Why South Africa may be approaching another major constitutional change

In the history of South Africa, only one constitution has lasted more than 30 years. All the others were replaced within the first three decades after they were introduced. This raises a serious question. In 2026, are we now reaching the end of the current constitutional system?

Unlike countries such as the United States, which was born out of a struggle for freedom, South Africa itself was created through imperialism. Its roots go back to December 1909, when the British king, Edward, declared that the Union of South Africa would be formed under his authority on 31 May 1910.

Since that moment, South Africa has had five different constitutional systems. Out of these five, only one has lasted longer than 30 years. The exception was the first constitution, created in London through the South Africa Act of 1909. This law established the country as a dominion under the British crown, with the aim of uniting several British colonies in southern Africa into a single political system under British control.

This is one of the reasons why the old Boer republics were turned into provinces. The word province comes from Latin and refers to a territory that has been conquered on behalf of someone else. In this case, that someone else was the British crown. From that time, different regions including British colonies, Boer republics, and black tribal homelands were brought together into one state. The borders have mostly stayed the same, except for Walvis Bay leaving in 1994, but the constitutions have continued to change.

To understand why this keeps happening, you have to look at why South Africa was created in the first place. That story begins with the Anglo Boer War from 1899 to 1902.

In 1886, gold was discovered on the Witwatersrand, which was part of the Transvaal Republic under President Paul Kruger. This made the republic extremely valuable because it controlled the richest gold fields in the world.

The British Empire already wanted to expand northwards. It had annexed the Transvaal in 1877, but the Boers regained independence in 1881 after defeating the British in the First Anglo Boer War, with victory at Majuba.

In 1899, the British tried again. They launched the Second Anglo Boer War to take control of both the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. They already controlled the coastal areas like the Cape and Natal, which gave them access to ports, but they did not control the mineral wealth inland.

After winning the war, the British used harsh tactics, including scorched earth policies and concentration camps that led to the deaths of many Boer women and children. After this, they decided to unite all the territory from the Cape to the Limpopo into one system under British rule.

But why unite all these areas into one country? The answer lies in economic goals. Figures like Cecil John Rhodes pushed the idea that resources from the interior had to be moved efficiently to the ports. Gold and minerals needed to flow to places like Durban and Cape Town.

In her 1926 book The South Africans, Sarah Gertrude Millin explains that the South African Railways and Harbours system, created in 1910, is key to understanding this. It brought the entire transport system under one government and made resource movement easier.

This had deep consequences. In most parts of Europe, nations developed around shared identity, language, and territory. In South Africa, the idea of a nation was tied instead to the economic needs of a foreign empire.

At the start of the 20th century, Britain needed a single economic unit with one legal system. The South Africa Act of 1909 provided that system and became the country’s first constitution.

That constitution stayed in place for 50 years until 1961, when South Africa became a republic. After that, new constitutions followed in 1983, 1993, and 1996.

When the 1996 constitution was written, many believed it would be the final stage of South Africa’s political development. Influenced by ideas like the “end of history,” some thought liberal democracy had solved the country’s problems.

But recent years have challenged that view. Scholars like Koos Malan have argued that constitutions do not control society. Instead, political and social forces shape constitutions. When those forces change, constitutions change too.

South Africa’s history supports this. Every time the balance of power shifts, a new constitution follows.

These shifts have often been driven by ethnic and political tensions. South Africa has never really been a nation state in the traditional sense. It has functioned more as an economic zone created by an empire.

The borders set in 1910 ignored how people were actually distributed across the land. Instead, they forced many different groups into one state. Around thirteen different ethnic groups from different backgrounds were combined into a single system.

This has remained a central problem. It has been behind much of the conflict in the region. From resistance to British rule, to opposition to apartheid, to current tensions under the ANC, the same underlying issue remains.

The reality is that South Africa has always been made up of many groups sharing power over time, often with tension between them.

The system of a strong central government has concentrated power while limiting accountability. Because this structure does not match the realities of the population, it struggles to remain stable.

This is why pressure for change never disappears. It is also why leaders continue to change laws and constitutions, either through amendments or by replacing them entirely.

With the ANC losing support both internationally and at home, and facing serious financial and political problems, it looks like South Africa is moving toward another major constitutional change.

If that happens, it could reshape not just the political system, but possibly even the borders that have remained mostly unchanged since 1910.