A host of groups in government, politics, and civil society expressed outrage at the violence. The Institute issued a statement on Tuesday 13th May saying that recognizing the permanence of African immigrants in South Africa would go a long way towards preventing a recurrence of xenophobic violence. We issued another statement on the 14th of May that South Africa’s mishandling of the crisis in Zimbabwe sends mixed messages about when and a against whom violence will be tolerated.

The Institute’s concern, however, extends beyond the question of xenophobia, for the violence in Alexandra holds major implications for the rule of law and minority rights within the country.

It was worrying how quickly a situation of relative peace and security in Alexandra was able to deteriorate into a situation of open conflict. There were no doubt long simmering tensions in that community and a number of similar xenophobic attacks have been tracked across the country in recent years. But many of the victims of this week’s violence had lived for years next to their South African neighbors with little to indicate that their lives and property were in danger. 

The Alexandra incident gives reason to reflect on whether we are doing enough to track and deal with racial and ethnic tensions in South Africa and whether South Africa’s obsession with white on black racism caused us to overlook a far more widespread racism in our midst. It also underscores the need to do more to defuse tensions before they escalate. 

The Alexandra incident also demonstrated how difficult it is to restore law and order once mob violence has broken out. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that South Africa is a relatively lawless society to begin with. Respect for the rules and respect for each other is often wanting, whether in the way people disregard traffic laws or in our murder statistics.

In Alexandra and now in Diepsloot criminals bent on looting, theft, and robbery hijacked the initial xenophobic campaign, greatly adding to the extent of the violence. The number of South Africans who were also hurt or robbed is testimony to this. “General lawlessness” therefore aggravated an already serious breakdown in the rule of law.    

The Alexandra violence shows the fragility of the rule of law in South Africa. It also warns against the potential “tyranny of the majority”. That South Africans had to hold out their identity documents for mobs to inspect in order to avoid beatings is deeply shameful. It belies the demand for equal citizenship that was so integral to the struggle against apartheid. It shows that the majority was more than willing to use its power to single out and then harm a minority group within the Alexandra community. 

Democracy is not about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Yet the ruling party has often cited  the “will of the people” or “the masses” as a justification for criticizing and/or acting against independent agencies – the media and the judiciary, for instance – which allegedly do not sufficiently “reflect the views of the majority of South Africans”.

The need to respect majority views is clearly important in a country which has only recently emerged from centuries of minority domination. But the principle can also be dangerous when used to foster violence and anarchy, as the Alexandra violence has so graphically shown.

A key lesson from the group-racism and collapse of law and order in Alexandra is the need to foster a type and style of government that respects for the rights of the individual. This is one of the necessary conditions to curb a resurgence of the racist mob violence witnessed this week, violence which can potentially take many forms:  South African on Zimbabwean, black on white, or Zulu on Xhosa.     

- Frans Cronje