Latest news with #InclusiveSocietyInstitute
Daily Maverick
5 days ago
- General
- Daily Maverick
Words that wound — ‘Kill the Boer' is legal, but not wise for a fragile South Africa
In March 2025, South Africa's Constitutional Court upheld a contentious ruling that the slogan 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' a liberation-era chant, does not constitute hate speech under South African law. This judgment followed an appeal by AfriForum against a previous judgment. The civil rights organisation argued that the slogan incited violence and hatred, particularly against white South Africans and especially farmers. The court found, however, that the phrase, when understood in its historical and political context, did not meet the legal threshold of hate speech. That said, it is argued here that while the slogan may be constitutionally protected, its deliberate use in contemporary political settings is not merely provocative, it is profoundly unwise. In a society still grappling with the legacies of apartheid, endemic inequality and fragile race relations, words carry weight far beyond their legal definitions. It is within this context that the South Africa Social Cohesion Index (Sasci), developed by the Inclusive Society Institute, has drawn timely attention to a worrying decline in societal cohesion by providing critical insights into why the continued use of divisive slogans serve only to jeopardise the country's progress toward unity and social stability. The Constitutional Court's reasoning The Constitutional Court's dismissal of the appeal by AfriForum was grounded in legal and historical nuance. The justices concurred with the 2022 Equality Court ruling that the chant should not be taken literally but as a symbolic relic of the anti-apartheid struggle. It was not, they emphasised, a call to actual violence against individuals or groups. There was also insufficient evidence linking the use of the slogan to specific acts of harm or incitement, which is a requirement for speech to be classified as hate speech under South African law. This decision reaffirmed the robust commitment of the South African judiciary to freedom of expression, one of the bedrock rights enshrined in the post-apartheid Constitution. It recognises that a democratic society must allow space for emotional, political and even uncomfortable speech. But freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from consequence. Social cohesion under strain According to the 2024 Sasci, South Africa is treading a narrow ridge between cohesion and fragmentation. The index, which measures solidarity, fairness, trust, identity, civic participation and respect for institutions, paints a picture of partial resilience and underlying volatility. Solidarity sits at 61.3, indicating moderate willingness to care for others regardless of identity, but still vulnerable to racial and economic fault lines; Perception of Fairness, however, is a weak point, at 42.7, reflecting widespread public sentiment that South Africa's socioeconomic systems remain unjust; Intergroup Trust is alarmingly low – just 41% of black and white South Africans express some trust in one another; and Identification, that is, the sense of belonging to a shared national identity, is strong at 72.2, and is the glue that is holding the nation together. But this is susceptible to erosion under divisive rhetoric. These findings underscore a society still recovering from historical trauma, where the social glue is thin and brittle. Therefore, it is in this context that the use of a slogan such as 'Kill the Boer' must be evaluated, not in a courtroom, but in the court of public morality and nation-building. The political weaponisation of memory Chants such as 'Kill the Boer' are more than mere slogans. They are symbolic vessels, carrying the memory of past struggles, but also the potential to stir contemporary fears. So, with this in mind, it follows that the historical justification of the chant, which is rooted in anti-apartheid resistance, does not automatically make its current use, politically or socially, justifiable. In today's South Africa, invoking such slogans, especially during political rallies or in highly charged public platforms, is often a calculated act. It is a way of stoking populist sentiment, galvanising political bases and appealing to historical loyalties. But this comes at a steep cost: the polarisation of society, the re-traumatisation of communities and the erosion of hard-won intergroup solidarity. The Trump factor and global amplification The domestic controversy over 'Kill the Boer' took on international significance during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House in May 2025. In a meeting with US President Donald Trump, the slogan once again found itself at the centre of a geopolitical flashpoint. Trump, resurrecting claims he first made in 2018, alleged that white South African farmers were the targets of a 'genocide'. He presented images purporting to show images of murdered white farmers. President Ramaphosa firmly rejected Trump's assertions, defending South Africa's constitutional land reform process and reaffirming the courts' dismissal of the 'white genocide' narrative. Yet, the damage had been done because Trump's global platform amplified fringe narratives and served to validate domestic fear-based politics within South Africa. This episode demonstrates how international rhetoric can dangerously reinforce