The Real Genocide: South Africa's Betrayal of Its African Majority
Image: IOL
In 1948, in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the Genocide Convention was adopted to prohibit not only the mass killing of populations, but also their systematic destruction through prolonged deprivation. Article II(c) of the Convention defines genocide to include the 'deliberate infliction on the group of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.'
This clause was intended to capture structural mechanisms of annihilation that may not involve overt violence, but which nonetheless result in the steady elimination of a people. In 2025, the conditions under which the African majority indigenous to South Africa are forced to live closely resemble those anticipated by the drafters of that clause.
Against this legal and historical framework, the claim by some Afrikaner groups that they are victims of genocide is not only absurd, but deeply cynical. The real slow genocide is unfolding daily, and not against the privileged white farmers but against the African majority, whose conditions of life have been deliberately structured to remain unliveable.
More than three decades after the end of apartheid, South Africa remains one of the most unequal societies in the world. According to the World Bank (2022), the top 10% of the population controls more than 85% of household wealth. Oxford University's 2024 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) reports that over 25 million South Africans continue to live in severe multidimensional poverty. The overwhelming majority of this population is the African. The MPI captures deprivations across education, health, housing, water, sanitation, and nutrition. These are measurable exclusions from the basic elements of life.
Racial inequality remains deeply entrenched. A 2023 report by Statistics South Africa found that 64.2% of African majority households lived below the upper-bound poverty line, compared to 1.2% of white households. The African majority is overrepresented across all categories of deprivation. Seventy-five percent of unemployed individuals are from this majority. Eighty-seven percent of people living in informal settlements are from the African majority. More than 70% of households relying on woefully inadequate social grants for survival fall within this group.
The slow genociding of the Black and poor in South Africa is no longer explained by the legacy of apartheid alone. It is the result of a post-apartheid order that institutionalised inequality through policy, economic restructuring, and elite consensus. What was promised as transformation became management. Redistribution was replaced with fiscal discipline. Land reform was stalled through bureaucratic impasse. Economic ownership remained virtually unchanged.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
The country's political transition was paralleled by an economic settlement aligned to global neoliberal frameworks. From the early 1990s, the new government came under pressure from international financial institutions and Western governments, particularly the United States, to commit to market-friendly reforms. This included the liberalisation of trade and capital flows, a focus on inflation targeting, and the privatisation of public services. These policies were formalised in the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy in 1996. The result was the absorption of the new state into a global system that privileged investor confidence over social redress.
In this context, poverty among the African majority became institutionalised through structural austerity. Basic services remain underfunded. According to the Auditor-General's 2023 report, only 41 of 257 municipalities received clean audits. Many are unable to provide clean water, maintain sewage systems, or ensure waste collection. Public health facilities are under-resourced. Hospitals in rural areas operate without functioning equipment, while clinics in informal settlements routinely face medicine shortages. Schools in poor communities often lack electricity, running water, and qualified teachers. In 2022, over 4,500 schools were still using pit latrines.
Far from being abstract deficits, these are measurable forms of neglect that directly affect life expectancy and health outcomes. In 2023, the average life expectancy for the Black and poor was 64 years, compared to 77 for white South Africans. The mortality rate for children under five in the poorest quintile is three times higher than in the wealthiest. Malnutrition among children under five has increased over the last five years, particularly in provinces with high unemployment and food insecurity.
The psychological impact is equally devastating. A study published in The Lancet (2023) found that suicide rates among youth from the Indigenous African majority in South Africa have risen steadily since 2018, with poverty, hopelessness, and unemployment identified as key drivers. Gender-based violence, substance abuse, and intra-community violence are all symptoms of sustained structural abandonment. These conditions reflect a strategy of economic apartheid underpinned by political inertia.
The mechanisms of this containment are enforced through monopoly capital and state complicity. A handful of corporations continue to dominate key sectors of the economy. These firms remain largely white- or foreign-owned, and their profits are often transferred offshore. The state acts less as regulator and more as facilitator, offering tax incentives and infrastructure support while communities living near mining zones or agricultural estates remain without clean water or basic services and are exposed to unregulated blasting and life threatening pollution.
Economic policy is crafted in consultation with business interests. Social policy, by contrast, is treated as a liability.
These dynamics are legitimised through the language of governance and reform, but they function as instruments of slow elimination. The majority is governed at a distance, spoken for in summits, referenced in policy statements, yet never materially prioritised. When they protest, they are met with violence. When they vote, they are promised inclusion. When they die, they are listed in aggregate.
