Solidariteit and the dilemma of self-governance

Here we confront a turning point in the history of the non-state governance of Afrikaner interests. This sentence could not have even been spoken 20 years ago, a powerful testament to the achievements of the Solidariteit Movement broadly, and to Flip Buys’s leadership in particular.

But it has come to a fork in the road – the conditions 20 years ago, the environment in which the Movement was founded and grew in, have changed, and new and troubling limitations have emerged. There is a way out, and a way forward, without deviating from the principles of the Movement, but they require careful thought and bold action.

The movement

The Solidariteit Movement has accomplished something extraordinary in post-1994 South Africa: it has built a comprehensive network of parallel institutions that provide real material security and cultural continuity for Afrikaners in an increasingly hostile environment.

From trade unions and legal defence organisations to educational institutions, financial services, and community support structures, Solidariteit has used the axiom Grondwette omskep nie die werklikheid nie, die werklikheid omskep grondwette to guide a legally compliantsystem of resilience and moderate autonomy into practical reality. By focusing on material conditions first, the movement has created durable, state-resistant assets that no constitution alone could guarantee.

Notable achievements include the establishment of world class technical college SolTech, the acquisition and development of an independent university at a cost of R3 billion, the growth of rural and urban security through AfriForum, poverty relief through Helpende Hand, and an emerging insurance product through Virseker. They have even spawned the excellent business representative organisation Sakeliga, whose successes are touted at length in this edition.

These institutions collectively protect and advance Afrikaner interests in labour, education, security, charity, insurance, and business advocacy. While many attack them as some kind of radical option, the movement has taken a “middle path” strategy of selfbestuur – neither full state control (staatsbestuur) nor immediate separation (selfbeskikking), which has proven remarkably effective within the constraints of the current constitutional order, using the system’s own mechanisms to carve out growing spheres of autonomy… READ MORE in PRISM #1 (February 2026) HERE.