It should be said at the outset that the DA and its official and unofficial spokesmen have not openly and directly endorsed the process of legal reform we are currently undergoing (see here for a full explanation of the Expropriation Act and the Land Courts Bill).

However, in the past two days, we have seen an almost uniform defence of the direction of progress, and a countersignalling of any critics of what is currently happening.

They can perhaps say they have a reasonable argument on their side, namely that we have a fragile political economy, and economic sanctions would be deeply destabilising.

But the character of their press releases and social media commentary, and that of many other liberals in the South African political system have not stopped at asking for moderation from the international community, but aggressively downplaying the seriousness of the situation we now find ourselves in.

Before anyone get too aggressive in anti-liberal sentiment, I must here acknowledge the excellent contributions to public discourse offered by the Free market Foundation and my friend Martin van Staden, who have been instrumental in the growing awareness of our situation abroad.

A weakness of character

The title of this article is in reference to a highly insightful article published in the Catholic journal First Things just over four years ago. The article describes the process by which Russian Liberal intelligentsia ended up defending the Bolsheviks and other terrorist organisations.

“…the liberals refused to use their position in the Duma to make constitutionalism work. They would not participate in determining the government budget but confined their activities to denouncing the government and defending terrorists. Even when Pyotr Stolypin, the most capable chief minister ­Nicholas II ever had, offered to enact the entire Kadet program, the Kadets refused to cooperate. Evidently their professed beliefs were less important than their emotional identification with radicalism, of whatever sort [...] Vorotyntsev [a character in a Solzhenitsyn’s novel November 1916] gives ground and holds his peace, “not because he felt he was wrong, but out of fear of saying something reactionary,” a word Solzhenitsyn italicizes to suggest that, in other cultures and periods, a different term of opprobrium will play the same role.”

One can easily see the parallels with the present Democratic Alliance - with the rare exception of characters like Ian Cameron and Michael Waters, the party has entirely given themselves over to PR management for the present regime.

As I covered before, the resistance to the BELA Act appears to have been little more than window dressing, as the DA’s Minister Siviwe Gwarube showed almost unbridled enthusiasm for the racialist language policy established by her predecessors, praised the ANC’s management of the education department, and behind closed doors, even celebrated the Act itself.

In the case of the NHI, they have been somewhat muted in their post-coalition response too.

But in the case of the recent property rights reforms (detailed here), they have become little more than PR managers. Asserting that the new Act is not a threat to property rights, but merely omits a few “sequencing requirements”, the DA hopes to prevent President Trump from applying any pressure to assist them in changing the direction of these reforms.

This is an enormous wasted opportunity - for months now, the DA and its defenders have complained of a lack of respect, and a lack of leverage in the coalition, the achieve the ends they desire. In the present conditions, welcoming Donald Trump’s attentions would surely be high on this list, even if (as I readily agree) economic sanctions would be a bad idea.

There is a great deal of smart pressure that can be brought to bear on the ruling party through American diplomatic muscle, even without resorting to harming our economy. Even a limited targeting and ostracism of ANC officials could go a long way, and make the DA the only legitimate gateway for foreign aid-and-trade negotiation, giving them enormous outsized leverage in the coalition, perhaps even decisive.

But they have refused.

The usual suspects have joined the chorus too, including the editorial staff of News24, NATO-funded activist researchers like Ryan Cummings, and US-funded news outlets like Daily Maverick and the Mail & Guardian, who receive funding and influence, both direct and indirect, from the CIA-affiliated foreign influence network operating with the National Endowment for Democracy.

It is striking that nobody brings up the Land Courts Bill, which is lying on the President’s desk, awaiting assent. Should that be passed and implemented, no possibility for defending one’s property will be possible within the law.

On the question of sanctions

I am particularly against the use of economic sanctions, because I have been looking at the financial indicators for housing ownership in South Africa. They no longer favour minorities, and economic uncertainty would almost certainly accelerate the process, even without the intervention of new property laws.

While the latest figures are not publicly available, by 2013, the balance of white- and black-owned shares in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange was roughly equal,85 with 23% being black-owned, 22% being white-owned, 16% unknown, and the remainder being foreign-owned.

According to the Helen Suzman Foundation’s analysis of the wealth inequality indicators from the 2011 census (unfortunately, such data is not publicly available from the 2022 census), the difference in median incomes is mostly explained by the vast increase in inequality within black South Africa, rather than a preservation of white dominance. There are also almost unrivalled levels of socio-economic mobility. The oft-repeated clichés here that BEE only benefits the connected, and of a “labour aristocracy” appear to bear out. We are seeing one of the greatest peacetime transfers of wealth in modern history.

