Movements like March and March emerged because the state failed to enforce immigration policy and address unemployment concerns.
AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel and March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma meet on Tuesday, 18 August 2026. Picture: X
The recent meeting between AfriForum and March and March has stirred heated debate.
For some, founder Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma’s willingness to sit down with AfriForum is tantamount to betrayal.
Critics accuse March and March of selling out; of being a project of the white establishment. But what exactly is being sold out? And why should dialogue between civil society organisations be treated as treachery?
Citizen-initiated movements emerge when the state fails to meet people’s needs. March and March is no exception.
It rose up because government has consistently failed to enforce immigration policy, leaving citizens to grapple with unemployment. If the state had acted responsibly, March and March would not exist.
Those who dismiss dialogue forget that our democracy itself was born of conversation. The formerly oppressed majority won freedom not by silencing adversaries but by talking to them. The liberation movements sat across the table from the National Party, the architects of apartheid, and negotiated a future.
If dialogue with apartheid’s enforcers was hailed as heroic, why should dialogue with AfriForum in a democratic context be condemned? To equate engagement with capitulation is to misunderstand the very foundation of South Africa’s transition.
The political elite appear blind to the shifting sands beneath their feet. They cling to the illusion of control, while corruption and policy failure erode their legitimacy. Citizens, disillusioned by broken promises, are searching for alternatives.
Apathy is giving way to activism and voters are voting with their feet, turning away from dominant parties and experimenting with new political vehicles. These include March and March, with its street demonstrations.
The electoral rise of smaller parties – the EFF in 2014 and uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party and ActionSA in 2024 – signals a rethink. The promise of 1994 has soured into disappointment. Grassroots organisations like March and March are part of this broader shift, reflecting a hunger for accountability and change.
To label Ngobese-Zuma a sellout is not only unfair but also revealing of chauvinistic attitudes in South African politics. Too often, women leaders are undermined by insinuations that they are manipulated by hidden hands.
The criticism directed at her reflects patriarchal thinking, rather than substantive engagement with March and March’s agenda. They should engage the activist instead of dismissing her actions as xenophobic, or dividing the movement’s leadership, which will not address the migration issue.
Dialogue with AfriForum is not sleeping with the enemy, but an exercise in democratic practice. Civil society organisations, even when they differ ideologically, share a stake in the country’s future. Talking across divides is not weakness, it is strength.
SA’s democracy guarantees freedom of association and speech. To deny March and March the right to engage AfriForum is to deny the very freedoms that underpin our political system.
The controversy over March and March’s meeting with AfriForum is less about betrayal than it is about fear – fear among elites that citizens are reclaiming agency. When institutions fail, people will organise. When politicians disappoint, citizens will seek alternatives.
March and March’s engagement with AfriForum should be seen in this light: as part of a broader awakening in which grassroots movements demand accountability.
Democracy thrives not when we avoid engagement, but when we embrace it. The liberators of the past understood this. Today’s citizens must remember it.
