South Africa faces a difficult decision due to a series of demands from US President Donald Trump to restore SA-US trade relations. The conditions set by the US challenge the core principles of the dominant post-apartheid transformation paradigm, which considers them essential to the liberation struggle. BEE and land restitution as national grievances are high on the agenda of post-liberation political commitments.
Failure or capitulation by the ANC to meet these two core demands essentially redefines it as a liberation movement. It would be hard to imagine ANC political rhetoric without referencing land and economic empowerment. The pursuit of land restitution and economic inclusion characterises the ANC's history. Its most threatening political opponents lie in wait to push these two issues as a programme.
Among the US demands, what has proven to be the most emotive and arguably the easiest to address to open avenues for engagement with the US is the ANC distancing itself from the Kill the Boer song and declaring farm killings a priority crime. The concept of Kill the Boer and its unfortunate association with farm killings can no longer be argued away from its hate crime vortex of criminality. For whatever reason, the farm killing numbers demand unconditional attention to the crime.
The demand for the ANC to be unequivocal about Kill the Boer is considered in Afrikaner circles as the point of departure in acknowledging them as having a legitimate stake to be considered indigenous. There is an understanding of land claims where evidence of untoward dispossession resulting from an already globally criminalised public policy process, apartheid. The demand calls for expropriation, for public interest or otherwise, to be the last step of any process after compensation at fair market value has been fully exhausted.
If it does not respond to these demands, South Africa faces a general 30% tariff increase, a zero rate on raw minerals and a potential 10% if it does not meet the Brics-related conditions. This will have dire consequences on an economy that is in intensive care.
It is not enough to push for wholesale transformation that does not recognise the need to carry everyone along.
The US demands can arguably be characterised as “colonial centring”, which refers to prioritising or uplifting colonialism's gains over the imperatives of decolonisation. This recent stance permeates US foreign policy and international trade relations. It is a reality that stands toe-to-toe with SA's transformation resolve. The sovereign interpretation of its constitution is under pressure from the US’s interpretation of it, based on its international trade interests in the context of Trump.
The South African constitutional and democratic order, which has essentially been about decentring colonialism and apartheid, is forced to recognise how the international systems perpetuate colonialism and apartheid. There are glaring signs of the global international system and order being undermined to underscore this new reality. Land restitution will not be allowed to thrive when a new dispossession drive is being consolidated, including by allies of the democratic order.
To the extent that centring colonialism applies to South Africa, and considering that a political settlement and accord have taken place, decentring would require serious and legally enforceable measures. Beyond the technical correctness of what the constitutional order provides, there should be compassionate listening to each other on straightforward issues, such as the unconditional ban of Kill the Boer and declaring farm murders a national priority crime. Decentring colonialism and apartheid starts with a Madiba-type humility. It is not enough to push for wholesale transformation that does not recognise the need to carry everyone along.
It should not be assumed that South Africans share a common understanding of the past “injustices”; the country must recognise and heal the divisions. The recognise-admit-take responsibility continuum that characterises most decentring endeavours would have resolved a stalemate if followed to the end. A national dialogue facilitates a common understanding and appreciation of recognising past injustices.
As August 1 approaches and the reality of US tariffs hits the South African economy, it would be prudent to ask if this could have been avoided. Without the benefit of a post-August 1 2025 experience, whose impact might reach the man in the street six or 10 months later, we the people are grossly less informed about what is happening. As citizens, we are tethered to a political rhetoric of a divided GNU expected to drive national and international relations and co-operation policy. National interest in South Africa is still a party political matter; we might still be a nation-state without a nation.
The fierce succession battles within the majority party of the governing coalition make us, as a society, fastened to the words of emotionally overwrought, mercurial and unpredictable political leadership. We might be dealing with a context where everything about South Africa-US relations is seen in the context of the impact this will have on individual political parties, and never about South Africa.
• Dr FM Lucky Mathebula is head of faculty, people management, and founder of The Thinc Foundation, a think-tank at the Da Vinci Institute
For opinion and analysis consideration, email opinions@timeslive.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.