South Africa is not a nation; it is an economic zone - a colonial construct that has no place in the modern world. I realize that this may come as a bit of a strong statement for most people, but there is method to the madness.

But first, what is a nation? How do we define it exactly?

A commonly accepted definition is one you can find when you simply Google the word: a nation is a large body of people united by common descent (meaning ancestry), history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

This fairly simple explanation makes sense of most places we would call a nation. Germany, for example, is filled with people of Germanic descent, rich in German history, replete with German culture, and inhabited by people who speak German as their first (or only) language. Germany is clearly a nation and fits the definition.

The same goes for France, England, America, China, Russia, Japan, and many other states around the world. Nations with proud histories and defined cultures.

But, dear reader, South Africa does not fit this definition. We are not a nation. South Africa has 11 official languages and even more cultural tribes than that. South Africans largely do not share ancestry either.

Try telling your Xhosa friend that there is no difference between them and your Zulu mate. Or your Afrikaans colleague that he’s of the same people as the English guy in the other office. Different cultures with different histories, different beliefs, different religions, and different languages. South Africa is, frankly, not a nation at all.

So how did we come to be called South Africa under a single flag? Simple. The British crown colonized this geographic region and unified all the different warring tribes under a single country, purely because it would make it easier to siphon diamonds and gold from the inland to the coast if there were no borders in between. That way the crown could export all the natural resources from here to there with maximum ease.

South Africa is the result of colonial bureaucracy. Nothing more. And this isn’t unique to South Africa either. It’s basically the story of almost every other African country. All that changes are the people and the European nation in power. But basically all African countries have borders that cut through cultural lines and force tribes who were once bitter enemies to see each other as countrymen. Is it any wonder that internal conflict is so rife within African countries?

What further exacerbated the situation in South Africa was that after the British decided to grant its colonies independence, it gave ruling authority to a single tribe, the Afrikaners.

Instead of allowing the different tribes or peoples to form their own nations within the region, they kept the artificial borders and handed full control to a single group (and a minority one at that). It is hardly any wonder that South Africa ended up with an apartheid system in this context.

So do we just shrug our shoulders and move on? An honest look at the country’s current political and socio-economic climate will tell you that this isn’t really a viable option. Some say we’re a “multicultural society” - that we live together in peace and harmony despite our troubled past and how the country was birthed.

This is, frankly, a delusion. We do not live amongst each other so much as we live beside each other. There is very little cultural overlap in this country. People tend to stick in their cultural groups. Indians associate primarily with Indians. Xhosa people primarily with fellow Xhosa people. Afrikaners primarily with other Afrikaners.

It’s less a melting pot and more a vinegrette of oil and water. Sometimes you will see bubbles of oil bobbing down below the meniscus, but for the most part the two stay separate in the same container.

But don’t get me wrong- this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Cultures are meant to be celebrated. Meant to be preserved and lived by its people. If we force cultures to intermingle, they lose what made them valuable in the first place. They lose their unique identity and become a homogenous, grey sludge. There is beauty in every culture and it must be preserved.

But this delicate balance is at risk in a country which is on the brink of collapse. With astronomical unemployment, skyrocketing murder rates, crime through the roof, a porous border, and complete governmental failure, what is our saving grace?

I posit that there is one way to save the people in what we now call the country of South Africa: to let every cultural group or tribe that can govern itself, do so. Let each group or tribe have their say over what happens to its people. Does the Zulu kingdom not deserve the right to be autonomous? Do the Indians not have a right to self-determination? Does the Boer not have the right to form an independent state where they can rule themselves and leave the other groups to their own devices?

South Africa is an illusion. It doesn’t exist. Not truly. It should be broken up into those groups who can decide their own destiny and rule themselves. Where common security and trade can be achieved in a peaceful, negotiated manner, it should be. But cultural leaders can decide to pursue policies that best benefit their own people in accordance with local custom. Why should a bureaucrat in Pretoria decide the fate of a family in Saldanha bay? They should be given the right to decide for themselves.

This will not be easy. This will not be quick. But over the long run, it is the best solution. Naturally it is not practical to immediately split the country down cultural groupings - we have no experience or ready-made plan for how to do this peacefully yet.

But an effective step in the right direction would be to first allow the provinces to become their own autonomous countries. Let Kwazulu-Natal have its autonomy. Let the Cape of Good Hope become its own country. Allow Gauteng to pursue its own destiny. Perhaps in a few decades, we could take it a step further. Or perhaps the provinces could become well-governed enough that further separation is not necessary.

But we will not know these limits until we test them - and unification has been tested, and found wanting.

Some naysayers will decry this as a step toward anarchy. They will say that it can never work. They will shout that there will be civil unrest and carnage in the streets. I simply ask this: what alternative do we have? Is our current situation any better? Have the people not suffered enough under the stranglehold of this centralized, and failing state? Have we not proven that no matter what the demographics of government in this country, the people will always suffer under its boot?

With the direction the country is going, is it any wonder that there are those who shout for their God-given right to self-determination? If I must suffer, why can I not at least suffer at my own hand instead of that of a corrupt cadre? Can I not face hardship under my own volition instead of the will of a fat-cat comrade?

South Africa is not a nation-state, but a state prison for nations. It is time that we allow ourselves to be free. It is time that we look to a new way of determining our own destiny.

It is time for independence.

‍