The Government of National Unity (GNU) formed in 2024 represents a continuation of this deprivation strategy. It maintains the neoliberal model. It is an alliance of economic custodianship. Austerity remains intact. Redistribution is avoided. The poor are once again promised delivery through institutional harmony, while the economy continues to serve the elite. This is political convergence around the status quo.
The slow genociding of the Indigenous African majority in South Africa conforms to the logic identified by the Genocide Convention. The state and its economic partners have constructed conditions of life that are not survivable over time. The infrastructure of social reproduction -health, education, housing, employment - has been systematically undermined. The result is premature death on a mass scale, disintegration of communities, and intergenerational trauma. The Convention's clause on conditions of life does not require mass graves. It requires evidence of structural processes that lead to physical destruction. That evidence is abundant.
What distinguishes South Africa's case is the normalisation of this destruction through the language of democracy. The state performs concern. It hosts dialogues. It commissions reports. But the material conditions do not shift. The poor are slowly erased through inaction, underdevelopment, and neglect that is both chronic and targeted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
‘Open our eyes and ears' – Ramaphosa on how to tackle US tariff hike on SA cars
In response to the incoming US tariffs, Ramaphosa said South Africa needs to look at other markets. South Africa will feel the wrath of the Trump administration as it stands firm on implementing the 30% tariff on exports to the United States (US). Other countries will also be affected by President Donald Trump's decision, as their export tariffs are increasing as well. In South Africa, the automotive sector will be significantly impacted, as some brands, such as Mercedes-Benz, export to the US. President Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking at the BMW plant in Rosslyn, Pretoria, on Thursday, highlighted that the automotive industry has a significant impact on the country's GDP, as it contributes 4.9%. ALSO READ: US tariff of 30% on SA exports: where to now? Ramaphosa on US tariffs BMW Group SA hosted an engagement to highlight its commitment to strengthening South Africa's economic vitality and advancing its industrial innovation. 'The tariffs from the US have turned the world upside down and are a huge threat to us as well because we export a lot of products to the US, such as vehicles, agricultural products and mineral products,' said Ramaphosa. During his keynote address, he added that SA is the 22nd largest car exporter in the world. Ramaphosa added that the US market is important to SA; however, it is time to diversify the country's export base and accelerate domestic value creation. 'As we face this threat of higher tariffs, we need to open our eyes and ears and see where else our vehicles can go.' SA government engaging on US tariffs Ramaphosa added that producers of some industries have already felt the pressure of the incoming US tariffs. He said the South African government is engaging with the US, and he hopes this will yield success in the coming days. 'We need to look at other markets, and being an African country, with an African continental free-trade, we have got to see how we open up the rest of the continent, because we have a very positive tariff-free opportunity with the rest.' He applauded BMW for exporting the new X3 to Europe. He said that exporting cars to other countries demonstrates trust in the skills South Africans possess and highlights the industry's potential. ALSO READ: Devastating impact of US tariffs on SA automotive sector even before implementation BMW Group South Africa invited President @CyrilRamaphosa to a showcase of the successful implementation of the latest investment for production of the new BMW X3 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle at the automaker's plant at Rosslyn in Tshwane. — The Presidency 🇿🇦 (@PresidencyZA) July 24, 2025 BMW not affected by tariffs Danny Bester, BWM plant director, told The Citizen that they are not affected by the US tariffs, as they are not currently exporting to the country. 'Right now, we are not affected by the US tariffs because most of our volumes are going to other parts of the world, like Europe, Australia and New Zealand.' He added that they would like to have access to the American market. However, they have sent 16% of the current generation to the US. When asked if they will be looking into expanding in the future, Bester said BMW is aiming to build a new record volume by the end of the year. NOW READ: Mercedes-Benz halts production in Eastern Cape – Will employees be paid?
