![The market-builder who restrained the market [Part 2]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/PHOTO-2026-08-25-17-16-32-360x180.jpg)
![The merchant preceding the Prophetic mission [Part 1]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/01-360x180.jpg)
DR FATIMA HENDRICKS writes that the existence of a separatist ideology and movements in the Western Cape points to deeper societal issues of race and class.
THE Cape Independence Party, formerly known as the Cape Party, was founded in 2007 and officially registered as a political party in South Africa in 2008.
The Cape Independence Party’s push for secession from South Africa poses a concerning trend. This separatist movement, drawing parallels to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union through its ‘CapeXit’ moniker, is one of several groups actively campaigning for the Western Cape region to secede and become an independent state in the lead-up to the upcoming national and provincial elections on May 29.
While a sense of regional pride and celebrating a region’s distinctive strengths are not inherently problematic, the underlying motivations and racial dynamics of the ‘CapeXit’ movement are deeply concerning. The racial undertones and exclusionary nature of the ‘CapeXit’ agenda raise significant alarm bells. By advocating for the Western Cape to break away from the rest of South Africa, the movement appears to be driven by a desire to maintain racial and socioeconomic divides rather than fostering true unity and equality across the nation. This separatist vision threatens to deepen existing societal fractures and undermine the progress made towards reconciliation and social cohesion post 1994.
Despite the party’s rhetoric and demands, analysts recognise that their cause is likely to remain a mere pipedream given their small size and lack of widespread support. However, a poll by Victory Research on behalf of the Cape Independence Advocacy Group (CIAG) indicates that 58.4 percent of respondents support the idea of Cape independence, while an even larger proportion, amounting to over two-thirds (68.0 percent) of those surveyed are in favour of holding a referendum on the issue. If the findings are accurate, these figures suggest a growing groundswell of support for the secessionist movement within the Western Cape region, which could have significant political implications if the trend continues. Notably, the very existence of such separatist ideology and movements points to a deeper undercurrent of frustration within the Western Cape with the central government and points to deeper societal issues of race and class. Dissatisfaction with the national government is expected to manifest in increasingly vocal calls for greater devolution of power and autonomy for the province, reflecting a growing sentiment that the region’s needs and challenges are not being adequately addressed.
However, the call for an independent state is much more concerning than frustrations and speaks to the Cape Independence Party’s approach to driving change. By pursuing a separatist agenda, the party risks undermining the vital efforts to contest state power and enact meaningful reforms from within the existing political system. This strategy may cater to a narrow, predominantly white support base, rather than truly representing the diverse population of the Cape region. The call for Cape independence appears to be driven by underlying racial biases and an intent to isolate the region from the broader national context. This divisive agenda stands in stark opposition to the fundamental principles of a non-racial, unified South Africa that the country has strived to uphold. The actions and rhetoric espoused by the Cape Independence Party pose a concern about the social cohesion and fabric of South Africa, potentially undermining the hard-fought progress made towards a more just and equitable society.
Such an exclusionary agenda raises troubling questions about the party’s commitment to inclusivity and its potential to exacerbate the very racial tensions and inequalities that plague the country. Instead of pursuing a divisive breakaway, the party would be better served by focusing its energy on working within the current political framework to champion policies and initiatives that address the deep-seated socioeconomic challenges facing the region in a more inclusive and equitable manner.
You may also want to read
According to their manifesto, the party is calling for immediate negotiations with the African National Congress (ANC)-controlled South African government to address the long-standing political, social, and economic oppression that they claim has been imposed on the Cape region and its people. The party contends that granting the provinces greater autonomy over economic, social, and political matters would provide much-needed relief for the people of the Cape, who currently suffer from a daily barrage of ‘persecution’ and oppression. By decentralising power and allowing the provincial government to have more control over local affairs, the party argues that the daily hardships and injustices experienced by the Cape’s residents could be effectively addressed and mitigated. This stance reflects a belief that the centralised authority has been ineffective or unwilling to adequately protect the rights and wellbeing of the Cape’s populace, necessitating a shift towards a more federalised system that empowers the provinces to govern themselves and respond more directly to the needs of their constituents.
