A party that fancies itself the natural home of all who wish to preserve and protect their historical identity and cultural heritage. This as per its mission: to represent communities in advocating for their rights to self-determination and identity/cultural expression as minorities in the sense of being locally situated groups of people (I assume). To this end, the target beneficiary of much of the work this party has done over the years seems to be the Afrikaner community; seeing that its own identity as a political organization is, first-and-foremost, Afrikaner. Its untranslated thus pure hence correct name is Vryheidsfront Plus: the Afrikaans translation of “Freedom Front Plus” and its 2019 Election Manifesto, when downloaded, is written only in the Afrikaans language (it’s also available in English when read online). The use of English in its communications is as a way of communicating only with those that seem to be ‘outsiders’; that is, those who don’t share in the identity and culture of and thus don’t belong in its Afrikaner community.
The FF+ goes further than the ATM but less so compared to Al Jama-ah in establishing its position, politically, and the agenda behind its endeavours. Blatantly speaking, it is a Movement founded to further/progress the interests of the Afrikaner community which, at base level, entail protection and preservation and, at a higher level, entail prosperity and maybe supremacy? However, I don’t like that they attempt to hide this agenda behind the fact that their work, such as their contribution to the drafting of the new South African constitution (for which we should all be grateful), safeguards the minority rights of other communities as well, by masquerading as representatives of all communities that want what Afrikaners want. They are not the natural home of any other community except Afrikaners since what they want is the separation of communities culturally, i.e. in every way – most notably based on language. Considering this, my concern is their demand for self-determination, not in principle but “territorially or otherwise”. I’m not sure how to read this statement without imagining them conquering new territories. This fear is not far-fetched considering their mission is to turn each community into what amounts to its own little country. This relates to land reform in a manner similar to the ATM and Al Jamah-ah: imagine a government that openly professes to represent, primarily, the interests of one community above all others.
Case-in-point is their complete disregard of the restitution and redistribution of land without compensation: they prefer that, concerning restitution, land be expropriated with compensation and that the willing-buyer-willing-seller principle be applied to redistribution efforts. A “let’s just look only to the future” approach that seeks to dodge the consequences, both systemic and cultural, of the past. What they are recommending is that economically underprivileged, landless citizens pay for land considered historically theirs by rite. What rite, you ask? A rite materialized by the fact that the underprivileged status of many (if not all) in our country has its root cause in the history of discrimination officially designed to oppress by establishing dependence via stunting independent development. The beneficiaries of such a scenario, being primarily Afrikaners, now – want those previously an underclass and now simply underprivileged, to compete in the South African economy on equal terms. A blatant denial of the benefits thus advantages accrued over time they enjoy today which would more likely maintain their ‘superiority’ economically albeit unfairly.
Simply speaking – “do not take back that which we took from you while we oppressed you” is what they’re saying, citing constitutionality and, funnily enough – Afrikaners’ rite to Africa as also sons and daughters “of the soil”. C. T. Verwey, in his 2008 thesis titled: “‘Jy weet, jy kan jouself vandag in k*kstraat vind deur jouself ‘n Afrikaner te noem…’ (‘You know, you can find yourself in sh*tstreet by calling yourself an Afrikaner today…’): Afrikaner identity in post-apartheid South Africa” in which he interviewed several current-day Afrikaner youths on their perspectives on Afrikaner identity and culture in a new democratic South Africa found that, among other things, the culture may be experiencing somewhat of a cognitive dissonance. An internal struggle for the re/establishment of a new identity between the Afrikaner nationalism-influenced idea of themselves as both separate from and superior to Africa hence Africans and a second idea based on the view that South Africa, under Apartheid, was not ‘part’ of Africa and is thus being ‘Africanized’ by black politics under democracy – an idea that the country’s destiny is to be formed in their image – to be upgraded to a purer form of African-ness – a whiter form which, by having been born in Africa, Afrikaners represent.
Verwey’s thesis shows me that Afrikaners are unable to provide a compelling justification for their condemnation of Apartheid. This leaves only the fact that, under democracy, society at large expects of them that condemnation. Therefore, I argue that the condemnation they exhibit is merely window dressing meant to cover up their enduring disgust of both Africa and Africans and an aspiration to ‘overcome’ it. The abovementioned ‘let’s just look forward to the future’ approach signifies this lack of remorse – that they see nothing wrong with how their kind came to acquire land during that time.
