The emerging alliance between Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma’s March & March movement and AfriForum forces South Africa to confront an uncomfortable question: when does a campaign for immigration control become part of a broader politics of racial exclusion?
South Africa's immigration debate has entered a new and uncomfortable phase.
For months, the March & March movement, led by Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, has presented itself as a movement demanding stronger immigration enforcement and putting South Africans first. Its campaign has resonated with a population confronting unemployment, inequality, crime and overstretched public services.
But its decision to work with AfriForum has changed the political optics considerably.
On August 18, March & March and AfriForum met and agreed to establish a working group covering issues including community safety, education, crime and illegal immigration. Ngobese-Zuma has defended the engagement as an opportunity to learn from AfriForum's advocacy methods.
That explanation deserves scrutiny.
Because AfriForum is not simply another civil-society organisation.
It is one of South Africa's most influential Afrikaner-interest organisations, and it has long been at the centre of fierce disputes over race, land, affirmative action, apartheid's legacy and the political status of white South Africans. Critics, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, have characterised its leadership as white supremacist; AfriForum rejects such characterisations.
So when a predominantly Black anti-immigration movement enters into a formal collaboration with such an organisation, the obvious question is:
What exactly are these two movements building together?
The Most Important Distinction: Immigration Control Is Not the Same as Xenophobia
South Africa has every right to enforce its immigration laws.
A sovereign state can determine who enters the country, who receives residency and who is deported after violating immigration law.
There is nothing inherently racist or extremist about demanding effective border management.
The problem begins when foreignness itself becomes the political explanation for domestic failure.
South Africa's unemployment crisis did not begin with Zimbabweans.
Its electricity crisis was not created by Malawian migrants.
Its housing shortage cannot simply be blamed on Nigerians.
Corruption did not arrive from Mozambique.
And state failure is not an immigration problem.
Yet scapegoating migrants can be politically attractive because it provides an identifiable target for frustrations that are otherwise much harder to explain.
That is why South Africa must distinguish between illegal immigration and anti-foreigner politics.
The two are not synonymous.
March & March Has Already Become a Major Political Force
The movement's rise cannot simply be dismissed.
It has tapped into genuine frustrations.
South Africans face extraordinarily high unemployment, inequality, crime and competition for scarce economic opportunities.
March & March has made immigration reform one of its central demands, and its protests have attracted significant attention.
But the movement has also faced accusations of xenophobia, while recent anti-immigrant demonstrations have been accompanied by violence and displacement.
The Guardian reported in July that more than 160,000 migrants had left South Africa since March amid heightened anti-immigrant protests, including deportations and voluntary departures. At least four people had been killed, according to the report.
March & March has rejected responsibility for violence and says its movement is law-abiding.
That distinction matters.
But movements are judged not only by what their leaders say from podiums.
They are also judged by the political environment their rhetoric helps create.
And Then Came AfriForum
This is where the story becomes considerably more complicated.
AfriForum has successfully built an international advocacy network around Afrikaner interests, particularly questions surrounding land, property rights, cultural rights and farm attacks.
Its influence has extended beyond South Africa.
It has lobbied internationally and became particularly prominent during the controversy over Donald Trump's claims concerning white South Africans and land. The organisation has also been involved in legal challenges against South Africa's land-reform policies.
AfriForum describes itself as a civil-rights organisation representing Afrikaner interests.
Its critics see something very different.
They argue that its politics frequently minimise apartheid's historical consequences and reinforce narratives of white victimhood.
That disagreement is not incidental.
It is at the centre of South Africa's unresolved political conflict over who belongs, who owns, who is protected and whose historical grievances deserve recognition.
So What Does March & March Gain From AfriForum?
The answer appears straightforward:
organisational expertise.
Ngobese-Zuma has reportedly said March & March wants to learn from AfriForum's advocacy strategies.
That is strategically significant.
AfriForum has decades of experience in:
- litigation;
- lobbying;
- international advocacy;
- media campaigns;
- research;
- political mobilisation;
- community organisation;
- fundraising.
March & March has the street mobilisation and populist energy.
AfriForum has institutional machinery.
Put those things together and you potentially have something much more powerful than either organisation possesses individually.
And that is precisely why the alliance deserves scrutiny.
This Is Not About Saying Black South Africans Cannot Work With White Organisations
That would be an absurd conclusion.
South African democracy depends on people with radically different political histories being able to cooperate.
Black organisations can work with white organisations.
Afrikaner organisations can work with African organisations.
Political opponents can cooperate on specific issues.
The problem isn't who is white and who is Black.
The problem is what political project is being constructed.
If the collaboration is genuinely about improving policing, fighting organised crime, improving municipal services and creating a functioning immigration system, there is nothing inherently objectionable about cooperation.
But if immigration becomes a bridge through which racial nationalism, ethnic exclusion or historical revisionism enters mainstream politics, South Africans should be alarmed.
The West Is Already Part of This Story
The international dimension cannot be ignored.
AfriForum's international lobbying has already attracted significant attention, particularly in the United States.
The organisation's advocacy became intertwined with Donald Trump's extraordinary intervention in South African affairs, including his claims about white farmers and land. Washington subsequently created a refugee pathway specifically for Afrikaners while relations between the Trump administration and Pretoria deteriorated.
