DAVID CHITAKUNYE
IN my previous article, “Southern Africa Must Confront Xenophobia Collectively,” published on 21 July 2026 in this newspaper, I proposed several regional policy responses to strengthen the management of migration-related challenges.
One of those recommendations was the need to regulate political incitement. This article builds on that proposal by examining how inflammatory political rhetoric can fuel xenophobia, deepen social divisions, and undermine social cohesion, and why addressing it should form part of a broader regional response.
Words matter. In politics, they matter even more.
Long before xenophobic violence erupts, it is often preceded by speeches that portray migrants as criminals, parasites, or the cause of every social and economic problem. False claims are repeated until they become accepted as fact. Fear is deliberately cultivated. Public frustration is redirected towards vulnerable communities. Then, when violence inevitably follows, the same political leaders express regret while denying responsibility for creating the conditions that made it possible.
This cycle must end.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and its member states cannot claim to be committed to peace and regional integration while allowing public officials and political movements to inflame xenophobia for political gain. Political incitement is not simply irresponsible rhetoric; it is a threat to public safety, democratic governance, and regional stability.
Every democracy protects freedom of expression, and rightly so. Citizens must be free to criticise government, debate immigration policy, and disagree about the economic and social consequences of migration. These are legitimate political questions that deserve robust public discussion.
But freedom of expression has never included the freedom to spread deliberate falsehoods, encourage intimidation, or incite violence against entire communities. There is a fundamental difference between debating migration policy and portraying migrants as enemies who deserve collective punishment. Democracies protect speech, but they also protect people from speech that deliberately places their lives and safety at risk.
Too often, that distinction is ignored.
Across Southern Africa, migrants have repeatedly been blamed for unemployment, rising crime, housing shortages, and failing public services, despite overwhelming evidence that these challenges have far more complex causes. Such claims may produce political applause, but they also produce fear, resentment, and hostility. When elected leaders present migrants as the source of every national problem, they legitimise discrimination and embolden those prepared to turn prejudice into violence.
This is not merely poor political leadership; it is an abuse of public office.
Those entrusted with governing have a heightened responsibility to speak truthfully and responsibly. Public officials possess authority that ordinary citizens do not. Their words shape public opinion, influence institutional behaviour, and can either calm tensions or inflame them. When they knowingly spread misinformation or encourage hostility towards migrants, the consequences extend far beyond campaign rallies or parliamentary debates.
Governments must, therefore, establish clear legal and ethical standards governing political conduct. Public officials and political movements should be held accountable when they deliberately spread false claims about migrants, encourage collective punishment, or mobilise support through xenophobic rhetoric. Accountability is not censorship. It is a recognition that public office carries public responsibility.
Electoral laws should also reflect this principle. Political parties should not be permitted to campaign by demonising vulnerable communities or encouraging discrimination because of nationality. Electoral codes of conduct should include explicit prohibitions against xenophobic mobilisation, with meaningful penalties for candidates and parties that violate these standards. A democracy cannot claim to uphold equality while rewarding those who divide society for electoral advantage.
The same principle must apply throughout the public service. Civil servants, law-enforcement officials, and local government representatives are expected to serve all people impartially. Public-service rules should therefore make clear that xenophobic discrimination, incitement, or abuse of office will result in disciplinary action. Public institutions cannot promote inclusion while tolerating prejudice within their own ranks.
Critics will inevitably argue that such measures threaten freedom of speech. They do not. Democracies routinely prohibit incitement to violence, racial hatred, and other forms of harmful expression because they recognise that words can produce real and devastating consequences. Holding leaders accountable for dangerous misinformation does not weaken democracy; it protects it.
Indeed, the greatest threat to democratic debate is not accountability, but deliberate deception. When politicians knowingly spread falsehoods about migrants, they distort public discourse, divert attention from genuine policy failures, and encourage citizens to blame vulnerable communities instead of demanding effective governance. Xenophobia becomes a political strategy rather than a social problem to be solved.
The cost is measured not only in damaged democratic institutions, but also in broken communities. Businesses are destroyed. Families are displaced. Lives are lost. Trust between neighbours disappears. Regional relationships deteriorate. All because some political leaders found it easier to manufacture enemies than to confront the real causes of unemployment, inequality, and poor public services.
Southern Africa deserves better.
Political leadership should unite societies during times of uncertainty, not deepen divisions for electoral gain. Leaders should offer evidence-based solutions to economic and social challenges, not simplistic narratives that scapegoat migrants while leaving structural problems untouched.
SADC was founded on the principles of solidarity, co-operation, and regional unity. Those ideals are incompatible with politicians who seek power by encouraging hatred against fellow Africans. If the region is serious about preventing xenophobic violence, it must begin by confronting one of its most powerful drivers: political incitement.
Freedom of expression is one of democracy’s greatest strengths. But it must never become a shield for incitement, intimidation, or organised violence. Those who hold public office should be judged not only by the policies they promote, but also by the words they choose. When those words place lives at risk, accountability is not an attack on democracy—it is a defence of it.
Chitakunye is a UK-based senior executive, academic, and policy adviser with over 20 years’ international experience across the public sector, higher education, research, regulation, and consultancy. He has expertise in strategic leadership, governance, policy analysis, and research oversight. He is a published author of over 50 peer-reviewed journal articles and four academic books, with more than 40 doctoral candidates successfully supervised to completion. He has over 20 years’ experience collaborating with researchers across Sadc, advancing research capacity and evidence-informed policy and practice.