Succeeding with secession

“There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune” -
William Shakespeare

This plan assumes that all the hard work of secession has been completed, and it is now time to govern this embryo state. It assumes that there is a hunger in the population for a radical departure from the failed governance models of the past, and a willingness to embrace new ideas.

The secession of the Western Cape gives “Kapenaars” a unique and historic opportunity to develop a new and better system of governance, unconstrained by the chains of the past.

We must create a system which truly respects individual freedom, gives real power to citizens, not politicians, and will produce a happy and prosperous community.

To do this we will need a clear and thoughtful plan.

1. The integrity of the individual citizen is paramount. Individuals must be protected from harm. Their wishes must be heard and respected via continual referendums.

2. The geography of the new state would reflect the existing borders of the Western Cape as a whole, the 6 existing districts, and the 30 existing municipalities and 1 metro, similar to a canton system.

3. Leadership of the state at all 3 levels will be based on the Roman Consul system, not a Westminster political system. (See appendix 1)

4. Bonds and property rates will be used to finance the state, not taxation.

5. State functions will be privatised wherever possible.

The core of this proposal is that the individual in the Cape is supreme. Not the state, not the people, not the workers, and not the oligarchs. The rights of every individual are protected by the HarmConsentRule, defined below.

Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense

The HarmConsentRule (HCR) provides a brief and simple statement for organising human behaviour. It applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. It provides an ethical template against which all human actions can be tested.

The HCR emphasizes individual rights, freedom, the rule of law, respect for others, property rights, and the right to self-defense. It rejects the use of arbitrary coercive force by anyone, including the state.

Of course, some harms can be consented to, such as surgical procedures or participation in contact sports.

Every citizen acts like a canton state with one member. Canton citizens are involved in every important state decision via continual referendums.

I propose the HarmConsentRule as the basis of individual rights in the newly seceded Western Cape.

The geography of the new state would reflect the existing borders of the Western Cape as a whole, the 6 existing districts, and the 30 existing municipalities and 1 metro. Each municipality will be like a canton.

While there will always be a need for joint action by identified leaders, they must be subject to the terms of the HCR (no harm without consent). Leadership will be based on the highly successful Roman Consul system. Leaders must not and will not have the administrative and executive powers traditionally associated with a Westminster style government.

The Consul system is described in more detail in Appendix 1.

As of early 2026, South African government bonds (domestic and foreign) finance a substantial portion of the state’s debt, with gross loan debt projected to reach 78.9% of GDP in the 2025/26 fiscal year.

Each unit of government (state, district and municipal) will be required to develop and publish a budget very early in its term, with each major item of expenditure clearly labelled and priced. This budget will play a key role in the election of a consul by popular vote.

A state bond issue would be associated with every major item in the budget. These bonds would be offered to anyone (including non-citizens) at a specific rate and duration. If bonds for specific projects are under-subscribed, the bond rate must be increased to make the bond more attractive to investors, or the project must be put on hold.

Citizens’ contributions to state coffers are always voluntary. Unpopular projects do not get funded. Citizens, not politicians and consuls, decide what is a priority and what gets done.

By purchasing property in the Cape you consent to pay property rates. Rates will be levied on property similar to the current system based on valuation. These funds will be used for infrastructure like roads and water reticulation. Actual usage will always be on the pay-per-use principle.

If government is providing something for free, you are probably being coerced to pay for it. There is virtually no good or service that cannot be provided privately at a profit. We must aspire to a Night-Watchman state, where only functions like defence and border security remain the responsibility of the state.

1. The future should be like the past.
   This is simply a failure to account for change or progress. Cape secession does not have to be constrained by the way we have always done governance in the past. With sufficient courage, we can make our own future, and make history.
   

2. Individuals cannot be trusted to look after themselves.
   This is degrading and condescending, and demonstrably wrong. Kings and politicians throughout history have said they must rule because we, the common man, cannot be trusted. The incompetence of common people is the whole basis of the New World Order. Individuals must assert their independence and competence.
   

3. Incompetent governments run by corrupt politicians are a fact of life which cannot be avoided.
   This is true for existing countries, but not inevitable for new countries starting with a clean slate. However, the risk is very real.
   

4. Taxes are necessary and inevitable.
   The HarmConsentRule prohibits compulsory taxes on individuals because they are coercive. Don’t believe the people who collect and benefit from the taxes when they say they are inevitable.

5. There will be many laws and regulations, even in a new state.

   Like in Switzerland, new laws and regulations can only be introduced after a referendum of all citizens.

Amongst free individuals, cooperation is the norm, not the exception. Most people practice good manners. Most people see the advantages of polite co-existence without having to be told. Most people don’t demand to be obeyed.

This article presents a radically new approach to governance. The first reaction may be to scoff that it could not possibly work, never been done before, to dismiss it as a utopian pipe dream. I assume this was the first reaction to the canton idea in Switzerland or to the vision of the American founding fathers.

What we currently tolerate is hopelessly broken with a huge and costly government providing incompetent services, corruption everywhere, high taxation, run-away inflation.

We citizens of the Western Cape can do better.

The government of a seceded western Cape should be as small as possible. Big government is not better government, as South Africa demonstrates so well.

In current democratic systems you get to choose just one barely known representative from a slate of party choices once every 4 or 5 years . Whoever wins this popularity contest becomes your representative and gets to make all sorts of decisions on your behalf to which you did not consent, while you pay their salaries. The voting system is fraught with corruption, the elected representatives get almost unlimited power, and they all seem to become wealthy. And you can’t opt out of this system.

The Ancient Romans introduced a unique form of government more than 2000 years ago which served them well for more than 500 years while managing the world’s greatest empire. Perhaps it can work here at the bottom end of Africa.

In the Roman system the senate appointed 2 consuls who ruled jointly for just one year. They had great power. They were the chief magistrates, presided over the Senate, proposed legislation, served as high court judges. Each consul could veto his colleague’s actions, ensuring that one man could not capture the state. Consuls could not serve a second consecutive term.

The whole consul referendum process would be funded by a voluntary “consul fee” agreed to in a referendum of each citizen. If you do not pay the consul fee you cannot vote for your choice of consul.

Prospective consuls would canvass for votes in their constituencies in the usual way. They would also publish a budget which they would be bound to if elected. Each consul would appoint their own staff (effectively their cabinets) as they saw fit, but their salaries would come out of the consular budget. Consuls would choose which bureaucrats are retained from prior consular terms.

Advantages:

• Just 2 consuls (rather than 400 politicians) would dramatically limit corruption and improve accountability.

• The short term of just 1 year limits the opportunity to build an empire (the original purpose of the ancient consul system).

• The consular veto would ensure that thoughtful legislation was enacted.

• Instead of many competing leaders vying for power and privilege, there are just two who must cooperate

• Consuls would select the most competent staff, rather than rely on the random competence thrown up by the political party system.

• Bad consuls will inevitably arise. The short term length limits the harm they can do.

• There is a low probability that 2 bad consuls will arise simultaneously.

• Consuls have a lot of power, but this means they can get things done. The consul veto limits what damage a rogue consul can do.

©Trevor Watkins 12/4/26

Trevor Watkins is the founder of the Individualist Movement, the author of two books, and a contributing author for the Free Market Foundation. He publishes on a blog at libertarian.org.za.