“Mabahambe! They must leave!”
South Africa’s protests against migration – between legitimate concerns, populism and the search for a shared future: when simple answers meet complex questions. A reflection by Dr Joe Lüdemann.
“Mabahambe! They must leave!” – “They must go!” This cry is currently being heard throughout South Africa and is spreading via social media far beyond the country’s borders. Over the past few weeks, I have heard a wide variety of views on this matter: in conversations with church leaders in South Africa, through contributions from former parishioners in Durban, and during a visit by an ELCSA bishop to Hermannsburg. The following observations summarise these perspectives.
At the heart of the protests lies a demand that appeals to many people precisely because of its simplicity: undocumented migrants living in the country illegally should leave South Africa. Behind this cry, however, lie deeper social tensions, economic concerns and unresolved issues from South Africa’s history.
“We have enough problems of our own” – the voice of protest
For Jacintha Ngobese-Zuma, one of the movement’s best-known voices, the matter is crystal clear: “Undocumented and illegal migrants must go!”. South Africa already has enough social and economic problems of its own and cannot also look after people who have migrated from other African countries.
She argues that anyone who has left their home country because of problems must ultimately resolve those problems there. In her view, the government has failed because it has not responded appropriately to the number of migrants, now estimated at more than two million. “Our hospitals, clinics and schools are already completely overburdened – it is unacceptable that migrants are now also placing a strain on our social infrastructure,” she states.
The debate becomes particularly emotional when the topic of jobs is raised. Ngobese-Zuma points to a general unemployment rate of around 30 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of around 60 per cent. Many migrants are willing to work for wages below the statutory minimum wage, thereby intensifying competitive pressure in the labour market.
“Migrants work for exploitative wages – far below the statutory minimum wage. But here too, the government is doing nothing,” she says. That is why her movement will continue to protest: “We march on and march on – until the migrants have left South Africa and the government fulfils its mandate responsibly.”
In saying this, she draws on specific everyday experiences in the neighbourhoods where many South Africans live. Politicians, she argues, are unaware of people’s realities because they travel in blue-light-brigades, shielded from the outside world. “Has even one of these politicians – from the mayor right up to the president – ever walked through these streets on foot, without a convoy of siren-blaring vehicles, and seen for themselves what is happening here?”
On the streets, she says, one sees open drug dealing, the sale of expired food and medicines, and informal services at rock-bottom prices. “Street vendors repair mobile phones or cut hair for next to nothing – they’re all migrants, whilst our children, even those with university degrees, are sitting at home unemployed!” she argues.
Ngobese-Zuma, formerly a successful and multi-award-winning radio DJ in KwaZulu-Natal, founded the citizens’ initiative “March and March” two years ago. Its main concern is the mass deportation of undocumented migrants. Through her social media presence and her ability to distil complex issues into simple messages, she reaches a wide audience. She frequently speaks isiZulu, the language of the majority of the population, and links economic and social problems to a clear message: “Mabahambe! They must go!”
Many of these patterns of argument also sound familiar in European debates. This is precisely why they have such a political impact: complex problems are reduced to a clearly identifiable cause and linked to a seemingly simple solution.
The question remains: is this a vibrant democracy – when citizens’ initiatives organise large marches, voice legitimate grievances about social injustices, but at the same time already dictate the solution: ‘Foreigners out’?
Between fear and exclusion – the perspective of those affected
The situation looks very different from the perspective of migrants. In a field on the outskirts of Durban, a pregnant woman from Malawi is waiting for help alongside hundreds of her compatriots. She has been living in South Africa for five years and earns a living by selling fruit and small packets of sweets from a street stall.
Now she faces an existential question: “Am I really supposed to give birth to my child here in this open field?”
Around 500 people from Malawi have sought refuge there. Some of them have been living in South Africa for decades. Fearing attacks and hostility, they fled their neighbourhoods and are now hoping for buses announced by the Malawian embassy. But help is slow in coming.