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Should we criminalise 'Coloured' like the K-word? The answer is complicated
Founder and Leader of PARC, Glen Snyman. Image: Supplied A poster created by the People Against Race Classification (PARC) created quite a stir on social media when it boldly stated, 'Criminalise the word Coloured, just like the K-word'. The PARC's poster has a fiery debate, with some feeling opposite, and saying that while the history of the term is ingrained with trauma, removing the word doesn't go on to address the real systemic issues facing Coloured people. In June, when speaking to the Director at the Centre for Education Rights and Transformation from the University of Johannesburg, Professor June Bam-Hutchison explained that the term 'Coloured' is problematic as it was part of the de-Africanisation process under colonialism, and a dehumanising process under apartheid. ''Coloured' identity is deeply problematic as founded in colonialism and apartheid. Identities are fluid and diverse, and constructed. An adoption of Khoi-San or hybrid ethnic identities within an inclusive South African and African identity is more preferred in existing and contemporary social movements, although there are different articulations. 'It is more about acknowledgement of genocide, and the historical intersecting specificities in oppression that occurred within the early Cape colony (land dispossession, genocide, enslavement). South Africa has not reckoned with these aspects of our painful shared past – yet this history makes up roughly 200 years of our colonial history,' Bam-Hutchison said. The Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB), the authority on language development in the country, said it acknowledges the concerns raised regarding the use of the term 'Coloured' and the complex historical and social implications associated with it. 'As an organisation mandated to promote and develop languages and foster linguistic diversity, PanSALB recognises the sensitivity of this matter. However, given the ongoing debate and lack of consensus among communities, as well as the legal nature of the question surrounding criminalisation, PanSALB is not in a position to provide an authoritative comment on this issue at this stage,' it said. 'We encourage continued dialogue and engagement among all stakeholders to address these concerns in a manner that promotes mutual respect and understanding.' Founder and Leader of PARC, Glen Snyman, said that in their 15-year history, they have always been against race classification, and the reason behind their campaign to criminalise the word Coloured is that when looking at the history of the word, it shows how damaging it is. 'This word, its history, is as damaged, as distorted, as degrading, as the K-word. We have enough proof, which will cause us to have a successful case in a court of law. We want to have this word criminalised as hate speech. And the reason for that is to encourage and subtly force people to stop the use of the word Coloured... 'We would rather want people to say, use the word bruin mense/brown people,' Snyman said. A poster created by the People Against Race Classification (PARC) created quite a stir on social media when it boldly stated, 'Criminalise the word Coloured, just as like the K-Word'. Image: Supplied 'We want it to be made a crime to call people by that, and it's an educational process. People need to be educated to change the way they talk about other people. When was South Africa educated about the K-word? When did that happen? I don't recall such a time in history. 'Now people know how negative the apartheid government spoke to them about the Coloured word. Marike de Klerk (ex-wife of former South African president FW de Klerk) said they are leftovers, that they are dependent on the white people, and that they are made in the kitchen. That's common knowledge to everyone. To me, the only way to force South Africans to stop this is to make a law. We need to have a law. A law must be made to stop them from using the word,' Snyman said. When asked about decolonisation of the term (the process of freeing an institution, sphere of activity, from the cultural or social effects of colonisation), Snyman said: 'You need to explain to me what the definition of decolonisation, because when I say I'm proudly a K*ff*r, or a H*tkn*t, or I call somebody else a K*ff*r, that would put me in jail. That's a crime. We want the same treatment with the word Coloured. 'Why, after 1994, why did the millions of what they call 'Black People' only criminalise their word, the K-word? Which is an insult to them. What about the three million or so brown people? Why didn't they criminalise the word Coloured as well? 'We feel that 'white people' and 'black people' don't have a say in this because they don't know how it feels to be called Coloured. It's degrading to feel Coloured. Plus, it disguises our true name. We want to be called Khoi-San,' he said. 'COLOURED - How Classification Became Culture' co-author Tessa Dooms, who wrote with Lynsey Ebony Chute, hit back at Snyman's position. In the book, the two challenge the notion that Coloured people do not have a distinct heritage or culture, and delve into the history of Coloured people as descendants of indigenous Africans and as a people whose identity has been shaped by colonisation and slavery, and unpack the racial and political hierarchies these forces created. 'To respond directly to his assertion that compares the word Coloured to the K-word, I reject that outright, and the reason I reject it outright is this. There were demeaning ways to call Coloured people that are equivalent to the K-word. That was never the word 'Coloured'. 'Let's be serious. There was B*esman (Bushman), and there were other derogatory ways to refer to us that are akin to the K-word. That is not the word 'Coloured'. That is like saying that the word Xhosa or Zulu is derogatory. It simply is not. 'The closest equivalence, because it was on the same classification sheet during apartheid, is the word native. If you want to compare it to native, I don't have a problem. 'But to compare it to the K-word is a hyperbolic falsehood for effect. And it's simply unhelpful,' Dooms said. 