One cannot examine the evolution of xenophobia in South Africa without looking beyond the obvious perpetrators on the streets to the words and actions, or in some instances, the inaction, of those who have occupied positions of authority.
The issue did not begin with today’s politicians. As far back as the late 1990s, then Minister of Home Affairs, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, repeatedly argued openly that undocumented migrants were placing enormous pressure on South Africa’s economy, public services, and employment opportunities. While concerns over illegal immigration were legitimate policy matters, critics argued that the language used often painted migrants broadly as burdens rather than distinguishing between law-abiding foreign residents and those violating immigration laws. Such messaging gradually seeped into public consciousness, reinforcing the belief that foreigners were responsible for many of the country’s social and economic difficulties.
The administration of President Thabo Mbeki was similarly criticized for failing to appreciate the growing threat posed by anti-foreigner sentiment before the devastating xenophobic violence of 2008. Although Mbeki consistently promoted African unity on the continental stage through initiatives such as the African Renaissance and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), his government was faulted for underestimating the depth of anti-immigrant resentment within South African communities. When violence erupted in 2008, many observers argued that the government had been caught flat-footed despite years of warning signs.
The attacks left more than 60 people dead, hundreds injured, and tens of thousands displaced. For many Africans, it was a shocking contradiction that the nation once celebrated as the “Rainbow Nation” had become the scene of brutal attacks against fellow Africans seeking nothing more than safety and economic opportunity.
During Jacob Zuma’s presidency, xenophobic tensions resurfaced repeatedly. While Zuma publicly condemned attacks whenever they occurred, critics maintained that his administration struggled to dismantle the social and political narratives that portrayed migrants as competitors for scarce jobs and public services. It was during this period that anti-immigrant rhetoric became increasingly mainstream in local politics, creating fertile ground for populist movements that openly campaigned against foreign nationals.
More recently, President Cyril Ramaphosa has repeatedly condemned xenophobic violence and affirmed that foreign nationals deserve protection under South African law. Those statements deserve recognition. Yet, words alone have done little to reassure African neighbours who have watched attacks recur with disturbing regularity under his administration.
Indeed, one of the greatest criticisms of Ramaphosa’s presidency on this issue is not what he has said, but what many perceive as what he has failed to do. His government’s response has often appeared reactive rather than preventive. Condemnations typically come after lives have been lost, businesses destroyed, and diplomatic damage inflicted. Rarely has there been evidence of a sustained national campaign aimed at dismantling anti-foreigner stereotypes, prosecuting perpetrators swiftly, or addressing the misinformation that fuels mob violence.
To many observers across Africa, including countless Nigerians who have repeatedly borne the brunt of xenophobic attacks, Ramaphosa’s approach has appeared unacceptably lackadaisical. Each outbreak has been followed by familiar promises, official visits to affected communities, and assurances that perpetrators would face justice. Yet the recurrence of similar attacks suggests that the underlying conditions enabling xenophobia have remained largely intact.
Leadership is measured not merely by condemning wrongdoing after it occurs but by preventing it from becoming a recurring national embarrassment. In that regard, successive South African administrations, including the current one, must accept a measure of responsibility. A government cannot indefinitely describe recurring xenophobic violence as isolated criminality when similar attacks continue to occur across different provinces over many years.
This is not to suggest that every South African shares xenophobic attitudes or that every leader has actively encouraged them. Far from it. South Africa remains home to millions of citizens who embrace African solidarity and reject violence against foreigners. Nevertheless, history demonstrates that inflammatory rhetoric by some leaders, insufficient action by others, and prolonged official complacency have collectively created an environment in which xenophobia has repeatedly found fertile ground.
On a final word, as South Africa continues to grapple with unemployment, inequality, poverty and the socioeconomic frustrations that have become fertile ground for anti-foreigner sentiment, one truth must never be lost: leaders shape societies through the power of their words. History has repeatedly shown that reckless rhetoric, whether deliberate or careless, can ignite passions that later spiral beyond control.
This is why South African leaders across every sphere of influence must exercise greater restraint and responsibility. Those in government, corporate boardrooms, traditional institutions, religious organizations, civil society, academia, the media, and the entertainment industry, as well as elder statesmen, monarchs, and other public figures whose voices command respect, must consciously refrain from making statements that directly or indirectly demonize foreign nationals or portray them as the architects of South Africa’s socioeconomic challenges.
South Africa’s immigration challenges are real and deserve lawful, well-thought-out policy responses. However, they should never become an excuse for scapegoating millions of law-abiding Africans who have come to the country in search of safety, opportunity, or a better life. To reduce complex governance failures, unemployment, crime, or economic stagnation to the mere presence of foreign nationals is not only intellectually dishonest but also dangerously irresponsible.
Indeed, every careless remark made by a respected leader has the potential to be interpreted by desperate or angry citizens as a licence to intimidate, attack, or even kill innocent people. Conversely, every message that promotes tolerance, coexistence, and the rule of law strengthens social cohesion and reinforces South Africa’s constitutional ideals.
South Africa earned global admiration by defeating apartheid and embracing reconciliation under leaders who preached unity rather than division. It must not now allow the scourge of xenophobia to erode that hard-earned moral standing or diminish its leadership role on the African continent.
The choice before South African leaders is therefore clear. They can continue to employ language that fuels suspicion, resentment, and hostility towards fellow Africans, or they can rise above short-term political expediency and champion a vision of a South Africa that is secure, lawful, inclusive, and worthy of the sacrifices that secured its freedom.
History will remember not only those who incited hatred but also those who possessed the influence to stop it and chose instead to speak the language of unity. It is time for South Africa’s leaders, in government, business, traditional institutions, and every other sphere of national life, to choose wisely, because their words will continue to shape not only the destiny of their country but also its relationship with the rest of Africa.
