By Mxolisi Ncube
As South Africans reflect on the local government elections held on Wednesday, Muslim migrant communities face a familiar reality: political parties competed for votes, promises of change dominated the campaign, and vulnerable minorities once again found themselves turned into political targets.
For many, the concern is not simply whether a different political party has assumed control of their municipality. It is whether a political system built around electoral competition and the pursuit of majority support can adequately protect those who lack the numbers or political influence to defend themselves.
Throughout the election campaign, migrants were subjected to hostility, suspicion and political scapegoating. Increasingly, such hostility also took on an anti-Muslim character.
Mohammed Abdulahi Abdi, chairperson of the Somali Community in South Africa, says political decisions affect everyone living in a municipality, irrespective of whether they possess the right to vote.
“It affects our daily lives, from water and electricity to housing, safety, roads and access to economic opportunities. While foreign nationals cannot vote in municipal elections, they are part of our communities, they contribute to the economy, operate businesses, employ people and raise families here. Good governance, better service delivery and safer communities should improve the lives of everyone who calls Johannesburg home, regardless of where they come from.”
Yet his comments raise a more fundamental question: What happens when political power depends on satisfying the majority, while the rights and interests of minorities become politically inconvenient?
When electoral competition rewards xenophobia
Democracy is frequently presented as the solution to political oppression. However, its majoritarian tendencies create a serious problem when political leaders discover that hostility towards a minority can mobilise support among a larger voting population.
In such circumstances, xenophobia is not merely a prejudice that democracy has failed to eliminate. Electoral competition can actively produce, reward and amplify it.
Politicians seeking votes may find it politically advantageous to identify an unpopular group, portray it as a threat and present themselves as defenders of the majority.
The minority becomes the convenient enemy, while those competing for political power present themselves as the solution.
This is one of the dangers of majoritarian politics: the interests and fears of larger voting constituencies can become instruments through which politically weaker communities are marginalised.
South Africa’s recent election campaign offers a troubling illustration.
In Johannesburg’s Ward 58, Rise Mzansi candidate Aziz Ally, a South African Muslim born in KwaZulu-Natal, was falsely portrayed as Somali by the anti-migrant group March and March. A Somali activist assisting his campaign was also targeted.
Rise Mzansi subsequently lodged a complaint with the Electoral Commission, alleging xenophobia and the spreading of misinformation.
The incident exposes something more disturbing than a dispute about nationality.
A Muslim candidate’s name, perceived ethnicity and association with a Somali individual became grounds for political suspicion.
The incident raises the question of how quickly anti-foreigner sentiment can spill over into hostility towards Muslims more generally.
It also reveals the dangers of making national belonging a central measure of political legitimacy.
Abdi strongly rejects the scapegoating of migrants.
“It is unfair, irresponsible and dangerous,” he said.
“I am particularly concerned when political parties use migration as an election tool, creating the impression that migrants are responsible for every problem facing our country.”
His concerns point towards a deeper problem within the political system itself.
When political success is measured by votes, politicians have incentives to appeal to existing prejudices rather than confront them.
Those who cannot vote are particularly vulnerable. They are affected by government decisions, yet they cannot directly influence electoral outcomes through the ballot.
But even minorities who possess voting rights may find themselves outnumbered, with their concerns overshadowed by the demands of larger political constituencies.
This is the danger of treating majority support as the primary source of political legitimacy.
A majority can determine an electoral outcome. It cannot determine what is morally right.
The fact that an idea is popular does not make it just. Nor does the fact that a community is numerically small make its rights less deserving of protection.
The deeper question, therefore, is not merely whether the state is sufficiently democratic, but whether the principles governing its exercise of power are themselves just.
Islam, justice and the limits of majority rule
South Africa’s Constitution recognises protections for equality, dignity and personal security. Yet constitutional promises do not automatically eliminate the political incentives that encourage hostility towards unpopular groups.
Where the pursuit of majority support is allowed to override principled leadership, minorities can remain exposed despite the existence of formal legal protections.
This problem is compounded by the modern state’s power to define political belonging through nationality, citizenship and other categories of legal recognition.
Although citizenship has a role within the state’s political arrangements, it cannot become the ultimate standard by which human dignity, moral worth or the obligation to uphold justice is determined.
For Muslims, this is particularly significant.
Islam does not derive its principles of justice from popular opinion, national identity or the will of an electoral majority.
The Qur’an commands believers to uphold justice even against themselves, their parents and their relatives (4:135).
It further declares: “Do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness” (5:8).
These are not principles that become binding only when they receive sufficient public support.
They are obligations established by Allah, irrespective of whether fulfilling them is popular or politically advantageous.
Islam therefore challenges the assumption that political legitimacy and moral correctness can ultimately be settled through numbers.
Neither a majority nor a government possesses the moral authority to legitimise injustice.
This also exposes a limitation within the secular political framework, which places the state and its institutions in the position of determining the legal boundaries within which religious and moral commitments may operate.
From an Islamic perspective, justice cannot be reduced to whatever a political system recognises, permits or finds expedient.
It must be measured against standards beyond the preferences of politicians, electoral constituencies and the state itself.
Beyond elections: Who determines justice?
Abdi has warned that the consequences of inflammatory campaigning often remain long after election day.
“My concern is that once elections are over, these communities are left to deal with the consequences of inflammatory political rhetoric. I don’t believe that the problem will disappear unless government takes a firm position.”
His warning highlights another weakness of the electoral cycle.
Political leaders may benefit from hostility during their campaigns, while communities are left to face the consequences once the votes have been counted.
Elections can change officeholders without changing the political incentives that helped produce the hostility in the first place.
This is why condemning individual acts of xenophobia, while necessary, cannot be the end of the discussion.
It is also necessary to examine how nationalist political narratives, majority-driven electoral competition and the structures of the modern state can contribute to the marginalisation of minority communities.
A political system cannot be judged solely by how successfully it conducts elections. It must also be scrutinised according to how power is exercised, how injustice is prevented and whether the rights of politically weaker communities are protected.
Abdi believes leadership must extend beyond narrow group interests.
“As a leader, I believe my responsibility is to represent people, not just those who look like me, speak like me or share my background. I may not agree with everyone’s views, but I will always defend their right to dignity, safety and fair treatment.”
His statement points towards a principle that ought to transcend electoral calculations.
Justice should not depend on whether a person belongs to the majority, possesses political influence, shares the nationality of those in power or contributes to a politician’s electoral prospects.
For Muslim communities, the discussion must go further than appealing to the democratic system to become more accommodating.
It requires questioning the assumption that democracy itself is the ultimate guarantor of justice.
The experiences of vulnerable minorities demonstrate the danger of allowing political power to be shaped by the pursuit of numbers, particularly when that pursuit rewards hostility towards those who are different.
Democracy can become a mechanism through which xenophobia is politically manufactured and amplified, rather than merely a system that struggles to contain it.
In the aftermath of South Africa’s local government elections, the predicament of Muslim migrants raises questions far greater than the outcome of a municipal election.
What protects a minority when hostility towards it becomes politically popular?
What prevents a majority from using its political strength to marginalise those with less influence?
And who determines the boundaries of justice when political power is ultimately contested through competing claims to popular support?
For Muslims, the answer cannot simply be another election, another political party or another promise of democratic reform.
The fundamental principle must remain that justice is an obligation established by Allah, not a concession granted by a political majority.
The number of people supporting an injustice can never transform it into justice. And the absence of political power can never deprive a person of the rights that are due to them.
