Trade union Solidarity’s myth of Afrikaner suppression exposed

The Afrikaner nationalist trade union’s visit to the United States has reignited debates about racial inequalities in our country.

Some commentators have invoked historical references and described it as the 21st century Great Trek. Trade union Solidarity has claimed that anti-white racism in post-apartheid South Africa informed its US visit. Leaders from this organisation cite racial redress legislation such as employment equity, broad-based black economic empowerment and land expropriation as key markers of ant-white or “reverse racism”.

Another argument articulated in the trade union’s policy advocacy is the emphasis on an Afrikaner economic empowerment model based on self-reliance, cultural-based collective work ethic, meritocracy and solidarity. This historical account is used to push back against any form of state intervention supporting socio-economic racial redress in the contemporary era.

In simple terms: Solidarity claims that 20th century Afrikaner economic empowerment was not supported by government intervention or any racialised socio-economic redress legislation. The political economy archives and researched policy evidence challenges this belief in several ways.

First, the apartheid state played a significant role in addressing long-standing socio-economic grievances articulated by Afrikaner nationalists when challenging British domination in the political economy. Professor Sampie Terreblanche explains that this government used quotas, selective procurement, import controls and industrial policy to advance an Afrikaner economic empowerment deal. In addition, state-owned enterprises were mandated to create job opportunities for the Afrikaner working class and allow selected companies enhanced access to state contracts. These interventionist measures challenge the narrative presented by Solidarity about Afrikaner economy history in South Africa.

Second, Dan O’Meara’s classic book, Volkskapitalisme, succinctly describes how Afrikaner working and capitalist class formation developed on the back of systemic appropriation of land and other natural resources. This point is salient for ongoing public policy debates about land reform and its relation to South Africa’s agrarian political economy.

Racial redress interventions such as land expropriation and redistribution are essential for transforming the country’s persistent racialised inequalities across the agro-food system. Yet Solidarity and other conservative groups suggest that these measures are market distortions and infringe on the economic liberties of white South Africans. This is astonishing because the empirical evidence proves that racialised redress was essential in uplifting the Afrikaner population’s development throughout the 20th century.

Third, labour market policy interventions in both private and public sectors assisted Afrikaners to obtain better wages and employment security. Political economy and labour studies literature sources illuminate this point across different industries in the 20th century. Professor Bernard Magubane’s work on the making of the racist state provides examples such as labour laws, job reservation policies and employee migration controls.

All these measures supported the creation of racialised hierarchies in labour markets, which privileged the interests of the Afrikaner working class. Additionally, the apartheid state developed one of the most extensive social protection programmes that included heavily subsidised housing, national health insurance and retirement savings. These programmes were linked with a racialised public service and goods provision system aimed at empowering Afrikaners.

Solidarity’s arguments about anti-white racism are based on economic history erasure. The trade union’s constituencies benefited from racialised industrial, labour and social policy market interventions. This call for no race-based socio-economic redress fortifies unequal race relations in South Africa. It draws on neo-liberal market fundamentalist principles such as liberalisation, privatisation and minimal state regulation. Solidarity weaponises these principles to impede government-led structural interventions aimed at obliterating racialised capitalism in South Africa.

The economic history erasure serves two fundamental purposes: overlooking historic socio-economic appropriation and delegitimising claims for socio-economic redress.

Dr Khwezi Mabasa is a part-time sociology lecturer at the University of Pretoria and Economic and Social Policy lead at Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung South Africa.