Verwey identified two final options for Afrikaners living in a democratic and black South Africa:
- Either emigrate and avoid being ‘swaddled up’ by Africanness, or
- Stay and adapt under duress and have Afrikaner identity assimilated by blackness
By the looks of it, the FF+ and its constituency have chosen the third option: stay and emigrate at the same time. Carve out an even smaller piece of Africa, in Africa, then separate it from Africa; effectively de-Africanizing that carved-out portion. A continuation of the same mission that failed under Afrikaner Nationalism’s Apartheid but on a smaller scale. Considering this party as one of their representatives, Afrikaner’s claim to African-ness is one focused on their access to the continent’s resources (in this case, land) to the exclusion of their relations with its native peoples culturally. It relies on South Africa’s constitutional and legal backing, as shown by their advocating that expropriation powers be removed from the Minister of Land Affairs and granted to the High Court but lacks credibility in the court of public opinion due to a lack of buy-in primarily from black Africans. I believe there is a strong sense, among Africans, that the chickens have not yet come to roost for the Afrikaner, his karmic debt is yet to be fully paid. It is in this sense that their claim to a rite of access to African land, whether legally /constitutionally backed, is rightfully challenged and it is my opinion that farm murders, with most victims being white Afrikaners, could be argued as an example of said challenge.
Considering that in many farm-murder cases, the goal seems not to have ever been to take over and run the farms; the victims are not only murdered but done so horrendously and in a manner that one could say expresses resentment and a hatred that could only be a projection of deep trauma. The Violence Policy Centre’s (VPC) 2017 study on the relationship between community violence and learning, health and behaviour defined trauma as the result of directly experiencing or witnessing violence that is sustained over a period. This study provides an overview on how trauma leads individuals affected to develop a habitual fear of violence that stunts learning, health and community-building social behaviour. Individuals with trauma and its resulting growth deficits may pass it on to their offspring by having their offspring exposed to their destructive social behaviours:
“Examples of abuse include physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; neglect can include both physical and emotional neglect; while household dysfunction can involve experiences such as an incarcerated parent, witnessing domestic violence, growing up with substance abuse, mental illness, parental discord, or crime in the home.”
– VPC, 2017. The Relationship Between Community Violence and Learning, Health and Behaviour: How Violence Affects Learning, Health and Behaviour
This marks the beginning of a vicious cycle in which perpetual dysfunctional behaviour resulting from the direct experience or witnessing of sustained violence establishes a relentless chronic-stress environment that is passed on from one generation to the next. Childhoods experienced under these conditions are called ‘adverse’ for their role in producing growth-deficient adults who, alongside the same dysfunctional behaviours, exhibit detrimental changes in the way they navigate and engage with the world. Viewing their world through a prism of fear, violence-induced toxic-stress sufferers struggle to form trusting relationships as they prioritize their sense of security above all else thus, they are more likely to exhibit aggressive/criminal behaviour, I would argue, in part to pre-empt the ‘imagined’ ill-intentions of their fellows.
Now, imagine a community full of people who view one another as threats; for what is crime if not a strike against perceived would-be aggressors? A pre-emptive attack borne out of the sense of insecurity developed by perpetrators who deem their acts as merely those of competition against their ‘rivals’. What is a rival if not your opposite? And what is the opposite of a criminal? The abovementioned VPC study defined community violence as sustained violence in public areas by those not intimately related to the victim; they consider it as both a trauma: in the effects of has on those directly or indirectly exposed to it, and a dimension of trauma: for it is also functions as an environment conducive to trauma. Then, consider that the violence expressed by these perpetrators has a long history embedded in that of South Africa; Colonialism then Apartheid – the white race’s legacy of committing community violence on black Africans. The vicious cycle turning since then, gestating a culture of dysfunctional behaviour on all dimensions of the community (individual, family, neighbourhood and community) coupled with resentment targeted at an identifiable co-culprit – farm murders, which seem to me as mainly racially motivated, are not an unreasonable result to behold.
The party’s use of both economic and judicial principles to argue against expropriation without compensation undermines the damage their kind/culture have caused to Africans’ communal thus cultural psyche and collective identity. South Africa’s future can be made bright only by all stakeholders working together; that is, all racial groups banding as one to build a political environment conducive to a prosperous economy. For Afrikaners to earn their place in Africa, and maybe even retain their cultural nationalism, they must appease the pain of our hearts and souls they’ve broken by, in turn, suffering a commensurate loss. A willing sacrifice exemplifying undeniable evidence of their change of heart going forward. This means forming relationships between their culture and those of historical African natives based on historically fundamental truths. One is that between black Africans, Afrikaners and whites in general: they invaded, exploited and benefited; a truth that must be adequately addressed. However, Afrikaner nationalism, that is, their desire to be separate from the rest of us borne out of a sense of racial and cultural superiority is what will prevent them from ever doing this.
Next is their trivializing of the advantage their possession of land has granted them:
“The myth that land ownership in itself creates wealth is rejected by the FF Plus.”
