“One day I pray that I will find the time to write or otherwise address the issue of the calamitous retreat from the habit of thinking in our country; the atrophy of meaningful critical intellectual engagement and communication, and the occupation of the realm of ideas largely by dearth of originality, superstition, opinionated prejudice, stereotypes and a herd mentality...”
These words were written by former president Thabo Mbeki in a letter to lawyer and author Ronald Suresh Roberts in January 2006.
I will not dwell on the book that Suresh would publish a year later, or the context in which Mbeki wrote the letter. But I want to transpose that specific part of it to the current political moment that we find ourselves in as a country.
Over the past few weeks, the immigration issue has been placed at the centre of national discourse. From protest action by anti-immigration movements like March and March to analyses by the media, scholars and politicians, and commentary by ordinary people – the entire country is laser-focused on the question of immigration.
This is not unusual as the immigration question generally rears its head during election season. But there’s something far more insidious this time around; an air of impending danger that resembles the period leading to the 2008 violence that resulted in the deaths of over 60 people and the displacement of over 100,000 across the country.
A week ago, I wrote a column asking if SA should not consider the regularisation of undocumented migrants, using Spain as an example of how it can be done and what the economic, social and political benefits of such an intervention would be. In a normal society, such a submission should have led to meaningful conversation around what instruments could be used to address what is evidently a serious national issue.
However, the response, on and off social media, was something quite dystopian. Threats were leveled at me, insults were thrown around, my personal choices in romantic partners were used as a way of completely disregarding the substance of my arguments. I will never apologise for the men I’ve loved and the man I am with, who is of Central African descent. I love him intentionally and very proudly. But this is not about me, it is about what happens when a society refuses to engage intelligently on a serious issue, opting instead for intimidating and insulting those who hold dissenting views.
The habit of reducing women to their sexual partners is not new, it has happened to the most iconic women. A few years ago, the public broadcaster was forced to apologise to Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, a powerhouse in her own right, a woman who has earned her stripes, for referring to her as “Jacob Zuma’s wife”. This happened during her campaign to lead the ANC and SA, at a time when she had just returned from the African Union Commission that she was the first woman to chair. It also happened decades after they had divorced, and when she had demonstrably stood in opposition to his political campaigns.
And so it should come as no surprise that a Malaika who holds three Masters degrees and is completing a PhD, who has published bestselling books, who evidently has capacity to think, would be reduced to her romantic choices when making an argument that is backed up by scientific data and which demands critical engagement.
The reality is that we exist in an age of rule-by-noise politics where the loudest voices in society are deemed the most credible, and where critical engagement has been sacrificed at the altar of expediency. In this time and space there is little room for meaningful engagement and reflection. The immigration question is not one that will be resolved through noise and insults.
It is one that demands cool heads, for the simple reason that it is a complex socio-political, historical, economic and moral question. It is also not one that will be resolved by simplistic approaches such as mass deportations. We have been doing these for years and the number of undocumented migrants entering the country has only increased.
In Europe, stricter laws have also not stemmed the flow of migration. In fact, unauthorised migration has increased significantly along some routes. In the UK, arrivals by boats increased 50% last year from 2024.
The route along the Central Mediterranean experienced a 48% increase in arrivals in early 2025. Just weeks ago, the Belgian police reported a sharp rise in small boats from their coastline. All this is happening with increased surveillance and stricter laws.
These are real-life issues that we need to be grappling with as we engage on the subject of immigration in our own country. But we don’t want to do this. We want to insult and shout down perspectives that we don’t agree with.
In the process, it is not only “makwerekwere” or commentators whose arguments are reduced to sexist diatribe who are dehumanised. It is also those who are doing the insulting and intimidating who are dehumanised because the act dehumanising others, of viewing them as inferior, animalistic or less than human requires the perpetrator to shut down their own capacity for empathy.
It also compels them to function in a state of constant hostility, which is detrimental to their mental and spiritual wellbeing. When we retreat from thinking, when opinionated prejudice defines us, when critical engagement is substituted with noise, we become a dehumanised people.
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.