That creates an interesting political contradiction.
South Africa's anti-immigration politics is directed primarily at Africans from other African countries.
Meanwhile, some of the most internationally connected actors in the country's broader racial politics are engaging directly with Western political networks.
That should make Africans ask a difficult question:
Who benefits when Africans are encouraged to see other Africans as the primary threat?
The Colonial Legacy Cannot Simply Be Removed From the Equation
South Africa's borders were not created in isolation.
Colonialism and apartheid shaped the region's labour markets, migration routes, borders and economic geography.
People from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Lesotho, Eswatini, Malawi and other neighbouring countries have moved across the region for generations.
Many of those migration patterns predate today's political parties.
And South Africa's economy has benefited enormously from migrant labour.
The country cannot simultaneously depend on regional migration economically while politically portraying migrants as the source of every social problem.
That contradiction deserves serious attention.
The Real Enemy Is State Failure
There is a much more uncomfortable explanation for South Africa's problems.
The state has failed to create enough jobs.
It has failed to provide adequate housing.
It has failed to maintain infrastructure.
It has struggled to control organised crime.
It has struggled to enforce immigration law consistently.
It has struggled to address corruption.
These failures are primarily failures of governance.
Blaming migrants may produce political applause.
It does not produce electricity.
It does not build houses.
It does not create factories.
It does not reform policing.
And it does not repair dysfunctional municipalities.
A migrant can be removed from a neighbourhood.
But if the municipality remains broken, the municipality is still broken.
The Most Dangerous Political Shortcut
History repeatedly demonstrates the danger of turning economic frustration into ethnic blame.
First, the argument is:
"They are taking our jobs."
Then:
"They are using our hospitals."
Then:
"They are taking our houses."
Then:
"They are criminals."
Eventually:
"They don't belong here."
That progression is dangerous because it transforms a policy problem into an identity conflict.
South Africa has already experienced horrific xenophobic violence.
It should not need another lesson.
But There Is Also a Legitimate Immigration Debate
It would be equally dishonest to pretend South Africa has no immigration problem.
It does.
The country needs better border controls.
It needs accurate immigration data.
It needs efficient asylum processing.
It needs faster deportation of people who have no legal right to remain.
It needs to dismantle criminal networks involved in trafficking and document fraud.
It needs employers to stop exploiting undocumented workers.
And it needs neighbouring governments to cooperate.
These are legitimate state responsibilities.
The solution, however, is functional government—not mob justice.
The March & March–AfriForum Alliance Is Therefore a Test
The partnership will reveal what March & March actually wants to become.
Is it going to become a serious civic movement advocating immigration reform within constitutional and democratic boundaries?
Or will it become another vehicle for populist ethnic politics?
The answer will depend on what happens next.
If the movement insists on:
lawful immigration enforcement,
equal treatment,
due process,
non-racial citizenship,
constitutional rights,
and African regional cooperation, then the relationship with AfriForum can be understood as tactical cooperation around specific issues.
But if the movement begins adopting narratives that portray Black African migrants as an existential threat while simultaneously embracing organisations associated with white minority politics, the contradiction will become impossible to ignore.
South Africa Should Watch the Language
Political alliances are often revealed not by their press releases but by their vocabulary.
Watch what happens to words such as:
"foreigners."
"African migrants."
"illegal."
"South Africans first."
"white rights."
"minority protection."
"land."
"crime."
When these concepts become politically interconnected, South Africa should pay close attention.
Because the country's greatest danger isn't necessarily immigration.
It is the transformation of legitimate grievances into permanent racial mobilisation.
Africa Cannot Afford Another Politics of Division
South Africa is too important to Africa for this experiment to fail.
It is the continent's largest industrial economies.
It is a major destination for African migration.
It is a key diplomatic power.
And it occupies a unique position in the history of African liberation.
That history matters.
The generation that defeated apartheid understood something fundamental:
South Africa's future could not be built on racial exclusion.
It had to be built on citizenship, constitutionalism and human dignity.
That principle should apply to migrants too.
A person without legal immigration status may have violated immigration law.
That does not make them less human.
And enforcing immigration law does not require stripping people of their humanity.
The Question Nobody Should Be Afraid to Ask
March & March's collaboration with AfriForum does not automatically prove that the movement has become racist.
That conclusion would go beyond the available evidence.
But it does justify scrutiny.
Because political alliances reveal possibilities.
And this particular alliance connects two very different political constituencies around issues that sit directly at the intersection of immigration, race, identity, economic frustration and South Africa's unresolved history.
That deserves attention.
The question is therefore not simply:
"Why is March & March working with AfriForum?"
The deeper question is:
What kind of South Africa will emerge from the alliance between street-level anti-immigration politics and sophisticated minority-rights lobbying?
If the answer is better governance, stronger institutions and lawful immigration enforcement, South Africa may benefit.
If the answer is a new politics of racial and continental division, the consequences could extend far beyond South Africa.
And that is why this alliance should be watched very carefully.
Because South Africa's immigration crisis is real—but turning Africans against Africans cannot be the solution to problems created primarily by the failures of the state.
Comments
Post a Comment