To voice xenophobic statements and behaviour, as Gayton McKenzie has done, is to spit on the freedom of all South Africans because freedom is universal. Excluding some means we do not have freedom. (Part one of a two-part series on xenophobia and democracy)

Gayton McKenzie’s recent xenophobic statements have evoked some concern among political commentators and sections of the public. 

Inter alia, he is reported to have said that “some of you here [have] the audacity to hire foreigners instead of South Africans”; “I don’t care how you used to do it. But for as long as I am the minister, there will be no foreigner that will work in an entity while a South African can do the same thing”; and “foreigners” employed by government departments needed to be “out in three weeks… I said it, I want them out, get them out.”

His utterances are not surprising since he has made similar public remarks before and then, as now, there’s been no remark from other members of the Government of National Unity (GNU), nor the president himself.  

McKenzie, the leader of the Patriotic Alliance and Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture in the GNU, repeatedly enters this terrain - without facing consequences. We need to be clear why it is wrong to scapegoat poor people from other countries in the Global South.

It's important to understand why we should be concerned as patriots and believers in democracy, not simply to remove McKenzie from the Cabinet and other individual expressions of displeasure. 

One of the reasons why we should be concerned goes to the basis of freedom in South Africa, that the country, in the words of the Freedom Charter and the 1996 Constitution, belongs to all who live in it. 

That was first expressed in the Freedom Charter in 1955, and the Charter was completely at odds with the notion of citizenship that came to be applied under apartheid South Africa. Then, all black people - and African people particularly, were denationalised and told, in the case of Africans, that their nationhood would be realised in the Bantustans, demarcated for African occupation and  “self-determination”. 

In post-apartheid South Africa, the emphasis on active and free citizens has itself contributed to denationalisation in that there is - in this discourse - no place allotted for people who have full rights as foreign nationals to participate in the South African body politic without being citizens. It was surprisingly part of the discourse of former United Democratic Front (UDF) leaders when they celebrated the 40^th anniversary of the front in 2023. (See here and here).

We have to remedy this slippage and ensure the full rights of migrants to be present here, subject to them having relevant papers and not being without these due to the delay of Home Affairs officials.

If one says that freedom and liberties are allotted purely to those who have South African citizenship, you are running against the key principles of South African freedom which did not distinguish between the liberties of those who are citizens by virtue of birth in South Africa and those who acquired rights to freedom in this country through other means. 

The notion of freedom advanced in South Africa derives from universalism, a desire to bring all people under its banner.

This is not to say that there are not any rights allotted purely to citizens, but it is important that we put that in the context of South Africa belonging to all who live in this country. 

Freedom belongs to all, obviously - it is not freedom where some people are excluded. We must find the modalities for working this out in a way that does not repeatedly create hurtful attacks on foreign nationals as with the poisonous food allegedly emanating from some of the spaza shops run by foreign nationals. When one examines the evidence presented on that and many other cases, it's clear that a lower threshold is applied in making a claim of criminality against people who are foreign nationals. That lack of basic respect must be ended.

It is important that we do not restrict our commentary on McKenzie's statements to whether or not he should remain a member of the Cabinet. McKenzie might be removed from Cabinet, although it seems unlikely in the light of the low weight that is placed on xenophobic statements. 

But the problem of xenophobia remains. It will continue to be a serious question in that there is no clarity as to why or whether xenophobia is wrong or whether we are confronted by xenophobic incidents in South Africa.  

It's important that we have people grow up in a country that does not condone any statements which are part of racism, and which does not require that the victim should be a citizen.

There are certain values, mainly in regard to apartheid manifestations, but it does not seem to be a recognised moral question in people's minds to see xenophobia as serious wrongdoing. That must be remedied, because to voice xenophobic statements and behaviour is to spit on the freedom of all South Africans because, as mentioned earlier, freedom is universal. Excluding some means we do not have freedom.

Naming

Consequently, while the remedying of the question of xenophobia can be treated separately, it may be that it will not start to happen until the democratic foundations of the country are restored more generally.

Commentary on xenophobia is inhibited by the hypersensitivity of ANC politicians who insist, as many autocrats have done in the past, on demanding that xenophobia is not called by that name. For example, then Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, on 15 July 2010 said “there is no such systematic thing as xenophobia in the country” and that violence against foreign nationals was perpetrated by “criminal elements”. 

Just prior to this, the SA Communist Party stated that “these are not xenophobic attacks... but acts of criminality”.

It is simply crime in some cases, but generally there is a simple failure to treat xenophobia as a hate crime or other form of criminality.

People like Adrienne Rich and other feminists, famous African American writers like James Baldwin and others in South Africa and elsewhere, have recognised the power of naming more generally, the name having a crucial impact on how a struggle or other phenomena are understood. 

Liberation movements were called terrorists by their opponents and much of the discourse of the African National Congress (ANC) and other liberation movements demanded that they be called by their name, freedom fighters, or alternatively a more neutral term like insurgents or armed militants. 

The power of naming is important for any attempt to combat xenophobia to succeed, because of statements to the media and other anti-xenophobic agencies by government spokespersons after xenophobic attacks not to call them xenophobia, but instead to call them “crimes”. Such instructions are made aggressively, one suspects because the publicity is bad.

McKenzie’s threats against civil society and those fighting xenophobia, are threats against our democracy. In a recent interview with The Africa Report, he said “I will get rid of illegal foreigners. I will close this type of charity because we need patriotic charities in our country. I will close down the charities that are anti-government, that are anti South African.” 

When asked if that included the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, he said “I’ve never heard them speak about the poorest of the poor not having jobs. They must go to hell. I said it. They should go. They are a disgrace to the memory of Ahmed Kathrada.”

We need to assert that in actions against xenophobia, we are in fact claiming our rights as heirs to South African freedom, as heirs to constitutionalism, the foundational values of the new democratic South Africa. These are being buried every year, and this very silence that we are now experiencing after the new xenophobic utterances of McKenzie is more important than the name “Gayton McKenzie”. 

It has great importance as a claiming of democratic life and values in South Africa.  

Combatting xenophobia in the rest of the world

The question of xenophobia and combatting it is in this context one of the true claims of fidelity to non-racialism, to tolerance and internationalism in South Africa. Beyond South Africa, both the late Pope Francis and the new Pope Leo XV have aligned themselves with anti-xenophobic forces and preached mutual respect throughout their tenure.

Pope Leo, from his earliest statements in masses and other occasions has taken up similar themes to Francis.  

At the same time, as both the Popes came to spread a message of peace and mutual respect, Donald Trump was elected to the US presidency for the second time with xenophobia at the centre of his message, as it had been in his previous presidency. 

We have had two contrasting examples in the world today at the level of world leaders, that of the Popes and that of Trump. Obviously, there are other lesser figures who are making their marks in either of these directions or somewhere in between.

South Africans, whatever their source of ethics, need to carefully consider the commentaries of faith-based organisations and others who have intervened on humanistic grounds. 

This article first appeared in Creamer media’s website: polity.org.za
Raymond Suttner is an emeritus professor at Unisa, who spent over 11 years as a political prisoner. He was in the leadership of the UDF, ANC and SACP, but broke away at the time of the Jacob Zuma rape trial.