'If you want to change the classifications or do away with them, then you don't start by doing away with them. You start by doing the work to undo their meaning in people's real lives. 'For as long as being white means a certain life is ascribed to you, and you can attain certain things that other people can't, we must continue to use the word White to point out that privilege. For as long as the word black means that you're going to have certain levels of discrimination, we must continue to use the word black. Co-author of 'COLOURED - How Classification Became Culture' Tessa Dooms. Image: Facebook / Supplied 'In the same way, as long as the word Coloured denotes this kind of marginality from society, we continue to use the word because the word Coloured is also helping us to point out that those things that made that word exist in the first place can exist now. 'People want shortcuts in democracy and transformation. We want to get rid of the words, but not get rid of the systems, and so until we get rid of the systems, we have no business just getting rid of the words,' Dooms said. In conversation with Dooms, it was also highlighted that the terms Snyman seeks to use in its stead, 'Khoi-San' and 'brown people', don't fit what some people understand their heritage to be, and could cause further confusion. Taking to social media for people's thoughts on the matter, this is what others had to say: Tamlyn Hendricks: 'Although there is a lot of sordid history around being coloured. We already have a word that's offensive to us. I have always felt that we, as coloured people, have taken on the word with pride and are trying very hard to uncover our vast and extensive history around it. It doesn't offend, nor do I think it should be criminalised. I do think that more conversations around this need to be had, though, and more information should be uncovered and made available for people to try and learn.' Ashly Schoeman: 'I personally don't find the term offensive at all. I'm proud of my family and heritage; however, if I'm being honest, I don't really care much how race is classified, especially not the name/label. Call me what you want, my heritage and culture will stay the same. 'I've always thought that fitting someone into a racial box and then further dividing them into different types of coloured people, for example, causes more harm than good, creating a rift between people of the same race. Colourism is a bigger issue, in my opinion. I don't imagine changing a name will solve any of these problems. 'Painting the house a different colour without addressing issues with the foundation is a waste of time.' [email protected]
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The pernicious association of coups d'etat as somehow unique to Africa
The word 'coup' has been dropped into the political lexicon of South Africa. The public lexicon, that is… The word, now dropped in public, seems to have provided grist to the mill of Afro-pessimists and those self-assured people who would insist that certain societies are 'not ready for democracy'. During a media briefing on SA's national security strategy for 2024-28, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni raised the spectre of a coup as part of the deliberations of the security community in government. 'One of the risks is the risk of a coup d'état. There is a potential risk of a coup d'état. We have identified it and put measures [in place] to mitigate against it,' Ntshavheni said. A few things may be discussed about this public statement, and about the idea of coups d'etat. One stand-out thing is that it is somehow an African thing (and it could not possibly be part of the European world with its deep history of democracy) – which simply cranks up the music for those who dance on South Africa's grave. Another, more important issue and potentially dangerous, is a type of stochastic messaging sent out by Minister Ntshavheni and the equally dangerous suggestion that the topic should be avoided. Let us start with the Europe-is-good-and-great notion, and that Africa is prone to coups d'etat. None of what follows justifies or even suggests that coups are necessary. It is, also, not a judgement call on 'good' or 'bad' coups… The mis-education about coups d'etat and democracy in Africa and Europe There is a quite wilful and pernicious association of coups d'etat with Africa as somehow unique to the continent, starting, as it usually does, by ripping it from the multiplicity of contexts that shape post-independence democracy on the continent. Consider the view of Abu-Bakarr Jalloh, an editor from Sierra Leone with the German news service, Deutsche Welle: 'The year 2021 went down in history as the year when military coups returned to Africa. In just a few months, the African continent witnessed dozens of coups and attempted coups in Mali, Guinea, Sudan and Chad. So far, 2022 has been no different. Last week, a military junta took power in Burkina Faso. For people who were around in the '60s, '70s and '80s — the heyday of coups across the continent — it feels a bit like déjà vu.' That last sentence bites. Given, especially, that it comes from a European news platform – as if the rise of the far-right and Nazism in Europe is not 'a bit like déjà vu'. European history of the past 100 years (at least) is pocked by attempted, planned, or actual coups and self-replacement – which basically refers to coups in which the leaders put themselves back in office. Over less than 100 years (since the Spartacus League's attempt to overthrow the Social Democrat-led government in 1919), Germany has had at least 10 coups or attempted/planned coups. The word does, indeed, weigh like ironwood on the imagination of Afropessimists, flagrant racists, Africans in the belly of the beast (paying for their national board and lodging), and those apparently sophisticated types who would have for decades insisted that some societies are not ready for democracy – and have to be saved from themselves. This 'not ready for democracy' claim was reproduced about Russia by (predictably) the Washington Post, and raised in discussions hosted by Eurasianet – a news service that covers the South Caucasus and Central Asia. It is thrown about, mainly in the West, with