If there were ever a case study in cognitive dissonance, the South African political establishment’s response to AfriForum would be a prime candidate. In the eyes of the ruling elite, the Afrikaner civil rights group is, at once, an irrelevant fringe organisation with no real influence and a sinister force so powerful it warrants treason charges. It is a paradox worthy of Schrödinger himself: AfriForum exists in a state of being both politically meaningless and an existential threat to South Africa’s sovereignty and very existence.

The recent allegations of treason against AfriForum, the Solidarity Movement and its leadership are not just absurd; they are a chilling indictment of the ruling political elite’s selective outrage. While the state seems remarkably eager to investigate a civil society group for lobbying on land reform and farm murders (which is a very tangible reality in South-Africa), it is astonishingly passive when it comes to prosecuting politicians implicated in looting the country’s coffers even after the Zondo Commission’s report outlining where a lot of the bodies are buried.

Let’s be clear: treason is a grave charge. It is traditionally reserved for those who seek to violently overthrow the government, betray their country to a foreign power, or actively work to undermine national security. In the case of AfriForum, their supposed crime was to visit the United States and lobby against land expropriation without compensation. They presented their concerns—concerns that have been raised by business leaders, economists, and opposition parties for years—to American policymakers, including members of the Trump administration and congressional leaders.

This lobbying effort, according to the MK Party (led by the ever-scandalous John Hlophe), amounts to a declaration of war against South Africa. It is hard to overstate how ridiculous this is, especially considering the current state of our country. The idea that a civil rights group speaking to foreign officials constitutes treason sets a horrifying precedent, even more so in a country like South-Africa which prides itself on an iron-clad Constitution and vows that it protects the freedoms and liberties of its people. If this is treason, then what do we call politicians who facilitated the wholesale capture of the state? What do we call those who looted Eskom, collapsed the railways, and turned Transnet into a punchline?

This is where the irony of the ANC’s moral panic over AfriForum becomes impossible to ignore. The ruling party has spent three decades allowing foreign interference of a different kind—the kind that hollowed out the country’s institutions which are presently barely afloat. Billions of rand were siphoned off to the Gupta family, international arms dealers, and a web of shadowy consultants. Yet, the political class has somehow convinced itself that the real threat to South Africa’s sovereignty is a group of Afrikaners in chinos.

‍

Ramaphosa’s Statesmanship? Hardly.

Many commentators have praised President Cyril Ramaphosa’s handling of this situation as a masterclass in statesmanship. This, too, is an illusion. If anything, his response has been myopic, reactionary, and entirely devoid of the wisdom needed to navigate South Africa’s increasingly volatile political climate.

Instead of using this moment to unify the country and address long-standing economic anxieties, Ramaphosa has defaulted to the rhetoric of division. He chastised AfriForum for seeking help abroad, declaring that “proud South Africans” solve their problems at home. But this ignores a crucial reality: for decades, a wide array of organisations—including business leaders, agricultural unions, and political analysts—have pleaded with the ANC to reconsider its doomed ideological experiments. These calls have been met with nothing but deaf ears. In addition to this, his declaration that proud South Africans solve their problems at home is simply not true, considering that the struggle against Apartheid was won by-and-large due to the efforts of leaders outside of the national borders, lobbying for international support. It is finally rather hypocritical for a president who only recently betrayed Afrikaner-leaders by stabbing them in the back after what they had believed to be bona fide negotiations with regards to the BELA-Act, to stand amazed when they decide to not be fooled twice.

Land expropriation without compensation is a policy so deeply flawed that even some within the ANC privately admit it is a disaster waiting to happen. It threatens property rights, discourages investment, and risks repeating Zimbabwe’s economic catastrophe at a much larger scale. Instead of engaging with critics in good faith to mediate the situation and come up with constructive solutions , the GNU has chosen to label dissenters as “traitors.” This is not the behaviour of a confident, democratic government. It is the behaviour of a government that has grown accustomed to governing without accountability. What our nation needs is not the sowing of more division or hatred, but to instead address the real life problems that South-Africans are facing, prioritizing nation-building and economic reform, because we have witnessed it in the past, when our country and its people succeed, it is a truly magnetic force in bringing its people together.

