Elites and transactional belonging – the cases of Rhodes, Trump and Musk

Tamuka Chekero argues that elites like Rhodes, Trump, and Musk practise “transactional belonging,” treating identity as a strategic tool rather than a genuine connection. He contends that their nimble-footedness enables them to dodge accountability, sidestep regulation, and exploit multiple systems.

By Tamuka Chekero*

 Recent headlines have focused on the turbulent relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, unmasking not only political theatrics, but also deeper insights into power, belonging and elite mobility. Musk’s public reversal of his criticisms of Trump, following intense White House outreach, demonstrates how, for some of the world’s most privileged individuals, belonging is less about genuine attachment than about strategic alignment.

Traditionally, belonging has been viewed as a strongly emotional and stabilising force, entrenched in culture, shared history and community bonds. However, scholarly insights complicate this image by adding the concept of “transactional belonging”, a type of conditional attachment motivated by calculation rather than sentiment. In this work, I attempt to consider how elites such as Musk, Trump, and, historically, Cecil John Rhodes represent a very different style and mode of belonging.

In contrast to ordinary people constrained by borders, laws and social norms, these figures treat belonging as a flexible tool to be acquired, used and discarded to suit their goals. Their “incompleteness” is not about humility and interdependence, but rather a type of dominance, transforming mobility into power and separation into liberation. This transactional approach highlights a paradox of modern elites: the freedom to roam without roots and belong without accountability.

Transactional Belonging: A Theoretical Frame

Transactional belonging, in this context, refers to a type of connection that is based on strategic gain rather than emotional attachment. It is conditional, performative, fluid and mobile. Unlike communal belonging, which is founded on kinship, shared memory, or regional rootedness, transactional belonging is mediated by economic leverage, political benefit or symbolic value. It thrives on opportunities, not obligations

The idea here builds on Professor Francis B. Nyamnjoh’s framework of incompleteness and conviviality that challenges the fantasy of fixed, totalised identities. Nyamnjoh contends that all individuals and institutions are fundamentally incomplete, fragmented and relationally constructed. While incompleteness and conviviality are based on mutual care, humility and interdependence, transactional belonging represents a more instrumental incompleteness, a reluctance to be rooted and a planned detachment that allows elite players to move freely across borders, boundaries and identities.

This mobility is further embodied in the concept of nimble-footedness. This notion was originally used to define African communities’ precarious navigations through complex postcolonial politics of rights, entitlements, citizenship and belonging, and it takes on new meaning here. Among the elite, nimbleness is no longer about resilience or survival; rather, it is used to dodge accountability, sidestep regulation and exploit many systems without regard for any. Let me begin by looking at Cecil Rhodes, whom Professor Francis Nyamnjoh calls “a complete gentleman of imperial dominance”.

Cecil Rhodes: Imperial Nimbleness and Strategic Displacement

Cecil Rhodes symbolises a colonial-era model of transactional belonging. In his book #Rhodes Must Fall, Nyamnjoh notes that Cecil Rhodes, an imperialist and mining tycoon of British descent, had a connection with Southern Africa that was essentially extractive rather than reciprocal or anchored. He did not identify with Africa through cultural or social integration, but rather integrated himself into the region’s political and economic structures to expand the British Empire and acquire personal wealth.

Rhodes’ legacy, which included railways, mines, scholarships, and statues, reflected imperial modernism rather than local allegiance. His founding of De Beers and his famed statement that “to be born English is to win first prize in the lottery of life” illustrate a worldview in which place serves as a resource rather than a home.

Rhodes epitomised a curated incompleteness; he was never really there or absent, always situating himself between identities and geographies to preserve power. He used multiple identities to his advantage: he was British when it served the empire, and African when it benefited extraction. He did not accept the intricacies of African social life or the obligations of settler civilisation. His movement was that of conquest, not conviviality.