reference to Iran, and for most of the post-war period, there has been a to-and-fro over Africa's apparent incompatibility with democracy. There is nothing apophenic about seeing a pattern in all of this. Hint: It's always about the enemies of the West. Almost always, actually. There are among us Africans, too, who would have us believe that democracy tends to fail in Africa, as Aribiah David Attoe, of Wits University, wrote last year – as if democracy is one thing and one thing only. Let's set aside, for now, just what democracy actually is in the life world of people, and whether it is usually stable and progressive. A very cursory look at Europe shows that that continent, too (never mind Jolloh's suggestion that Africa is synonymous with coups d'etat), has had very many coups – at least over the past 100 years. There have, for instance, been at least 10 actual or attempted coups d'etat in Spain over the past 100 years – since the removal of Primo de Rivera on 15 September 1923. Early in the last century, Austria had a handful of attempted coups or 'self-removals' – and that famous July Putsch of 1934. French settlers in Algeria staged a putsch of the generals to prevent Algerian independence, because the settlers claimed that Algeria was part of France. Let's turn to Greece, which provides a segue to democracy, where we are reminded of extended periods of dictatorial rule over the course of the 20th century, most notably by the 4th of August Metaxas regime and the 21st of April military junta of 1967. That country which 'gave the world democracy' has been through about 19 coups d'etat in the 20th century. There is no need to look very far for evidence. Consider this; over four years (between 1924 and 1928), Greece, the purported birthplace of modern democracy, went through 10 prime ministers; two presidents were deposed and one resigned, with 'numerous military coups' – the most brutal of which was that of Theodoros Pangalos. The dude installed himself. It helps, then, to have a more complete appreciation for the extent of military coups around the world, including the civilised Europeans and their centuries of democracy and freedom, when compared with Africa's barely seven decades of independence – with the multiplicity of conditionalities and lingering chains to the European metropoles, how these have constrained democracy on the continent, and limited the abilities of African countries ' to make policy decisions and … ownership of national development strategies '. The dangers of stochastic messaging Minister Ntshavheni does not get away with her statement easily. The problem with what seemed like an honest and open statement about the likelihood or the real or actual threat of a coup in South Africa is that it is somewhat of a stochastic messaging which, in lay terms, puts ideas in the heads of the populists who were behind the violence and destruction of July 2021. Now, we should be careful. The state can choose to never mention the word 'coup', and leave it underground, so to speak. Or reference can be made to it in public. There's a downside to both. Let's get some definitional stuff out of the way. There is a danger, always, of messaging that works through suggestion or implication as opposed to explicit directives. Donald Trump's speech on 6 January 2021 is a good example of stochastic messaging, and has been described as ' ambiguously inciting '. At Trump's 'Stop the Steal' rally, before an armed crowd stormed the US legislature, he gave a speech urging the crowd to 'fight like hell'. Julius Malema is a better example. Malema has, on various occasions, said things (like) 'we are revolutionaries; revolutionaries are prepared to fight; revolutionaries are prepared to shed blood', and at some point he brandished a firearm. To his audience and followers who feel aggrieved and who believe they have been stripped of 'economic freedom', voice and/or access to power, all these statements may amount to an exhortation to violence – without Malema actually telling people to go and destroy things or shoot people. I am not a great supporter of censorship. I have always contested censorship, and I have the emotional, mental and physical scars to prove it. Kinda. I do, however, accept that there may be times when the state cannot share information with the public because any such exposure may jeopardise policy or bargaining processes, or, for example, throw a spanner in the works of criminal investigations. At best, government officials, or anyone for that matter, ought to know that words matter, and in the case of South Africa, there was a spike in sales of magnifying glasses and fine-tooth combs after 27 April 1994. And, the people behind the July 2021 unrest may pose an actual (or imagined) threat to the state. They ought to know, also, that context modulates the influence of action; we live in a period of increased public dissatisfaction; increased distrust in the ability of the state to provide the definitive of public goods, security and protection of the public; and the idealistic populism (not all populism is bad) led by ethno-nationalists of a particular kind, tribalists and nativists, and political leaders bearing grudges. In this multiplicity of contexts, of loose lips, when do you criminalise public statements or public incitement? Acts of violence and destruction, and liability for public statements, rest heavier on the state/government than they do on political parties or individuals in public. That the government's security community has investigated all threats to the state (actual or perceived) is necessarily a good thing. That a Cabinet minister has come out and mentioned the likelihood or possibility (not probability) of a coup d'etat is up for discussion. What is necessary, at the least, is to shake off those terrible confirmation biases and prejudices; notions that Africa is the home of coups d'etat; or that Africans are not ready for, or are 'too immature' for democracy. Democracy is not stable, nor static. For the record, states that claim to have been democracies for centuries have dark sides that they would prefer to conceal. varying degrees of 'democratic backsliding' in as many as 40 countries around the world – including the United States. DM
