SA is a country that is constitutionally committed to human dignity, equality, and non-discrimination.
Periodically, the country has been shaken by violence directed at foreign nationals, particularly those from elsewhere on the African continent.
These tensions are not random, but are rooted in deep structural challenges of poverty, unemployment, and inequality that continue to define the lived reality of millions, especially black South Africans.
At the heart of the matter lies a troubling paradox of those who are most economically vulnerable often pitted against others who are equally vulnerable.
In townships and informal settlements, where government services are strained and economic opportunities are scarce, foreign nationals frequently become the visible “other”, the worker willing to accept lower wages, the neighbour perceived as competition.
This proximity, combined with scarcity, creates fertile ground for resentment.
The narratives that emerge from these conditions are familiar in that foreign nationals are accused of driving crime, dominating informal trade, and undercutting local labour.
Nigerians are linked to drugs and criminality; Zimbabweans, Malawians, and Mozambicans are linked to cheap labour; Somalis, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis are said to be dominating township economies.
What is particularly striking and deeply concerning is the selective nature of these tensions.
Violence is overwhelmingly directed at African migrants, while foreign nationals of European descent, or those perceived to be wealthy and residing in suburban areas, are largely untouched.
This raises a difficult but necessary question, is this purely xenophobia, or does it reflect something more specific, Afrophobia, a form of hostility directed at fellow Africans?
On one level, this is undeniably about competition for scarce resources, that is, jobs, housing, healthcare, and economic opportunity.
On another level, the pattern of targeting suggests a hierarchy of belonging shaped by race, class, and perceived economic power.
Those who are poor, black, and visibly “foreign” are the most exposed.
The fact is that illegality cannot be normalised.
The presence of undocumented or illegal immigrants in business and labour markets, whether they are of African, European, or Asian descent is unacceptable in a country governed by the rule of law.
When individuals operate outside legal frameworks, it distorts fair competition, undermines labour standards, and fuels the very resentment that later manifests in conflict.
Addressing this is not xenophobia, it is a matter of lawful governance and economic fairness.
At the same time, it is equally important to draw a firm moral and legal line.
The enforcement of immigration laws must never take the form of mob violence or vigilantism.
No grievance, economic or otherwise, justifies assault, intimidation, or the denial of basic services such as healthcare.
Importantly, the anger of the unemployed and marginalised must be understood, not dismissed.
Their frustration is real, shaped by decades of exclusion and limited opportunity.
They should not be condemned for raising concerns about fairness in labour and business practices.
But that frustration must be channelled through lawful, constructive means that demand accountability from the state, insisting on compliance with labour and immigration laws, and building inclusive local economies.
The state must therefore reclaim its role decisively.
This includes enforcing immigration laws consistently and without fear or favour, ensuring that all who live and work in the country do so legally.
At the same time, it must improve service delivery, strengthen local economies, and ensure that law enforcement responds swiftly to criminality and violence.
Second, labour and business compliance must be tightened.
Employers who exploit undocumented workers to undercut wages must be held accountable.
Importantly, leadership matters and therefore, political, community, and civil society leaders must resist the temptation to exploit anti-foreigner sentiment for short-term gain.
They must promote both the rule of law and the sanctity of human life.
A society that enforces its laws fairly, while rejecting violence unequivocally, stands a far better chance of addressing the real roots of its hardship and building a more stable, just future.
- Lt-Col (Rtd) Baliwinile Kwankwa, MMSc, MBA and doctoral candidate, writing in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.