Donald Trump: Nationalism as Brand Performance

 Similar to Rhodes, Nyamnjoh notes that Donald Trump, the current president of the United

States of America, has a strategic relationship to American identity. While his political persona was based on nationalist rhetoric like “Make America Great Again”, flag-waving populism and performative patriotism, his actual interactions with American institutions were far more opportunistic. Trump exported production, evaded taxes, and attacked democratic principles while masking himself as a patriotic figure.

For Trump, nationalism is a brand, not a dedication to civic ideas, but a means of achieving political success. His appeal to “ordinary Americans” concealed a distance from their realities. He values national patriotism while avoiding the responsibilities that come with it. His identification with America is thus highly conditional: he claims it when it is helpful, but avoids it when it is uncomfortable. Trump’s mode of belonging displays how elites commodify national identity. His performative patriotism highlights the unequal encounters of incompleteness: the impoverished are punished for crossing boundaries, while the powerful may easily manipulate them.

Elon Musk: Deterritorialised Capitalism and the Techno-Futurist Self

Elon Musk, perhaps more than Rhodes or Trump, embodies the postmodern condition of deterritorialised elitism. Musk, who was born in South Africa and later earned Canadian and American citizenship, views his national connections as logistical movements in a larger goal of scientific and financial dominance.

Musk’s transnational commercial activities demonstrate remarkable nimbleness: he relocates production, changes regulatory conditions, and talks of Mars as a potential home. His acquisition of Twitter (now X), relocation of Tesla’s headquarters, and symbolic gestures towards off-world colonisation represent a profound break with terrestrial sociality. His vision is not grounded in nation, community or environment; it is connected to the abstract future.

Yet, this future-oriented incompleteness creates ethical vacuums. Musk’s ventures frequently avoid environmental and labour concerns. His speech promotes progress, but his deeds reflect an elite strategy of exceptionalism, an imagined entitlement to transcend the constraints that others face.

Unequal Incompleteness: Ethics, Mobility and Stratified Citizenship

The lives of Rhodes, Trump and Musk highlight a deep ethical conundrum in the world order. Their trajectories indicate a perpetual pursuit of “a zero-sum completeness” in which success is viewed as total acquisition, with little to no regard for Ubuntu (shared humanity), conviviality or ethical accountability. Whereas nimble-footedness among migrants is the result of constraint, negotiating unfriendly borders, informal economies and legal liminality, elite nimbleness is the absence of consequence.

The same mobility that raises distrust in the destitute inspires admiration in the powerful. This disparity calls into question long-held beliefs about citizenship, loyalty and the social compact. Transactional belonging in the hands of elites reveals the porosity of national borders and the manipulated identities that sustain unequal regimes of belonging. Some see borders as roadblocks, while others see them as mere technicalities.

Conclusion: Belonging Beyond the Transaction

This article promotes conviviality and incompleteness as a relational framework founded on ethics rather than transactional detachment. Conviviality and incompleteness recognise that all individuals and institutions are incomplete, emerging and co-constituted. Unlike elite transactional belonging, which is characterised by power and detachment, conviviality requires reciprocity and accountability across differences. The cases of Rhodes, Trump, and Musk demonstrate how belonging, when separated from accountability, perpetuates extraction and isolation. This work invites us to see incompleteness not as a deficiency, but as a generative condition for connection and co-creation. Reimagining belonging as a continuous, embodied practice grounded in vulnerability provides a counter-ethic, positioning the nimble-footed poor not as outliers, but as architects of alternative, more humane futures in a society dominated by elite mobility without obligation.

*Culled from Review of African Political Economy. Tamuka Chekero holds a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Cape Town. His research challenges nation-centric statist approaches in migration studies by exploring how African migrants, irrespective of origin, create social worlds in unfamiliar urban settings. Through a focus on incompleteness, conviviality, hushamwari and everyday resilience, his work highlights how migrants navigate exclusionary systems. His latest publication is Resilient Social Networks and Mobility Strategies among Migrants in Cape Town (Langaa RPCIG, 2025)