According to the Cape Independence Party website, if fair negotiations are not possible, the party states that they will pursue all legal and peaceful means to bring about greater autonomy for the Cape, or potentially even complete independence and the establishment of a sovereign Cape Republic. The party’s assertion that a majority vote in an election within the Cape territory would constitute an official mandate from the people to hold a referendum to declare the Cape an independent country is a bold and potentially problematic claim. The idea of unilaterally declaring independence based on a regional election result, without broader national consensus or constitutional mechanisms, would raise significant legal and political concerns. Furthermore, the party’s vision of an independent Cape state governed by a system of direct democracy, while potentially appealing in its ideals of mutual respect, peace, and prosperity, may oversimplify the complex realities and challenges of establishing a viable, sustainable nation-state. Such a radical departure from the existing political and territorial order would likely face formidable opposition and obstacles, both domestically and internationally.
The proposed definition of the borders for the new country is overly imaginative. The very notion of carving up South Africa in this manner is deeply troubling and evokes a sense of pain and unease among the country’s citizens. Such a divisive and potentially destabilising proposal lacks serious sociopolitical thought. For example, issues of border demarcation or criteria for citizenship of the new country of the Cape of Good Hope are quandaries.
The Democratic Alliance (DA), the official opposition party in South Africa, has been actively advocating for increased federal autonomy for the Western Cape province, rather than pursuing a complete separation from the national government. The party has introduced a provincial bill that seeks to devolve more powers to the Western Cape administration, a move that has drawn significant criticism and backlash from the ruling ANC party. The ANC has labelled the DA’s proposed legislation as unconstitutional, sparking a heated debate over the balance of power and the appropriate level of provincial autonomy within the country’s political framework.
The DA’s recent moves to forge coalition agreements with various political parties across the country have sparked a contentious debate over the balance of power between the national and provincial governments in South Africa. The DA has argued that a more federalist approach to governance would be logical given the country’s diversity. However, this push for greater decentralisation is viewed by some as a challenge to the long-standing dominance of the ANC at the national level. The ongoing debate over the appropriate distribution of power and decision-making authority between the national and provincial governments has become a highly politicised issue. The public hearings on the Western Cape bill, which aims to grant the province more autonomy, served as a crucial battleground in this struggle for the future of South Africa’s political landscape. Critics contend that the DA’s actions represent an attempt to undermine the ANC’s national influence and consolidate power at the provincial level. This contentious debate highlights the fundamental tensions between those who advocate for a more centralised, unitary system of governance and those who favour a more decentralised, federalist approach. As the DA continues to forge these coalition agreements, it is reasonable to expect that similar bids for increased provincial autonomy may emerge in other regions as well, further intensifying the political discourse surrounding the appropriate balance of power in South Africa.
The continued presence of remnant ideologies and discriminatory practices reminiscent of the oppressive apartheid era raises serious concerns and warrants critical examination. Despite the official abolition of apartheid, there are troubling indications that certain elements or structures from the colonial and apartheid periods are still being perpetuated, even if in more subtle or indirect ways, the very forms of inequality and injustice that the post-apartheid society aimed to overcome. This lingering vestige of the past suggests that the ideals of a truly equitable, post-apartheid society have not been fully realised, and that more progress is needed to confront and dismantle the divisive legacy of that oppressive system. The possibility that apartheid-like actions or ideologies are still being enabled, even if in less overt forms, is a deeply troubling prospect that demands rigorous scrutiny and concerted efforts to achieve the transformative change envisioned in the post-apartheid era.
Policymakers, civic leaders and community organisers must prioritise addressing these concerning issues and promote increased genuine national dialogue. The pursuit of Cape independence, while potentially driven by legitimate concerns of South Africans, carries the risk of exacerbating existing societal divisions and undermining South Africa’s democratic ideals. Unity and cohesion are vital for the country’s long-term stability and progress, and the fragmentation of the nation through secessionist movements could have far-reaching consequences. Proponents of Cape independence must carefully consider the potential ramifications of their actions and the delicate balance required to address regional needs while preserving the nation’s democratic foundations and social fabric. Divisive political agendas that prioritise narrow interests over the broader national good threaten to unravel the hard-won progress made in South Africa’s transition to a just and equitable society.
- Dr Fatima Hendricks is an independent researcher.
