TEBOGO KHAAS | Government must not repeat the mistakes of the past

As South Africa approaches the 50th anniversary of the Soweto uprising, the government would do well to remember one of the most enduring lessons of June 1976: when authorities seek to suppress legitimate grievances instead of addressing them, they risk transforming manageable situations into national crises.

Let me explain.

The right to peaceful protest is not a privilege bestowed by the state. It is a constitutional right earned through sacrifice and struggle.

South Africans have every right to express their frustrations over issues that affect their daily lives, including illegal immigration, border management, crime, unemployment, pressure on public services, and government’s apparent inability or unwillingness to enforce existing laws.

The warning issued by National Joint Operational and Intelligence Structure chairperson Lt-Gen Tebello Mosikili against vigilantism is entirely justified.

No individual or group should take the law into its own hands. The enforcement of immigration laws remains the responsibility of the state alone.

However, there is a crucial distinction between condemning vigilantism and creating the impression that citizens should remain silent in the face of government failure.

South Africans cannot be expected to surrender their right to security and their right to peaceful protest merely because government has neglected its obligations.

Indeed, the conduct of government in the days and weeks ahead may prove decisive in determining the outcome of the planned demonstrations.

If authorities engage constructively with organisers, facilitate lawful protest, communicate transparently with communities, and visibly enforce the law against criminality, the marches are likely to remain peaceful expressions of democratic participation.

If, however, government adopts an adversarial posture, seeks to delegitimise genuine concerns, or appears more interested in protecting political sensitivities than addressing substantive grievances, it risks creating conditions in which tensions may escalate.

History offers sobering lessons. The apartheid government responded to the legitimate concerns of pupils in 1976 with force, arrogance and repression. The consequences reverberated throughout South Africa and accelerated the regime’s loss of legitimacy.

Democratic South Africa must never allow itself to develop a reflex that treats public dissent as a threat to be neutralised rather than a concern to be heard.

Government must also be alive to the possibility that criminal elements and agent provocateurs may seek to exploit the planned demonstrations for their own purposes.

Some may seek to incite violence, vandalism or xenophobic attacks. Others may act in pursuit of political agendas or even on behalf of forces hostile to South Africa’s stability and prosperity.

Such actors thrive where intelligence gathering is weak, co-ordination is poor, and law enforcement is reactive rather than proactive.

The responsibility for identifying and neutralising such threats rests squarely with the state.

This is precisely why South Africa maintains extensive policing, intelligence and security structures funded by the taxpayer. Citizens exercising their constitutional rights should not bear the burden of compensating for failures in crime intelligence, border management or public order policing.

Should violence occur as a result of poor planning, intelligence failures or inadequate policing, the government will find it difficult to evade responsibility.

The first duty of the state is to protect life, property and constitutional order. That obligation cannot be outsourced to communities, activists or civil society organisations.

South Africans are entitled to demand lawful and effective immigration enforcement. They are entitled to insist that borders be secured, visas be properly administered, asylum processes function efficiently, and those who violate immigration laws be dealt with in accordance with the law.

None of these demands are inconsistent with constitutional democracy. Indeed, they are demands for constitutional governance.

While we remain eternally grateful to the African countries that provided sanctuary to South Africans during the darkest days of apartheid, gratitude cannot be transformed into a permanent obligation to absorb the consequences of governance failures elsewhere on the continent.

Solidarity is not servitude. Historical assistance does not extinguish a nation’s right to regulate migration, protect its borders and enforce its laws.

The irony is that some of the countries now lecturing South Africa on migration management once imposed strict controls on South African exiles. Botswana’s Dukwi Refugee Camp was established precisely because refugee movements were regulated, monitored and administered by the state.

Refugees were not free to settle wherever they wanted, nor were host governments expected to suspend their sovereign authority in the name of solidarity.

During the liberation struggle, Zambia established facilities such as Victory Camp, JZ Moyo Camp and Freedom Camp to accommodate and support anti-apartheid activists. Those camps fulfilled their historic purpose, were subsequently dismantled, and ex-South Africans returned home.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Lesotho, Angola and Tanzania hosted thousands of South African exiles in dedicated camps and settlements established in support of the liberation struggle.

At no stage were these countries expected to carry the burden indefinitely, nor was their sovereignty subordinated to the needs of those they hosted.

After the fall of apartheid, these facilities were systematically closed and the exiles repatriated. The understanding was clear: refuge was a temporary humanitarian response to political persecution, not a permanent arrangement that would endure long after the circumstances that necessitated it had passed.

South Africa should therefore reject xenophobia and lawlessness. It should reject vigilantism and violence. But it should equally reject the false notion that enforcing immigration laws is somehow incompatible with African solidarity.

The true test facing government is not whether it can suppress public anger. The true test is whether it can respond to that anger with competence, integrity and respect for the rule of law.

If it fails to do so, it will have nobody but itself to blame for the consequences that follow.

• Khaas is chairperson of Public Interest SA