‍

Free Speech on Trial

Beyond the political farce, the treason allegations against AfriForum represent a dangerous assault on free speech. If individuals or organisations can face criminal charges for merely voicing concerns to international allies, then South Africa is headed down an authoritarian path of despair. When an estimated five million people were dying of hunger during the Russian famine of 1921-1922, comrade Lenin, a longtime role model of NDR-disciples such as comrade Ramaphosa, tried to solve all the bad press that his regime was getting by banning the word “famine” from the public discourse and news media. Killing free speech does nothing to solve the problem, it merely silences those who had nothing left but their voices.

It is worth asking: would these treason charges be considered if a different group had travelled to the U.S. to lobby on a different issue? What if an anti-corruption NGO had sought international support to pressure the South African government into prosecuting state capture suspects? Would the same level of hysteria exist?

The answer is self-evident. This is not about treason; it is about silencing critics. And the easiest way to silence an opponent is to criminalise their speech.

Then, of course, we come to the biggest irony of all: the MK Party—the very party that filed criminal complaints against AfriForum—is led by a man who was directly involved in state capture without ever facing the consequences thereof. The party’s de facto Boss, Jacob Zuma, presided over a government that allowed corruption to flourish at an industrial scale. Today we are still feeling the effects of his rampant corruption spree and it is harming ordinary, vulnerable South-Africans the most. Why is AfriForum, an organisation whose biggest crime is being extremely loud on behalf of its members, in the crosshairs of the state?

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has breathlessly described AfriForum’s leaders as “white supremacists in suits and ties.” One can’t help but chuckle. Clearly, the SPLC has never encountered a typical AfriForum executive—Kallie Kriel and his colleagues, with their penchant for two-tone shirts, chinos, and vellies, are about as far from the tailored elitism of the European far-right as one can get. But beyond the fashion critique, this accusation reflects the lazy tendency to label any right-leaning advocacy group as “white supremacist” without engaging with their actual arguments. The failure to engage in constructive dialogues by opposing groups as is the case here only leads to a finger pointing exercise, which doesn’t solve a single problem for any South African. Instead all it does is further stir the pot of divide.

AfriForum would most probably readily admit that they never tried to speak on behalf of all South Africans - the hint is probably in the name. For the Afrikaner and the Afrikaans language they would probably gladly be called extremist and exclusionary. Does this make them a white supremacist movement? Surely not. If anything, it is an organisation embedded in constitutionalism, the rule of law, and free-market principles—values that should, in theory, appeal to anyone who genuinely cares about South Africa’s future.

‍

The Bigger Picture

The treason charges against AfriForum are not just laughable, they are dangerous and set a dangerous precedent for anyone who wishes to criticize the government. If AfriForum does end up having to defend themselves in court, they will have the best representation that their hundreds of thousands of members can afford - but this is not the case for the individual journalist from the small local publication, or the blogger who wishes to shine a light on corruption and fraud. These charges reflect a government that is increasingly intolerant of dissent, a ruling elite that is quick to criminalise its critics while ignoring its own failings. It portrays the picture of a government who has avoided accountability and one who really doesn’t believe in engaging its own citizens in dialogue to formulate long-term solutions for the people it is meant to serve.

If we want to move forward as a country, we must resist the temptation to silence those with whom we disagree. We must recognise that advocacy—whether one agrees with it or not—is a fundamental pillar of democracy. We must recognise that South Africa is at its very core a sincerely diverse nation, where different groups have to find a way to live together somehow. This multiplicity of interests will not be suppressed. Finally, and most importantly, we must demand accountability from those who wield real power, rather than expending energy on punishing those who merely criticise it.

Schrödinger’s AfriForum—simultaneously irrelevant and treasonous—should not be the focus of our national discourse. The real question we should be asking is: why is our government more concerned with policing speech than with governing competently and efficiency?

‍