Hate on the March

Why South Africa’s future depends on the law, not mob justice

Over the past week, harrowing scenes from Johannesburg and Tshwane have captured global attention: mass anti-migrant protests, shuttered storefronts, accompanied by a grave warning from the United Nations. Yet, beyond the headlines, the rise of populist movements like ‘March and March’ reveals a deeper, more corrosive tension. These groups thrive in the gap between genuine administrative failure and the exploitation of public anxiety. In this article, we explore a liberal perspective on why South Africa must urgently prioritise the stability of the rule of law over the volatile impulses of mob justice.

Last week, South Africa was once again shaken by a wave of xenophobic protests. Led by populist newcomer Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, the ‘March and March’ movement paraded through the heart of Gauteng. The impact was immediate: fearing targeted attacks, many shop owners closed their doors, while international missions, including the Ghanaian mission, urged their citizens to remain cautious. UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a stark reminder to the South African public regarding the global solidarity extended to the country during the struggle against apartheid, suggesting that the current hostility betrays that historic legacy.

The Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) Sub-Saharan Africa works closely with independent media outlets to safeguard democratic discourse. Our partner, the Daily Maverick, has analysed the background of these new ‘merchants of hate’ with its characteristic sharp-tongued insight. Ferial Haffajee, Associate Editor at the Daily Maverick, emphasises that Johannesburg has always been a city of migrants, built on the labour of those arriving from across the entire region. In her recent editorial, she issues an urgent warning that hate has no place in the city's future and that citizens must guard against importing divisive ideologies.

However, Haffajee also acknowledges the real challenges arising from unchecked migration and local corruption, such as officials accepting bribes for residency permits. Her plea is a call for state capability rather than vigilantism. For migration to be legal, documented and seamless, South Africa requires a capable and working state that operates from a position of Ubuntu, recognising a shared history, and a pragmatism that acknowledges limited public resources in a country of deep need.

From a liberal perspective, the distinction between legitimate border control and populist incitement is crucial. Movements like ‘March and March’ leverage the charisma of their leaders and the viral reach of social media to transform legitimate concerns about illegal migration into open xenophobia. This is where the position of the Democratic Alliance (DA) provides a necessary counter-narrative based on the rule of law.

The DA advocates for a clear course where migration occurs strictly within a legal framework. This requires secure borders and an efficient administration that handles documentation processes transparently and without the rot of corruption. It also necessitates the consistent deportation of individuals who are in the country illegally or have committed criminal offences, as seen recently in the high-profile deportation of Bellarmine Mugabe. Crucially, a liberal approach categorically rejects xenophobic violence and the vigilantism of groups such as ‘Operation Dudula’ or ‘March and March’, as human rights must remain non-negotiable.

South Africa does not need populism that seeks scapegoats, it needs a return to administrative excellence. A liberal approach demands a state that protects its borders and fights corruption while simultaneously respecting the dignity of every individual. Only through a functioning rule of law can social cohesion be maintained in a city like Johannesburg, which has thrived on mobility since its founding.

This article was produced using information from our partner, Daily Maverick.