![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)
What South Africa requires is not a binary choice between two-stage reformism and permanent revolution, but a synthesis—a pragmatic, inclusive and strategic framework that integrates the strengths of both traditions.
By MPHUTLANE WA BOFELO
South Africa’s post-apartheid journey has been shaped by a persistent tension between competing approaches to societal transformation.
The two-stage theory—which prioritised national liberation as a precursor to socialism, deferring the latter to a future phase—was championed by the Congress Movement (anchored by the ANC, SACP and COSATU). This framework guided the negotiated transition of the 1990s and emphasised reconciliation, constitutionalism and institutional reform. While it delivered political rights and formal democracy, it left the economic architecture of apartheid largely intact.
In contrast, the Azanian political tendency—rooted in Pan-Africanism, Black Consciousness, Trotskyism and more recently, radical intellectual currents—rejects the two-stage theory entirely. It advocates uninterrupted revolution and total liberation from colonial and capitalist domination. Azanian thought centres on Black radical humanism, decolonisation and the restoration of African sovereignty. From this perspective, the 1994 settlement is not viewed as a triumph but rather as a neo-colonial compromise that transferred political power without delivering economic justice.
These two traditions—Congress reformism and Azanian radicalism—have long shaped South Africa’s political imagination. Yet both have struggled to deliver the depth of transformation that millions envisioned. The Congress Movement’s incrementalism has often resulted in managing inequality rather than dismantling it. Meanwhile, the Azanian tendency’s revolutionary fervour, though morally compelling, has lacked the institutional grounding and strategic coherence necessary to build sustainable alternatives.
What South Africa requires is not a binary choice between two-stage reformism and permanent revolution, but a synthesis—a pragmatic, inclusive and strategic framework that integrates the strengths of both traditions. This calls for a holistic praxis centred on deep contemplation of values, context and purpose. It must be grounded in engaged practice that responds to real-world needs, bridging political, intellectual and physical dimensions, and aimed at healing, justice and systemic change.
A holistic praxis matters because it goes beyond symptoms to address root causes, fosters resilience and empowerment, builds sustainable and compassionate communities, and draws from diverse ideological lineages while responding to the complexities of contemporary governance and development.
Such a praxis, fusing the insights of two-stage theory and permanent revolution, should integrate revolutionary strategy with a multidimensional framework of liberation. It must draw from Marxist, critical, structuralist, agency-based, humanist and decolonial traditions to address both systemic transformation and lived experience.
This synthesis recognises material conditions and class dynamics while embracing the agency and revolutionary potential of the oppressed.
• Critical theory helps expose ideological domination and promote emancipatory knowledge. Structuralism provides deep analysis of sociopolitical, economic, cultural and linguistic systems that shape social relations.
• Agency theory centres human action within structural constraints.
• Marxism offers the economic and class foundations of revolutionary change.
• Humanism grounds praxis in dignity, ethics and the full development of human beings.
• Decolonial thought challenges Eurocentric epistemologies and foregrounds Indigenous, African and Global South perspectives.
There are three key implications of this approach. First, holistic praxis eschews linear developmental models in favour of multilayered transformation encompassing economic, cultural, spiritual and ecological concerns. Second, it centres the oppressed as agents of change, not passive recipients. Third, it integrates spiritual and cultural renewal with material struggles.
In practice, this can take the form of a theology that combines justice with spiritual healing and community empowerment; the use of critical pedagogy to decolonise curricula and empower student agency; the linking of grassroots mobilisation with systemic critique and global solidarity; and the blending of trauma-informed care with structural analysis and cultural reclamation.
This praxis enlists Rosa Luxemburg’s emphasis on the interaction between mass action and spontaneity, recognising that revolutionary consciousness must emerge organically through struggle. It incorporates Antonio Gramsci’s insights on cultural hegemony, acknowledging that transformation is not only material but also ideological. It recruits the Trotskyist strategy of the transitional programme to bridge immediate demands—such as basic income, land reform and climate justice—with long-term socialist objectives grounded in international solidarity.
It draws from the Marxist humanist tradition to centre human dignity and liberation, rejecting development models that reduce people to mere economic units. It deploys eco-socialist principles—vital in a country grappling with energy crises and environmental degradation—advocating a just transition to renewable energy and sustainable practices. It also taps into New Left perspectives to embrace identity politics and intersectionality, ensuring that development is inclusive of race, gender, sexuality and culture.
Importantly, the integrated approach emphasises ‘glocalisation’—empowering local communities to shape their futures while building global solidarity networks to confront transnational challenges. It promotes alternative economic models such as cooperatives and community-owned enterprises and calls for participatory governance in which grassroots voices shape policy.
This integrated approach does not dilute revolutionary intent; it deepens it. It recognises that transformation must be both visionary and strategic, rooted in the lived realities of those most affected by inequality and exclusion.
You may also want to read
South Africa’s future depends on transcending ideological silos and cultivating a transformative politics that speaks to the complexity of our moment. This kind of holistic praxis is not merely theoretical—it is a living, breathing commitment to justice, transformation and wholeness. It invites us to act boldly, reflect deeply and build futures that honour both the material and the spiritual.
Mphutlane wa Bofelo is a political theorist who focuses on the interface between politics, governance and development.
