Every few years, when South Africa is struggling and the national mood is raw, the same idea resurfaces in the Western Cape dressed up in new language, polished by social media, and sold as “democratic self-determination.” Today it is called Cape Exit. Yesterday it had other names. The substance, however, has not changed.Let us say this plainly and without euphemism: this debate is not new, it is not progressive, and it does not represent the people of the Western Cape.
It is an old politics of withdrawal repackaged for a new generation and Capetonians have consistently rejected it.
Numbers matter and they expose the myth
CAPEXIT and its supporters speak loudly, but democracy is not measured by decibels. It is measured by numbers, mandates, and consent.
Here are the facts:
- In the most recent national and provincial elections, secessionist parties failed to secure representation in the Western Cape.
- The Referendum Party the most visible electoral vehicle for “Cape independence” achieved approximately 0.26% of the provincial vote.
- CAPEXIT itself boasts around 19,000 signatures in a province of over 5 million people.
Nineteen thousand out of five million is not a movement. It is a fringe and a wannabe cult desperately looking for fools to follow them.
No amount of constitutional cherry-picking can convert that into a democratic mandate.
Freedom to argue is not a right to break the country
No one is stopping anyone from talking about secession. That is not the issue. South Africa is a constitutional democracy. You may speak, write, organise, and advocate.But freedom of expression is not freedom to dissolve the Republic.
South Africa is a unitary constitutional state, not a loose federation of convenience. Provinces do not possess residual sovereignty. They administer power; they do not own it. Sovereignty resides in the Constitution and in the people as a whole, not in regions that decide, unilaterally, that they have had enough.
This is not accidental. It is a direct response to our history a history in which “self-determination” was abused to fragment the country, entrench privilege, and exclude the majority under the guise of autonomy.
Let us speak honestly about the subtext
Cape Exit politics does not emerge in a vacuum. It emerges from a particular anxiety the fear of being governed by a black majority in a democratic South Africa. This is the real issue and sadly some non-white Capetonians especially our Better Coloureds still believe and have demonstrated faith that White Males rule better than someone who looks this them.
Let’s expose and talk about White Fear of being governed by a Black Majority in SA, here in Western Cape and Cape Town. That fear is rarely stated openly anymore. Instead, it is wrapped in technical language: fiscal efficiency, governance performance, constitutional interpretation. But the emotional driver is familiar.
Strip away the rhetoric and what remains is this message, implied rather than stated:
“We the ‘White Priviledge “would rather govern ourselves than share power equally in a country where the majority does not look like us.”
That is not progressive politics. That is not liberation. That is a modernised version of old exclusion, asking black South Africans to accept politely, legally, and quietly a return to indirect control by those who historically benefited most.
Capetonians are more politically mature than that.
Governance failure does not justify political escape
Yes, national and in many aspect provincial and local governance has failed us. Corruption, collapse of infrastructure, unemployment, crime, and inequality are real and devastating even here in Western Cape.
These failures anger people rightly.
But the conclusion that follows from failure is struggle for dignity and real development and betterment for all, not separation.
Every democracy on earth experiences cycles of decline and renewal. Progressive politics does not abandon the state when it is broken; it reclaims it. The idea that the Western Cape should simply exit the shared project of South Africa because the project is difficult is not courage it is avoidance.
Worse, it is avoidance that leaves the poorest behind.
The Western Cape is not a single ‘community’
One of the most dishonest moves in the Cape Exit argument is the claim that “the people of the Western Cape” form a coherent, unified will.
They do not.
The Western Cape is one of the most unequal regions in the country. It contains extreme wealth and extreme poverty, side by side. Any political project that claims to speak for “the Cape” while drawing its energy mainly from a narrow social layer is not practising democracy it is practising projection.
Ask a simple question:Where is the mass support for secession in Khayelitsha? In Mitchells Plain? In Delft? In the rural farming towns? Among workers who rely on national social grants, national labour protections, national redistribution?
It is not there.
The constitutional sleight of hand
Much has been made of provincial referendums. This is deliberate confusion.
Even if a province were to test opinion on any issue, a referendum does not confer sovereign authority. It cannot override the Constitution. It cannot redraw borders. It cannot dismantle the Republic.
To pretend otherwise is to mislead people either out of ignorance or bad faith.
The Constitution was crafted precisely to prevent unilateral exit by regions that feel temporarily aggrieved or structurally privileged.
What this debate is really about
At its core, the Cape Exit argument is not about democracy. It is about control.
It is about who gets to decide, who pays for whom, and who is obligated to whom. Progressive politics answers those questions with solidarity, redistribution, and shared responsibility.
Exit politics answers them with fences legal ones, economic ones, and eventually social ones.
South Africa has seen this movie before. It did not end well. We do not need more walls, nor do we need wannabe Trumps trying to rule us.
A Capetonian answer
As a Capetonian, I reject the claim that this province wants out. I reject the idea that our future lies in retreat rather than renewal. I reject the suggestion that unity is the enemy of accountability.
Capetonians are angry yes. We are frustrated yes. We are demanding and must ensure better governance especially in upcoming Local Government Elections.
But we are not asking to abandon South Africa.
This country was not built for convenience. It was built through struggle, sacrifice, and collective commitment. Those who now propose exit offer no serious solution only a polished escape hatch for a minority unwilling to live fully inside a democratic South Africa.
That is not progress.
It is regression dressed up in constitutional language, but driven by old fears and narrow interests.
And Capetonians, time and again, have shown they are wiser than that. We know better, therefore we must be better.
* Faiez Jacobs is a former Member of Parliament, founder of The Transcendence Group, Capetonian, Activist, and Servant of the People.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of or Independent Media.
