Democracy at risk: Vigilantism cannot take the place of the rule of law

SA is at a perilous juncture. The rule of law, one of the most important tenets of any constitutional democracy, is gradually eroding throughout the nation with vigilantism taking centre stage.

Vigilante organisations that have taken on powers that belong only to the state are increasingly shaping immigration enforcement rather than the courts, trained law enforcement personnel, or constitutional institutions.

This is a serious constitutional crisis rather than just an immigration issue.

As a senior manager and lecturer in an academic institution, I’ve seen firsthand the negative effects this hostile environment has on foreign students who are ruled by fear.

Many of the foreign students who came to SA lawfully to seek higher education and make intellectual contributions to our institutions are now constantly afraid of SA vigilante groups.

Some have decided to return home because they fear harassment, intimidation, and violence from those who have assumed the role of immigration agents, rather than because their visas have expired or they broke the law in SA.

Education ought to be a haven for knowledge acquisition, cross-continental collaboration, and intellectual interchange.

Rather, fear is increasingly taking precedence over academic excellence on our campuses.

Every sovereign state has the legal right to control immigration. It is the state’s responsibility, not the people’s (vigilante groups).

For immigration officials, and the justice system, the distinction between legal and illegal migration is crucial.

Constitutional democracy starts to fall apart when common people take on the role of police.

The constitution forbids the selective application of the law on the basis of political mobilisation, emotion, or frustration.

It ensures due process, human dignity, and equality before the law.

Regardless of nationality, everyone inside SA’s borders is covered by these protections.

However, it seems constitutional governance is being replaced by vigilantism.

The irony cannot be disregarded.

The generosity of the African continent fuelled SA’s independence war from apartheid.

During the worst years of apartheid, SA liberation fighters found refuge in nations such as Zambia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola and Botswana.

Without being questioned about whether they had the proper papers, thousands of South Africans crossed borders.

They were welcomed because other Africans saw the need for solidarity in the face of persecution across the continent.

This is the reason I still firmly believe in Pan-Africanism: no African should ever be considered a foreigner in Africa.

The significance of immigration rules and national sovereignty is not diminished by this conviction.

Instead, it underscores that Africans should never lose sight of our humanity, shared history, and intertwined destiny.

In a constitutional democracy, respect for the law and Pan-African unity may coexist.

However, regardless of their legal status, all foreign nationals are frequently reduced to the term “illegal immigrant” in today’s public discourse.

Such generalisations foster xenophobia and collective punishment.

The seeming paralysis of state institutions is perhaps the biggest worry.

It’s inevitable for citizens to start questioning if the state has given up its constitutional responsibility when vigilante organisations carry out operations that resemble immigration sweeps.

Mob violence might take the place of constitutional democracy in SA if private organisations decide who is allowed to work, trade, belong, and be protected.

In the event that vigilante groups and the state are at odds, South Africans will have to ask themselves a difficult question: How did we get to the position where the state’s monopoly on lawful enforcement is effectively challenged by civilians?

Sound governance should never be replaced by the deployment of troops.

The fundamental problems of unemployment, poverty, poor border management, corruption, and ineffective public administration cannot be solved by military visibility, even though it may momentarily restore order.

It is not possible to address these systemic issues by focusing on disadvantaged migrants.

Immigration has evolved into a convenient political scapegoat. Foreigners did not cause the unemployment issue in SA.

Refugees did not plan state capture. The enrolment of international students in universities did not cause the collapse of service delivery in our municipalities.

Migrants did not trigger load-shedding. Poor economic growth, mishandled municipalities, procurement corruption, and governance shortcomings have much deeper domestic causes.

While blaming immigrants for all socioeconomic problems makes you feel good, it doesn’t provide a long-term solution.

In fact, a large number of migrants support SA’s economy.

They start companies, generate jobs, pay taxes when necessary, support higher education, address skills gaps, and enhance cultural diversity.

This does not imply that undocumented migration should be disregarded.

The enforcement of immigration rules must be uniform, competent, and compassionate.

People who break immigration laws should be dealt with legally, given due process, and, if necessary, removed in compliance with South African law and international commitments. Constitutional democracies operate in this manner.

Therefore, neither mob rule nor open borders are the solution.

Effective border management, contemporary immigration procedures, quicker visa processing, efficient refugee determination, increased law enforcement capability, and regional collaboration with neighbouring nations are necessary.

Additionally, rather than promoting oversimplified narratives that pit impoverished South Africans against impoverished migrants, political leaders must be willing to speak candidly about the true reasons of unemployment and economic inequality.

Above all, the state needs to recover its constitutional power.

The principles of justice, equality, human dignity, and ubuntu gave rise to our democracy.

If mistrust takes the place of unity, vigilantism takes the place of the rule of law, and fear takes the place of compassion, we will be disrespecting that legacy.