As South Africa approaches its local government elections, immigration is becoming an increasingly prominent feature of political campaigning. Amid growing frustration over unemployment, failing infrastructure and deteriorating municipal services, political parties face a choice: confront the failures of local governance or exploit public anger over immigration to secure electoral support.
The timing of this debate is significant. Local government elections are fundamentally about who manages communities, delivers essential services and spends public money. Yet immigration risks dominating campaigns that should be examining the performance of councillors, mayors and municipal administrations. The question is whether political parties are offering solutions to residents’ everyday problems or simply identifying convenient targets for their frustrations.
Immigration cannot become an excuse for politicians to escape accountability for municipal failure.
Consider communities struggling with unreliable water supplies, overflowing rubbish, damaged roads and inadequate sanitation. Residents have every right to demand answers from their elected representatives. However, when politicians make undocumented immigrants the centrepiece of their campaigns, they must explain precisely how their proposed immigration measures will resolve these local problems.
A crackdown on undocumented immigration will not automatically repair a broken water system, recover money lost through corruption or improve municipal financial management. Nor will hostile rhetoric create jobs for young people. These challenges require competent administration, investment, transparent procurement and effective economic planning.
This does not mean immigration concerns should be dismissed. Municipalities must enforce applicable bylaws, address illegal business operations and ensure that regulations are applied consistently. The national government is responsible for immigration control, while municipalities have specific responsibilities concerning local services, public health and business regulation. Politicians should explain these distinctions rather than promise local voters powers their municipalities do not possess.
The electoral danger lies in the gap between political promises and governing responsibilities. Opposition parties may use immigration to challenge governing parties, while parties in power may emphasise the issue to redirect attention from their own records. These dynamics must be assessed through actual campaign statements and governing performance, rather than assumptions about every political party’s motives.
Meanwhile, the consequences of inflammatory rhetoric extend beyond election day. Foreign nationals can become targets of intimidation, while tensions between communities deepen. South Africa can enforce its immigration laws without treating entire populations as criminals or encouraging collective punishment.
Voters should therefore judge local-election candidates by what they can realistically deliver, not simply by whom they promise to remove.
Candidates must be challenged on their plans for water provision, electricity management, waste collection, housing administration, local economic development and the fight against corruption. Where immigration affects particular communities, they should present lawful, evidence-based responses and clarify which level of government is responsible for implementation.
Ultimately, the ballot box should hold municipal leaders accountable for the responsibilities entrusted to them. Immigration deserves serious political debate, but it must not become a distraction from the everyday failures that residents experience.
South Africans should demand a campaign centred on measurable commitments, credible plans and accountability. The decisive question ahead of these elections is not who can deliver the harshest speech about immigrants, but who can demonstrate a practical plan for governing municipalities effectively. Anything less risks turning the democratic process into a contest of political slogans while communities continue waiting for the services they deserve.
