Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 August 2025 | Story Dr Nombulelo Shange | Photo Supplied
Dr Nombulelo Shange
Dr Nombulelo Shange is a sociology lecturer at the University of the Free State (UFS).

Opinion article by Dr Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State 


 

The rising xenophobic violence and exclusion towards African nationals from outside of South Africa is increasingly becoming an emotive issue that is impossible to engage and unpack. In the social-media, “Trumpification” age we live in today, truth-telling and evidence are secondary or even completely irrelevant against the loud, “smart-sounding opinions” rooted in lies and misinformation spread online. Some have used statistics to show that foreigners only make up roughly 4% of our population, which is significant, but not enough to account for our rising unemployment and South Africans’ difficulty in accessing social services and goods such as education and healthcare. There are bigger challenges rooted in our incomplete revolution, rooted in coloniality, where resources and land were left at the hands of the white oppressor, in exchange for “peace”. There are bigger challenges rooted in corruption and poor governance. But even with these realities, many bury their heads in the sand and opt to believe the incomplete story that foreigners are our single greatest problem. 

 

Self-inflicted harm 

Many others have turned to history as a reminder of how African countries in different ways, aided our armed struggle and apartheid resistance, warning that we might need the continent soon and we would have alienated all of our neighbours if we continue down this path. Others have turned to politics and economics, which show us the importance of having strong economic ties with neighbouring countries to ensure growth and development. We saw this in part historically with the European Union and we see it today with the rise of Asian markets like China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and others. Some of the pluralistic approaches to the rapid growth of many of these Asian markets is in relaxing borders to enable the flow of people, ideas, technology, money and resources. But South Africans continue to respond by fighting for the isolating barriers put up by colonialism and later apartheid in order to strengthen their cruel inhumane policies and stronghold against black people. 

We often do this to our own detriment as black people and people of colour, structures such as Operation Dudula and March on March, seldom march to white schools in the suburbs to demand that white people prove their citizenship and belonging. They do this in predominantly black or mixed areas, applying a self-imposed apartheid dompas system, that limits our movements. They ignore the fact that many South Africans themselves are undocumented because of a variety of historical and contemporary issues and struggles related to accessing important services like Home Affairs. They base many of their strategies on hateful intangible stereotypes like the belief that foreigners are dark, cannot speak South African languages or pronounce specific words. The ideas around what it means to be South African are usually very linear and often prioritise namely Nguni culture and languages. So, if you are not a light skinned, Zulu/Nguni person, without your ID, you find yourself at risk of being harmed or being denied important services like healthcare in an emergency for example. We are too quick to forget the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic; illness does not care who you are, what race or nationality you are, it spreads and places all of us at risk. Denying foreigners access to healthcare, while many of them live in overcrowded black townships, places black South Africans in harm’s way and can lead to a public health crisis in areas where people were struggling to access healthcare long before the influx of foreigners in the country. 

 

Silence and inaction of our leaders

Noticeable in this whole mess and scary new norm, is the silence and inaction of our leaders. The violent and harmful actions of South Africans can in part be explained by their desperate state stemming from poverty, unemployment, and violent crimes experienced today. The tensions can in part be explained by a lack of adequate awareness of the diverse historical and contemporary importance of the continent and our immediate neighbours for our own growth and development. The overwhelming silence of our leaders is hard to make sense of. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leaders remain some of the few leaders that condemn this violence and call for a united Africa. It is believed this stance even cost EFF supporters in the 2024 elections, but they still continue to hold onto this important ethical stance, while more prominent leaders shy away from the issue. Many of these leaders were themselves either born or raised in exile or started their own families outside of the country and were the direct beneficiaries of the kindness and sacrifice that many African countries showed us during apartheid. In this new climate of having to prove “South Africanness” and therefore belonging gymnastics, many of them would have their belonging questioned. But rather than call out the violence and put protections in place, while creating awareness on diverse complexities that create “South Africanness”, our leaders are silent. And perhaps more startling, is that our government is partly made up of a political party that campaigned on the hate of foreigners. Including political parties like the Patriotic Alliance in governance has helped formalise fringe ideas like the “abahambe” slogan, which was a chant directed at African foreigners, threatening and instructing them to leave. The threats have materialised, and foreigners are having different kinds of violence enacted on them.  

 

Afrophobia protects colonial borders

Many social commentors warned that the xenophobic utterances embedded in slogans such as “abahambe” coming from Patriotic Alliance leader, Minister Gayton McKenzie, are deeply rooted in anti-black hate. The TikTok accounts of creators such as: Nikita Lexi, Tara Roos, Samantha Jansen, Kaapie in Korea, Romantha Botha, and many others, have provided interesting and important context and caution with their historically rooted, evidence-based truth-telling that speaks to a plethora of contemporary South African issues, including race. Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, McKenzie has now recently come under fire for posting old racist and sexist tweets, where the biggest frustration is over his repeated use of the “k-word”. The minister’s actions raise a lot of questions about the intersecting links between Afrophobia, tribalism, hate towards blackness and self-hate as a psychosocial condition plaguing many black people and people of colour, especially in South Africa. What we learn from the minister’s tweets is that Afrophobia is often used to mask racism. It is concerning for a government minister to hold such views, while they are responsible for providing services to the predominately black masses, and artists, in the case of McKenzie. 

What might be perhaps the most damaging and harmful to us as black South Africans, is that our Afrophobia disconnects us to valuable, self-affirming spiritual, social, historical, ecological and economic ties we have with the African continent. We protect the colonial borders that tore our families and cultural groups apart. Our hate is a worship of the colonial shackles that dismembered our ancestors, histories and experiences and that still stifle us today. 

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept