The Common Sense lacks some common sense

The Common Sense is an online publication that tries to, among other things, help people make sense of South Africa. However, from what I can make out , their analysis of South Africa misses two important pieces of common sense needed when trying to make sense of South Africa. (Please correct me if I have overlooked this key analysis in The Common Sense’s work).

The two pieces of common sense needed to understand South Africa are the creation of South Africa in 1909/10 by Imperial Britain, and the unsustainable nature of South Africa’s centralised decision-making structure.

This is something that Ernst Roets of Lex Libertas is willing to speak openly about. In their Call to Action, Lex Libertas speaks of a “viable political dispensation” for South Africa. The word “viable” is necessary because South Africa’s political dispensation is not viable. They state:

For too long, we have tolerated unrealistic visions and theories of South Africa that allow for the concentration of all power in a single state. This keeps unravelling.

Reality demands that we recognise our political diversity and initiate self-governance, so that the people and the communities in this land may flourish in cooperation and respect for each other.

Let me unpack this for you.

Since 1910, the decision-making structures in South Africa have been highly centralised and unsustainable. We know this to be the case because, over the past 115 years since the establishment of South Africa in 1910, the country has had five constitutions. Five constitutions in 115 years reveals that South Africa is not sustainable. Based on the pattern of constitutional change, I think that the country is heading toward another major constitutional change within the next 10 to 20 years.

Regarding the centralised nature of South Africa. In 1909, the British Imperial Parliament passed the South Africa Act, declaring the Union of South Africa. In 1910, the Union of South Africa was officially launched under the framework established by that Act, setting the stage for South Africa’s decision-making structures.

The purpose of the 1910 Union of South Africa was largely resource extraction. Minerals had to be moved from the interior to the ports of Durban and Cape Town. Sarah Millin captures this when she wrote, “one of the chief portfolios in the union ministry is that of Railways and Harbours.”

To achieve this, the political and economic structure had to be narrow and highly centralised, leaving little room for real accountability. While the geography of the country has changed somewhat since 1910, the narrow, centralised decision-making structure has not. South Africa remains, in many ways, the country created by an Act of the Imperial Britain.

You cannot make sense of South Africa until you understand the centralised nature of South Africa and the need for a “viable” governance system. Until then, South Africa will not make sense. You need these two pieces of common sense to understand South Africa, and from what I can work out, The Common Sense does not lean into this reality. Again, I could be wrong, because I have not read or listened to everything that The Common Sense has published, and I would welcome them to speak more directly about this important topic.

WATCH a video on this topic HERE.