On Thursday 26 March 2026 ActionSA, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the uMkhonto weSizwe party (MKP) joined the xenophobic group March on March in a march through central Durban. Migrants, as well as Pondo and Tsonga South Africans, were intimidated, with reports of assaults.
March on March, backed by the MKP, previously attempted to prevent children of Congolese refugees from starting their first day of school, shouting abuse at them. The attempt to blockade the school was illegal and morally indefensible. Yet much of the media continues to describe an organisation engaged in public abuse and unlawful activity as a “civil society” or “community” organisation.
To describe xenophobic formations as civil society and their mobilisation as activism, misrepresents what is taking place. Organisations such as Operation Dudula and March on March have a record of unlawful conduct, including attempts to blockade schools and hospitals and the harassment of migrants. In the case of Operation Dudula, this has at times escalated into serious violence.
Migrants are also part of society. What is often presented as “the community” is a faction asserting the right to exclude through intimidation. When the media adopts this framing, it does not merely describe events; it confers legitimacy.
Xenophobia sits at the centre of right-wing politics globally. In South Africa, parties such as ActionSA and the Patriotic Alliance follow a similar script to figures like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. The MKP, although ideologically inconsistent, combines elements of authoritarian nationalism with xenophobic rhetoric. This is particularly concerning given its ethnic framing, militarised posture and association with violence.
As elections approach, parties including ActionSA, the IFP, the Patriotic Alliance and the MKP are likely to intensify their xenophobic rhetoric. Without credible plans to address the country’s social crisis, scapegoating migrants becomes a way to appear responsive to public frustration.
Xenophobia offers a simple but misleading explanation for a complex crisis. It reframes mass unemployment, failing public services and weak governance as a question of belonging. For parties without a viable programme, it creates the appearance of decisiveness while avoiding the underlying causes of social distress.
There is also a history that cannot be ignored. Xenophobic mobilisation in South Africa has repeatedly turned violent, with assaults and killings. When political parties align themselves with formations that normalise exclusion and harassment, they enter dangerous terrain with the potential for further violence.
Globally, the most effective response to xenophobia has been inclusive, leftist politics grounded in social justice. In South Africa, Abahlali baseMjondolo has directly confronted Operation Dudula on the streets, often at considerable risk. Zwelinzima Vavi has also emerged as a consistent voice within the trade union movement opposing xenophobia.
Abahlali baseMjondolo has taken a clear public position against Operation Dudula and acted on it. Vavi has been one of the few trade union leaders to oppose xenophobia without qualification. As with left formations elsewhere, xenophobia is explicitly named and opposed, not accommodated within political programmes.
Internationally, figures such as Zohran Mamdani, Jeremy Corbyn and Zack Polanski have advanced inclusive political visions that challenge xenophobic politics.
Yet isolated efforts, however courageous, are not sufficient. Addressing xenophobia requires building a coherent left alternative.
There are several attempts to reconfigure the left. Zabalaza for Socialism, a small Trotskyist initiative, includes committed academics but is unlikely to build a mass base. More significant are two initiatives: one led by Irvin Jim and the organisation Pan Africa Today, which seeks to bring the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), other independent unions, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the MKP back into the ANC; and another led by the South African Communist Party (SACP), which proposes a conference of the left, including civil society formations.
The idea that a left programme could anchor an alliance that includes the MKP requires a suspension of political reality. A party that marches with openly xenophobic groups is already aligned with the far right. The question is not whether it can be persuaded otherwise, but whether its current politics are compatible with a credible left project.
Both initiatives face limitations. The Jim initiative is weakened by its willingness to engage with formations aligned with xenophobic mobilisation. The SACP initiative does not face the same contradiction but assumes that a broad conference can produce unity without a shared political foundation. Even if it succeeds in bringing together the EFF and SACP, it is unlikely to become a centre of gravity for the democratic left.
Given that xenophobic mobilisation has become a central strategy of the right in South Africa — and is present in parts of the ANC — clear and principled opposition to xenophobia must be foundational to any attempt to rebuild the left.
It is unlikely that the MKP will abandon its current position, which undermines the viability of Jim’s initiative as a left project. Similarly, it is doubtful that the SACP initiative can persuade the EFF to break with its record of corruption and authoritarianism.
Any effort to rebuild the left must begin with firm principles. Opposition to xenophobia cannot be deferred; it must be central. The same applies to democratic practice and integrity in public life. Without this clarity, attempts at unity risk undermining the very values they seek to advance.
A viable path forward will depend on formations such as Abahlali baseMjondolo, the South African Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu) and others moving beyond sectoral concerns to articulate a national vision for an inclusive and just society — and organising broad support behind it.
Dr Imraan Buccus is a senior research fellow at ASRi
Xenophobia offers a simple but misleading explanation for a complex crisis. It reframes mass unemployment, failing public services and weak governance as a question of belonging