For the expectant mother, the focus is less on the political debate and more on a deeply human question: “They can’t do this to us – giving birth in an open field! We’re human beings, just like them!”
“We cannot protect these people” – the voice of the Church
Church organisations, too, are feeling the immediate impact of the protests. Wiseman Ngobese, director of the Lutheran Community Outreach Foundation, reports that numerous programmes have had to be scaled back to protect staff and participants.
“We are currently having to scale back our programmes significantly to protect not only our own staff but also our clients,” he explains.
Hillbrow, a district of Johannesburg home to many migrants, has been particularly hard hit. The real challenge, he says, is that whilst the organisation can support people on its premises, it cannot guarantee their safety on the way there or back.
“When migrant women set off for our premises or return to their homes after a morning’s training, we cannot protect them on their journey from all those who see migrants as the cause of all their problems.”
In his view, the current situation is further exacerbating the already difficult living conditions faced by many people. This gives rise to ongoing humanitarian challenges, particularly when it comes to ensuring safe access to support services. The Outreach Foundation remains committed – within the scope of its mandate and the provisions of South African law – to supporting those affected, but points out that it cannot guarantee the safety of people outside its own facilities.
A sentence from the Constitution and the question of belonging
A sentence from the preamble to the 1994 democratic Constitution holds particular symbolic significance in this debate: “South Africa belongs to all who live in it”.
After decades of apartheid, this sentence was deliberately formulated as a counter-narrative to a system that assigned different rights to people on the basis of their origin.
For Ngobese-Zuma, it is precisely this sentence that has now become a problem. “We must remove this sentence from the Constitution!” she calls out to her audience.
Migrants from countries such as the Congo, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique, she claims, are exploiting this principle “to turn us into strangers in our own country”. She is certain of the support of many in the audience.
Her demands are becoming increasingly strident and culminate in ultimatums: “30 June is D-Day! By then, all migrants must have left our country! We mean business!”
A warning against populism – the voice of a bishop
Bishop Zwanini Shabalala of the ELCSA Eastern Diocese views this development with concern. Whilst it is not the Church’s role to take a stance on party politics, he argues, it must certainly speak out on the moral foundations of social coexistence.
“We are very concerned! Whilst as a church we should not interfere in party politics, we must speak out on the moral foundations of politics and society.”
Populist slogans in particular, which play on people’s fears and present simple scapegoats, pose a threat to democracy. “Only by imparting fundamental values and providing relevant education can we counter this populism.”
It is not the Church’s role to dictate to people which party they should or should not vote for. “We must pass on the values on the basis of which they can then make their own decisions. In this way, the Church strengthens democracy – and that is our task.”
The burden of the past – South Africa between apartheid and the present
However, the current protests cannot be explained solely by present-day conflicts. They highlight just how much South African society continues to struggle with the consequences of colonialism and apartheid.
Many of the hopes associated with the democratic new beginning of 1994 have not been realised for large sections of the population. Where social inequality, unemployment and a lack of prospects persist, there is a growing longing for simple explanations and supposedly better times.
The rejection of migrants thus also reflects deeper-rooted social problems. Instead of tackling the causes of inequality, spatial segregation and state failure, many people’s anger is directed at those who have the least political influence.
Migrants are made scapegoats for crises whose roots run much deeper.
The real tragedy lies in the fact that a society which itself emerged from the struggle against oppression now runs the risk of repeating similar patterns of exclusion.
The responsibility of the churches: dignity, remembrance and democracy
This is precisely why the South African churches bear a special responsibility. This includes dealing openly with their own history, as well as promoting reconciliation, education and a democratic culture.
A vibrant democracy needs functioning state structures. But it also needs the consistent recognition of the God-given dignity of every human being – regardless of origin, language or immigration status.
The current crisis is therefore not just about migration. It is about whether South Africa can find a way to come to terms with its past whilst at the same time shaping a shared future.
