As betrayals go, South Africa turning its back on its continent is particularly brutal. Between 1960 and 1994, when South Africa’s liberation movements were banned and leaders like Nelson Mandela were imprisoned by its apartheid government, African countries established camps and schools for the diaspora and gave money and military aid to the resistance.
Yet, last week, a months-long violent campaign of anti-African immigrant protests in the country by the newly minted organization March and March culminated in attacks on homes and property and the shutdown of major cities.
Although these rallies did not descend into wholesale violence, shameful scenes of South Africans attacking alleged illegal foreigners and citizens they misidentified as immigrants were beamed across the globe. Organizers have vowed to protest every Thursday until local elections scheduled for 4 November.
These attacks are reprehensible, hateful, xenophobic, largely misinformed and have damaged South Africa’s reputation. The anti-migrant campaign imperils major investments on the African continent as pressure mounts from key destinations such as Nigeria for boycotts and diplomatic sanctions to be imposed.
That said, tough questions need to be asked of Africa’s leaders about why millions of their citizens gamble with death to reach Europe or to wade through the crocodile-infested Limpopo River to escape Zimbabwe and reach South Africa. For too long, pointing out the faults of fellow Africans was seen as playing into the West’s post-colonial playbook. Those arguments are no longer sustainable as Africans themselves are asking these questions.
South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa said in an address to his nation that solving migration pressures requires “peace where there is conflict, economic growth where there is stagnation and opportunity where there is poverty.” Rwanda’s foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe said on a visit to South Africa in mid-June that any discussion on migration should focus on root causes and that poverty, conflict and limited opportunities in countries of origin must be addressed, rather than shifting the blame to destination states such as South Africa.
In plain language, Africans are fleeing undemocratic and kleptocratic leaders to find succour in places where they feel they can live freely and prosper.
Take mineral-rich Zimbabwe, the home nation of by far the vast majority of illegal immigrants in South Africa. Its former President Robert Mugabe was ousted from office after 37 years; his successor since 2017, Emmerson Mnangagwa, has just changed the constitution to extend his power beyond 2030.
Instead of condemning him, Ramaphosa rewarded him with a high-profile visit two months ago. The millions of Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa were not mentioned. So even as South Africa drives out unregistered Zimbabweans—60,000 were deported just last week—many more will continue to come because their home country is politically and economically intolerable.
In Uganda, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the army chief and son of President Yoweri Museveni (41 years in office), has just shut down the country’s main independent media group’s television station and newspaper. Two weeks ago, Kainerugaba kidnapped an opposition leader and posted pictures on X of the man begging for mercy while being tortured.
It will not get better anytime soon unless something changes. According to US non-profit Freedom House, nine countries have slid into dictatorship from democracy in Africa since 2019. Many of these are blessed with abundant mineral wealth—but only politically connected elites benefit.
It is convenient for the privileged to blame colonialism for Africa’s migration crisis. There is some truth to that, of course; but look at South Africa’s western neighbour, Botswana. It experienced 30 years of annual economic expansion surpassing 7% due to the astute management of its diamond wealth and its fidelity to democratic leadership. Botswana’s people do not flee; leadership matters.
What is to be done? Ironically, African leaders have shown the way. Through the Lome Agreements of 2000, African Union (AU) leaders agreed to hold each other accountable and even boot out anti-democratic actors and kleptocrats among them. Major state wars in Africa declined to just four in 2010 from 12 in 2000.
African leaders have now thrown their admirable handiwork aside. The AU has reverted to the bad ways of its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity, which was notorious for tolerating dictators. If a few good leaders can rejuvenate the AU and reinforce the spine of the Lome agreement, then there is hope. ©Bloomberg
The author is a political commentator and former editor of South Africa’s This Day.