Western Cape are opposed to race-based policy, cadre deployment, centralised policing, foreign policy aligned to Russia, China, and Iran, and loss-making state-owned enterprises. They have never once voted ANC and have never once been governed at a national level by the party they voted for. Where their provincial government has sought devolved powers such as policing, and a more equitable share of national funds, the national government has waved their requests away with disdain.
It is not the people of the Western Cape who are acting unreasonably, they simply want to be governed according to their democratic will, and to live in a safer, more prosperous, less racialised society. It is the national government, and those like Siluma who wish to dismiss their legitimate concerns, who need to reflect deeply.
Which brings us to the so-called 'indivisibility of the Republic'.
Limits on territorial integrity
I could argue that if you are using a piece of paper to force a people to remain trapped in a state they democratically and peacefully wish to leave, that you are on a very sticky moral wicket, but there is no need. Once again, international law has already settled the argument.
The right of states to territorial integrity is not absolute, but conditional, and I would refer Siluma to the 'safeguard clause' in UN Declaration 2625 - The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:
"Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour."
If through the eyes of minorities, South Africa can become a united and non-racial state, embracing diversity, then there will be no Cape Independence movement, and no legal argument to sustain one. But for as long as the majority dictate to the minority what they see and how they must respond to it, the majority would do well to take note: self-determination is not something South Africa's majority can wish away, and its perpetual denial is a sound legal basis for secession.
