Why dialogue between March and March and AfriForum is not betrayal
Movements like March and March emerged because the state failed to enforce immigration policy and address unemployment concerns.
The recent meeting between AfriForum and March and March has sparked controversy. Some critics see March and March founder Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma's engagement with AfriForum as betrayal, accusing the group of selling out and being a project of the white establishment. However, the purpose of this dialogue is often misunderstood. Civil society movements arise when the state fails to address citizens' needs, such as AfriForum and March and March's focus on immigration policy enforcement.
If the government had properly handled immigration, March and March would not exist. Critics fail to recognize that South Africa's democracy was born from dialogue, with liberation movements negotiating with the National Party, the architects of apartheid. If engaging with apartheid enforcers was considered heroic, why should dialogue with AfriForum in a democratic context be condemned?
The political elite seem to ignore the changing dynamics, clinging to control while corruption and policy failures undermine their legitimacy. Citizens, disillusioned by broken promises, are seeking alternative solutions, turning to activist groups like March and March. Smaller parties such as the EFF and MK party are gaining ground, reflecting a desire for accountability and change.
Ngobese-Zuma's status as a leader should not be dismissed as tainted by hidden forces, as her criticisms reveal prejudices rather than substantive concerns. Her engagement with AfriForum is not an act of betrayal but rather an exercise in democratic practice. Even though ideological differences exist, civil society organizations share a stake in the country's future.
Talking across divides is not weakness, but strength. South Africa's democracy guarantees freedom of association and speech, and denying March and March the right to engage with AfriForum denies the very freedoms that underpin the political system. The controversy surrounding the meeting with AfriForum stems from fear among elites that citizens are reclaiming agency.
When institutions fail, people will organize, and when politicians disappoint, citizens will seek alternatives. March and March's engagement with AfriForum should be viewed as part of a broader awakening, with grassroots movements demanding accountability. Democracy thrives when we embrace engagement, not when we avoid it. The liberators of the past understood this, and today's citizens must remember it.
Written by urgent.news from The Citizen's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