internal social divisions, skew the global perception of South Africa's challenges and undermine the legitimacy of its reconciliation and land reform processes. Why legal speech can still be harmful Even if the courts are correct in finding that 'Kill the Boer' does not legally constitute hate speech, it is crucial to understand that legality does not equate to wisdom, unity or responsibility. In a country with such deep wounds, where race, land, identity and violence intersect in volatile ways, rhetoric matters. When political figures or public activists invoke this chant in the present day, they must consider: The historical trauma it reactivates for many white South Africans; The fear it induces among farming communities; The backlash it sparks from domestic and international actors; and Most importantly, the distrust and division it fuels between already polarised communities. Words, especially in political arenas, do not exist in a vacuum. They shape social perception, inform behaviour and influence whether people feel safe, respected and included. What leadership requires Leadership in a democratic society does not simply involve defending rights; it involves exercising them responsibly. South Africa's path forward depends not only on constitutional fidelity, but on a moral and social imagination capable of transcending inherited grievances. Political leaders and public influencers must ask: Does this speech unify or divide? Does it heal or harm? The question is no longer about what is legal, but what is nation-building. This is by no means a call for censorship. It is a call for ethical and moral restraint and for choosing reconciliation over rhetoric. And for choosing unity over provocation. It is possible to honour the past without weaponising it. It is possible to demand justice without alienating communities. It is possible to seek equity without amplifying enmity. Conclusion: The test of nationhood South Africa's journey from apartheid to democracy is often lauded as a global symbol of reconciliation. But symbols can become brittle. The Sasci's data tell us that the social cement is cracking and the slogan controversy is one fault line among many. If left unaddressed, such fissures can widen into fractures. The Constitutional Court has spoken on what the law allows. Now the burden falls to civil society, political leaders and ordinary citizens to determine what wisdom, justice and reconciliation demand. In a country where speech has the power to harm or to heal, the future will not be built by shouting into wounds, but by speaking into hope. DM
Mail & Guardian
20-05-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Budget: Building economic resilience through three strategic interventions
The government must ensure that investments in healthcare, education and social welfare do not suffer. Photo: Guillem Sartorio/AFP The recent impasse surrounding the national budget presented an ideal opportunity to explore alternative approaches beyond conventional fiscal reasoning. A report from the Inclusive Society Institute highlights a number of macro-economic interventions that are worthy of consideration. These proposals have the potential to stimulate economic growth and, at the same time, mitigate the effects of economic shocks. The report considers three macro-economic interventions: an alternative debt-reduction roadmap, the introduction of a youth solidarity tax and limiting increases in public salaries. The measures make use of a holistic approach to stimulate the economy but also consider the country's socio-economic realities and the need for fiscal discipline. The analysis uses computable general equilibrium models developed by the University of Pretoria, which comprise a comprehensive set of equations tailored for particular economic interventions. Three models were used: a national model to assess an initial intervention that temporarily raised the debt-to-GDP ratio; an older, provincial TERM model for later interventions because of the lack of integrated income taxes in the national model and the latest provincial TERM model for targeted sectoral analysis. Computable general equilibrium models consist of intricate equations reflecting economic relationships based on data from Statistics South Africa's Supply and Use tables. They demonstrate equilibrium states, allowing for the adjustment of variables such as tax rates or spending to calculate new equilibria. TERM, 'The Enormous Regional Model', is a bottom-up computable general equilibrium model used to analyse the regional impacts of economic shocks. The models effectively differentiate between 12 income groups, which enhances analysis of income distribution and poverty. They assume fixed proportions for inputs, whereas variations in transportation costs and wages influence sourcing and labour demand. Alternative debt-reduction roadmap The first intervention comprises an alternative approach to debt by advocating for an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio to 100% over the next five years. The increased revenue must, however, be specifically earmarked for economic infrastructure development. It considers the use of national debt as a potential tool for financing vital investments that yield economic returns. Some analysts will undoubtedly express concerns about the increased debt, arguing that it could lead to long-term financial instability. But the intervention is, however, structured with clear