THE March and March movement gave undocumented foreigners until June 30 to leave South Africa.
Meanwhile, African migrants are being attacked, humiliated and, in some cases, forced to flee their communities.
Several African countries have issued travel advisories for South Africa, while others have begun assisting citizens who wish to return home.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has repeatedly condemned xenophobic violence. Yet the attacks continue.
That raises an uncomfortable question: Why have those behind the violence not been stopped?
A remark that raised questions
When asked whether he would be in South Africa on June 30, Ramaphosa reportedly replied: “I haven’t checked my diary.”
Whether intended casually or not, the remark struck many as surprising given the tensions surrounding the planned anti-immigrant demonstrations.
- Zim headed for a political dead heat in 2023
- Power crisis needs practical solutions
- Record breaker Mpofu revisits difficult upbringing
- Dangers of Arab Spring in SA
Keep Reading
For critics, it reinforced the perception that the presidency has yet to demonstrate the urgency the crisis demands.
The word he will not use
Ramaphosa has argued that South Africans are not xenophobic.
Yet the victims of many recent attacks have been foreign African nationals.
If the violence is not xenophobia, what is it?
Critics argue that refusing to describe the attacks as xenophobic risks understating the nature of the problem.
Naming a crisis does not solve it, but failing to define it can make meaningful action more difficult.
Politics before principle?
South Africa is expected to hold local government elections later this year.
Public opinion surveys indicate anti-immigrant sentiment has increased significantly in recent years.
That political reality presents a difficult calculation for the governing African National Congress.
Taking firm action against anti-immigrant groups could alienate some voters.
Responding cautiously, however, risks conveying the impression that violence will be tolerated.
Whether intentionally or not, the government’s measured response has fuelled accusations that political considerations are outweighing the need to protect vulnerable communities.
International pressure
Relations between South Africa and the United States have become increasingly strained following President Donald Trump’s return to office.
Disputes over trade, diplomacy and Trump’s claims about white South Africans have placed Pretoria under considerable international pressure.
Some observers argue these tensions have made the government reluctant to open new political fronts at home.
Others reject that explanation, insisting that protecting everyone within South Africa’s borders should remain the government’s overriding responsibility.
Other challenges to State authority
The Cape Independence movement continues to campaign for the Western Cape’s secession, while Orania remains a source of debate over racial exclusion and self-determination.
These issues pose different challenges, but each raises broader questions about the State’s willingness to confront movements that test South Africa’s constitutional order.
Critics argue that hesitation on one front can encourage challenges on another.
A different political message
Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema has described the attacks as “Afrophobia” rather than xenophobia.
He has argued that political leaders should not seek electoral support by encouraging hostility toward fellow Africans.
Whether one agrees with Malema or not, his rhetoric has been notably more direct than that of the president, highlighting a sharp contrast in political messaging.
Time is running out
South Africa has experienced deadly outbreaks of anti-foreigner violence before — in 2008, 2015 and 2019.
Each episode prompted promises of stronger action.
Today, many fear history is repeating itself.
Ultimately, Ramaphosa will be judged not by speeches, but by whether his government protects everyone living within South Africa’s borders, prosecutes those responsible for violence and restores public confidence in the rule of law.
For the victims of these attacks, time is running out.
So, too, is the opportunity for the government to demonstrate that its commitment to human dignity extends to all who call South Africa home.