– FF+ 2019 Manifesto
This statement is technically correct: nothing owned is intrinsically valuable; value lies only in the usefulness of an item’s features and the degree of usefulness is itself a relative judgement. Even so, we as humans inevitably gravitate to establishing routines, not only in the doing of things but also in the thinking of them, to make more efficient our functioning on this planet. Our system of trade, for instance, endeavours to price all products, services and variables to make routine, thus more efficient, individuals’ consideration to and activity in trading them. In this sense, taking some relevant variables into account, the value of land has been established by our trade system and, depending on that value, a given land’s intrinsic ability to generate wealth. Therefore, depending on its value, the very ownership of land may intrinsically generate wealth; for that land, in being that valuable, becomes, itself, that value hence by extension – that wealth.
Chapter 9 of the Eurostat-OECD Compilation guide on land estimations wherein the value of land and the dwellings on it are analysed in relation to household’s wealth and the importance of that wealth as considered in macroeconomic analysis and policymaking considers wealth as all resources (financial and non-financial) at the disposal of, in this case, a household. Land, as a non-financial asset, and the dwellings built on it is identified as a component of that wealth in that it may function as a store of value for the household. This expansion of asset coverage came about as part of the reaction to the aftermath of the 2007/8 financial crisis; a reaction summarized by the Stiglitz/Sen/Fitoussi Report which advocated for strengthening the availability of statistical data for the improved assessment of economic-growth sustainability. To action said directive, the report recommended that income and consumption data used to assess living standards be correlated to data on non-financial asset wealth as this provides a better idea of a household’s net worth.
According to the Eurostat-OECD Compilation guide, the 2007/8 financial crisis demonstrated a positive correlation between the value attributed to a household’s non-financial assets by the market and that households’ ability to spend /consume. Citing access to more/fewer consumption options for the household based on corresponding non-financial asset value. Simply speaking, the lower the value of a household’s land and dwellings, the lower that household’s standard of living.
“… past or expected high price increases of housing may alter households’ investment behaviour, the allocation of financial and non‑financial investment and households’ indebtedness. As a result of a sudden decline in property prices, households’ balance sheets and thus wealth deteriorate, which may alter their consumption behaviour, which, in certain circumstances, can lead to macroeconomic instability.”
– The Value of Land and Its Contribution to Wealth, 2015. In Eurostat-OECD Compilation guide on land estimations.
Trivializing the value of owning land and its relationship to wealth, i.e. people’s living standards is another disingenuous ploy by the FF+ simply to serve as their propaganda in diluting the legacy of past atrocities. All in the name of avoiding having their cultural kind pay the full price, the commensurate loss, for their past transgressions. Consider the following quote:
“The FF+ agrees that some people with abundant potential have never reached their full potential due to defects in the systems. Such people should be actively assisted but without prejudice to other people. However, enforcing racial quotas is a multiple injustice “
– FF+ 2019 Manifesto
This statement makes sense, that is, in blaming the shortcomings of socio-economic infrastructure for inequalities resulting from weak social cohesion; especially if one is referring to our country’s governance post 94. However, there is no mention of the ongoing previously mentioned historical system set in motion during our country’s past, the vicious cycle of both self-harm and of that of others by African blacks. The party does not include this system, I argue, because of its obvious link to Afrikaners’ legacy and its role in encouraging the thinking behind affirmative action initiatives. ‘People currently entrapped within this system must be “actively assisted” but without prejudice to “other people”,’ so says the party. Considering the motivation behind said initiatives here in South Africa: to re-advantage those disadvantaged based solely on their race under previous regimes before 94, this part of the statement reads to me as: ‘fix our problems without holding those responsible accountable’ or ‘build the future without addressing the past’.
It is consoling to read that the FF+ is prepared to work with those of other cultures in its attempt at a solution for a better South Africa. This, because I surely hope their cultural kind (Afrikaners) never again solely taste the kind of power that now leads to their ultimate humility. The FF+ is a party I’d recommend to Afrikaners; it is to them, I believe, what was once the ANC to black Africans. Not that their circumstances are the same, but in that, like the FF+, the ANC once shared a fervent passion for the wellbeing of their respective people. However, from the sources used in this take on the party, it is clear to me that Afrikaners will no capacity to love their fellow man. Then, their hate was openly attached to race, now it is diplomatically hidden behind cultural differences. They are resentful to fate for their current political position but are, unknowingly, kept arrogant, by their superior economic one. Black Africans do not need Afrikaners or their commensurate loss to escape their vicious cycle; but, if South Africa is to have a future inclusive of all, politically, socially and economically – all races inclusive of Afrikaners will have to come to the party. Tickets are available to attend for which the price for Afrikaners is a commensurate loss as a willing sacrifice.
Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) Report
National Freedom Party (NFP) Report
