As President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the nation on immigration policy and escalating social friction, two leading researchers emphasized that the country’s challenges stem less from migration itself and more from longstanding governance failures, political opportunism, and eroded public trust.
Jakkie Cilliers, who leads African Futures at the Institute for Security Studies, and Angelo Fick, Research Director at the Auwal Socio-Economic Research Institute, offered independent assessments of the government’s approach and the wider socio-political currents shaping public discourse.
Cilliers highlighted the proximity of local government elections as a key driver behind the heightened political focus on immigration. He observed that prominent figures, such as Gayton McKenzie, are actively leveraging migration concerns to build political momentum. “When the felt is very dry, even a small spark can start a major fire,” Cilliers remarked, referencing South Africa’s history of unrest, including the 2021 civil disturbances. He cautioned that parties seeking mobilization issues—whether service delivery shortcomings or migration—are engaging in high-risk behavior that could fuel instability.
Fick traced the roots of current tensions to policy and administrative shortcomings spanning two decades. He recalled that xenophobic incidents have occurred in cycles since 2008, with notable escalations in 2014, 2016, and the current 2025–2026 period. Fick questioned the framing of the debate, suggesting the term “illegal immigration” distracts from the broader task of societal management. He noted that political narratives often spotlight a relatively small migrant population while overlooking accountability for elected officials across national, provincial, and local government tiers who face allegations of corruption and mismanagement.
Both analysts examined the role of political organizations in amplifying immigration-related protests. Cilliers addressed reports that the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), led by former President Jacob Zuma, has expressed support for certain protest movements and plans to join related demonstrations. He characterized this alignment as a strategic effort to gain electoral traction, stating that Zuma and associated leadership bear significant responsibility for past state capture, corruption, and the infiltration of organized crime into political structures. “They are now jumping on an issue they believe will deliver popular support,” Cilliers noted, warning that migration sentiment remains a volatile political tool.
Fick described South Africa’s situation as primarily a “political crisis,” intensified by educational deficits. He cited research showing that eight out of ten 10-year-olds cannot read for meaning in any language, limiting citizens’ capacity to evaluate causal claims in public discourse. He also pointed to institutional weakening through corruption and raised ethical considerations, invoking religious teachings on compassion and hospitality. Fick referenced instances where officials have blamed migrants for strained public services, even as high-profile scandals at facilities like Tembisa and Charlotte Maxeke hospitals reveal administrative failures by South African personnel.
Reflecting on evolving national identity, Fick contrasted Thabo Mbeki’s affirmation “I am an African” with rhetoric he associates with Jacob Zuma that creates distance between South Africans and the wider continent. He suggested that colonial-era perspectives framing external threats as originating “north of the Limpopo and east of Kruger National Park” continue to influence public sentiment. This alienation from pan-African identity, a concern Steve Biko raised in the 1970s, remains largely unaddressed in the post-apartheid era, Fick argued, especially when combined with economic hardship, corruption, and opportunistic political messaging.
On the subject of external influence in protest movements, Cilliers acknowledged public speculation about funding sources but urged scrutiny of domestic actors. He identified organized crime networks and beneficiaries of state contracts as plausible contributors, citing findings from commissions of inquiry in Johannesburg. While recognizing suspicions of foreign involvement, he advised against unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and stressed the importance of identifying who stands to gain domestically from weakened oversight and accountability structures.
Regarding President Ramaphosa’s diplomatic outreach to African nations on migration, Fick noted that population movements are frequently driven by regional conflicts, climate-related displacement, and extractive economic activities. He referenced global examples—from Syria to Bangladesh to Pakistan—to illustrate how environmental stress and instability fuel migration. Fick questioned the effectiveness of border-focused solutions alone, stating, “Walls may be built, but underlying problems persist.” He also asked what distinct value envoys add when continental institutions like the African Union, SADC, and the Pan-African Parliament already exist to address governance and migration issues.
Cilliers viewed the envoy initiative as a meaningful diplomatic signal to reassure neighboring states that inflammatory rhetoric does not reflect official South African policy. Both experts concluded that resolving current tensions requires coordinated efforts from civic, religious, and educational institutions to promote factual public discourse, ethical reflection, and historical political education—similar to initiatives led by the United Democratic Front and mass democratic movements. They emphasized empowering citizens to analyze root causes rather than accept simplified narratives that serve short-term political interests.