Active citizenry is not xenophobia

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa proclaims that it lays the foundation for a society where government is based on the will of the people.The practical expression of this axiom is citizens' participation in free and fair elections, in which citizens vote for their political representatives.Through their contribution to the election of public representatives, citizens have the rights and responsibilities to participate, even if only tangentially, in the governance of their country.

How citizens participate in governance is contentious and opaque and will probably always be.

The recent protests against illegal immigration and the way in which the government and political leadership responded have revealed that democracy in South Africa is dysfunctional and at odds with the Constitution.

South Africans are asking a question that is fundamental to the rule of law, to which they are subjected, without exception: Why should law enforcement apply to citizens and not to people who became their neighbours illegally?

The question is logically and legally sound.It derives its logic from the fact that the government owes its existence to the will of the South African people.It derives its legal merit from the fact that their country is governed by laws, including immigration laws.

South Africans are rightly baffled by the double standard displayed by their government.When citizens are caught with stolen goods, for example, they are charged with theft or possession of stolen goods.No matter how poor they are, the stolen goods found in their possession are not characterised as "unreceipted" goods to downplay the crime.

By the same token, illegal immigration is self-evidently a crime, regardless of whether illegal immigrants are described as "undocumented" citizens.

The crime is not fabricated by the masses.It is established by immigration law.Therefore, citizens are correct to oppose the differential application of the law.

Citizens, true to the ideal of active citizenry and citizens' participation, are rising to confront the government by asking why immigration laws are not enforced in the same way as other laws that govern the country.This is pure logic, not politics or xenophobia.

Therefore, the people's representatives in the state, government and political parties ought to answer the question, which, after all, is based on the laws that the political representatives passed.

Instead of respecting the will of the people as enshrined in the Constitution, political leaders patronise and demonise the same people who put them in power.

On Thursday 2 July 2026, during a media briefing, ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula vilified and mocked civil society leaders with terms such as "self-appointed leaders and "some guy from KwaNongoma".This is not consistent with the constitutional principle that government will be based on the will of the people.

The principle, at the most fundamental level, is active citizenry.Through active citizenry, people are calling for the universal enforcement of South African laws.It is unconstitutional to delegitimise civil society, especially when political and state leaders are no longer listening to the people.

Although immigration laws exist, the government has persistently ignored the people's call to address the flagrant disregard of the laws and eradicate illegal immigration.

To his credit, ironically, it was also Mbalula, who, on Wednesday 27 May 2026, gave a detailed account of the problems arising from illegal immigration.

According to Mbalula, these include the displacement of South Africans to the periphery of the township economy and cross-border criminal activities.The irony is that, while demonstrating that the ANC government understands the problems, he indirectly acknowledged the reasonableness of civil society's outcry about illegal immigration.

Again, true to his mastery of irony, Mbalula described the citizens' march on Tuesday 30 June 2026 as anarchy, while the ANC government created immigration anarchy by abdicating its duty to enforce immigration laws.

In fairness to the ANC and its government, however, it is noteworthy that other political parties also "threw their voters under the bus".

In a dramatic capitulation and with no warning, Patriotic Alliance leader Gayton McKenzie distanced himself from the march against illegal immigration and launched a scathing attack on its participants, while sternly warning members of his party not to participate.

While political leaders do well to denounce political violence, McKenzie could have placed his opposition to the march in the context of his election promise to deal decisively with illegal immigration.He could have indicated that he supported the principle of tackling illegal immigration while discouraging violence.In that way, he would not have appeared to betray the South Africans who put him in power.

Discrediting the legitimacy of active citizenry as anarchism repeats the apartheid government's vilification of the struggle for freedom as terrorism.But the liberation movements did not need permission from the apartheid government to exercise their right to fight for freedom.

Similarly, South African citizens should not need permission from political and state leaders to exercise active citizenry.That is evident from the steady rise in grassroots pressure on the government to address illegal immigration.

Furthermore, citizens do not need permission from political leaders whose mindsets have shifted from honouring the will of the people expressed through elections to behaving as though they are bosses over the people.This has no place in a democracy.If this is not enough to change the mindsets of political leaders in relation to their voters, the ballot box can.

Political leaders should listen empathetically and speak to citizens as equals, not subordinates.After all, the struggle for freedom was not fought only from exile.It was also fought in the streets with stones against armed apartheid law enforcement agencies.

To the extent that South African citizens are raising a legitimate issue about immigration law enforcement, it remains irrational to label them xenophobic.For that matter, immigration laws are derived in the main from sovereignties, nationalisms and territorial integrity.

It seems that the first point of departure is to put sovereignty, nationalism and the attendant immigration laws under scrutiny.

In so doing, immigration law can take on a new form; where citizen/foreigner dichotomy would be rendered meaningless.Or else, political leaders should examine themselves, in case they have a phobia towards active citizenry.

Be that as it may, until nationalism-born sovereignties and their territorial integrity laws are re-examined and reformed, it is irrational to call a citizen xenophobic when the issue they raise is the universal application of the law.

Mzwandile Manto kaB. Wapi is an executive coaching consultant. A Master of Management (Business & Executive Coaching), Wits Business School; BA (Philosophy), University of Cape Town; Postgraduate Diploma in Human Resource Management, University of Cape Town.