conditions, namely, that the additional debt must be strictly used to fund economic infrastructure and not consumption. This is essential, because it is not about irresponsible borrowing but about making investments to facilitate economic growth. Economic infrastructure development generates jobs. And it enhances the productivity necessary to ensure more efficient business operations. Investments in roads, railways and communication infrastructure are essential for a modern economy and create an environment conducive to growth. By committing to investments in economic infrastructure while at the same time managing consumption debt prudently, the potential for future prosperity is harnessed. Besides, these economic infrastructure initiatives can stimulate private sector investments, and encourage public and private sector collaboration, which will drive further economic activity. A crucial auxiliary condition to these enhancements is to develop robust monitoring frameworks that will ensure the effective allocation of resources, thereby safeguarding funds for their intended purpose. Youth solidarity tax The second intervention is the introduction of a youth solidarity tax, comprising a 1% increase in personal tax for high earners. It is suggested as a five-year transitional tax with the single purpose of funding youth enterprise development. The measure has two goals: to generate revenue and to address youth unemployment. It recognises that the youth are the drivers of tomorrow's economy. Economic growth is propelled by investing in their ventures and in developing their skills, thereby fostering a generation of entrepreneurs and job creators. The youth solidarity tax is a small sacrifice for high-income earners, considering the significant economic and social benefits that it holds for the country. By postponing inflationary bracket adjustments, we minimise the impact on lower and middle-income groups. Moreover, the solidarity tax embodies a commitment to building a more inclusive economy, emphasising the necessity of engaging and uplifting young people. In a climate of rising inequality, this intervention stands out as a symbol of hope and progress. It supports the argument that a commitment to the youth is not just an expenditure but an investment in the nation's future. It creates an environment that empowers the youth by enabling access to resources, mentorship and networks. It nurtures transformative businesses that benefit communities at large. Limiting public salary bill increases The third intervention centres on fiscal prudence by limiting increases in the public salary bill to inflation. As public-sector wage growth often surpasses productivity, this proposal seeks a necessary recalibration. By aligning salary increases with inflation rates, the government can significantly reduce budgetary pressures while reinforcing the necessity of maintaining government services and employment levels. It encourages a sustainable fiscal environment, since it balances workforce compensation with improvements in productivity. The measure will also allow for greater flexibility in reallocating resources to critical public services in areas such as education, healthcare and infrastructure, thereby ensuring the government can effectively meet the diverse needs of its citizens. Balanced fiscal policies for sustained growth The success of these interventions hinges on striking a balance in fiscal policy. The government must ensure that while austerity measures are in place to limit salary growth, necessary investments in healthcare, education and social welfare do not suffer. An economy that neglects its social dimensions can create divisions that inhibit overall growth and well-being. Therefore, these interventions must be approached holistically, where economic growth does not come at the expense of social harmony. Addressing injustices through such policies can lead to social stability, which is vital for sustainable growth. Conclusion A wage subsidy on youth labourers showed positive results. The subsidies on investment and construction services, and decreasing government expenditure through lower real wages, also have positive GDP results, but these two recycling schemes would only benefit households in the longer run, and would therefore be unpopular for the government to implement in the short run. They will however yield positive economic infrastructure development to enable future production expansion and GDP growth. The proposed measures serve to address the multiple problems faced by our economy in a practical way. By recognising debt as a potential investment avenue, we can pursue economic infrastructure expansion, thereby creating a pathway to economic recovery and growth. Implementing measures like a youth solidarity tax not only targets urgent issues like youth unemployment but also fosters an inclusive future. And by limiting the salary increases of the civil servants further fiscal prudence is promoted. In doing so, a balance is struck, which is essential for sustainable economic prosperity. Jan van Heerden is professor emeritus at the University of Pretoria with research interests in microeconomics and computable general equilibrium modelling. Daryl Swanepoel is a research fellow at Stellenbosch University and the chief executive of the Inclusive Society Institute. This article draws from the institute's report published under the title Economic Resilience Through Strategic Interventions.