According to economist Mike Schussler, by 2015, black ownership of South Africa’s primary residential market was perhaps “as much as 60%. This is up from 41.7% in 2009, where white ownership was at 43.8%, coloured ownership at 8.3% and Indian ownership at 6.2%. By 2015, black South Africans owned 52% of the value of houses in SA, while whites owned about 35%, with coloured and Indian ownership making up the difference.”

Statistics collated by economist Kyle Findlay in 2017 showed that black South Africans are more likely to own their property outright than any other race group (57%), while white South Africans are the least likely to own theirs (41%), suggesting a difference in the rate of full ownership vs mortgaged and rented properties.

This is a far cry from the days when 87% of all landed property and 95% of all capital was in the hands of the white minority.

An economic shock would almost certainly have a negative impact on the homeownership statistics in the white community ar more than in the black community.

As an analysis done by AfriForum showed in 2018, a quarter of all land by area is owned by the state, and 34% in private black ownership, much of it in the best and most fertile farming regions. Furthermore, it found that:

“The Restitution of Land Rights Act allowed […] claims for land of which they had been deprived [because of] forced removals. By the time the cut-off date was reached in 1998, about 80 000 land claims had been filed. The government was not satisfied and opened the process again in 2014, claiming that they believed that 400 000 land claims would be filed […] 57,8% of land claims were for urban land […and] 93% of those who had instituted land claims indicated […] that they would prefer to receive money as compensation [rather than land].”

Solidariteit has wisely asked the Americans to keep from severing preferential trade deals with South Africa, because of their obvious detrimental effect on the agricultural industry and the economy as a whole. Our community’s financial exposure makes us more vulnerable to economic shocks.

Where I differ is in the concern over USAID contributions - the seedy nature of the fund has recently been extensively exposed by figures like Mike Benz. While it says “HIV” on the label, the aid programme has been used extensively to promote left-wing causes around the world, and in South Africa, has supported some pernicious organisations, like Section27, who were aggressive lobbyists for the BELA Act and the NHI Act. We have enough funds here to cover what has been lost from overseas.

While the Movement is under heavy criticism from the liberal media, including regime mouthpieces like News24, they may be feeling a desire to defend their image. But those who will buy this dreck are not their supporters, and likely never will be. You only lose support when you bend too far to justify yourself..

Nobody at present has the discipline, capital or reach to replace the functions of Solidariteit in the time frame available to us, and any loss of support they suffer will not simply be theirs to lose, but everyone’s.

I am rather keen to see Solidariteit take a more proactive stance in preparing for the inevitable confrontations that are likely to occur should further land grabs and dispossessions occur, because panic is starting to settle in, and inaction and failure to prepare will likely result in a rapid loss of legitimacy, something the Movement can ill afford at this juncture.

I have confidence that they will reach the right decision.

Where does this leave us?

The loss of legitimacy the DA is facing over their mealy-mouthed defences of the Ramaphosa administration has undoubtedly affected their forecoming electoral performance.

With a leadership contest for control of the VF+, there is a non-zero chance of a departure from the GNU, which will likely eat into their support across the Cape and the northern metros.

This will likely revive pressure to hold a referendum on Cape independence, as well as more serious positions on cooperation with the Solidariteit movement and their future plans for assisting in political devolution.

Regardless of the impotence of minority representatives in hard Parliamentary power, their position in the system has a potent role to play in providing political cover for efforts to resist the current long-term political reforms, which are aimed at the eventual dispossession of the whole white population, and the ultimate effective disenfranchisement of all minorities.

The DA, as I mentioned above, has an extraordinary opportunity to gain leverage over the ANC and effectively dictate the pace of government in South Africa. Their refusal to grasp this opportunity demonstrates where their heart lies - they would rather become Zimbabwe than look “reactionary”.

They still have time to turn around if they can replace their leadership, but are more likely to be replaced by the left wing of the party, including Maimane-era factionalists like Dean McPherson and Andrew Whitfield, Fabian socialists like Leon Schreiber, and progressives like Geordin HIll-Lewis or Ahor Sarupen.

Unless they find a way to push Willie Aucamp, Ian Cameron, Cilliers Brink and Michael Waters to the top of the list, the party will likely continue to pursue left-wing policies that run strictly contrary to their constituents’ interests.

The media though, is an utter write-off.

‍