A recent large-scale study revealed that South Africans' attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community have shifted towards greater tolerance over the past decade; however, deeply entrenched stigma, discrimination, and violence remain a serious problem for hundreds of thousands of people.
According to the report 'Admission Reserved: How South Africans View LGBTI People Today – A Decade of Change Revealed,' commissioned by The Other Foundation and conducted via the South African Social Attitudes Survey by the Human Sciences Research Council, there is a significant shift in the country's social dynamics. Analysis of data collected from over 3200 respondents demonstrates that the country stands at the intersection of progressive legal frameworks and complex social realities.
The Queer Dubs Forum at the University of Cape Town officially welcomed the findings, noting that the data confirms a massive cultural shift. Over the past decade, the percentage of South Africans who considered homosexual relationships inherently wrong has decreased from 66% in 2015 to 52% in 2025. Today, the majority at 60% agree that lesbians and gay men deserve the same rights as everyone else, and 46% of citizens reported that their personal views have become noticeably more tolerant in the last five years.
The study emphasizes that acquaintance fosters empathy. Nearly seven out of ten South Africans know a gay man, 63% know a lesbian woman, and 39% have at least one friend or family member who identifies as LGBTQ+. Researchers concluded that these everyday personal contacts are the main driver for supporting inclusivity, equality, and dignity. The report concludes that progress is now not only being made in legislative battles but is also actively discussed around tables, in religious circles, and within local communities.
However, the data reveals a dangerous gap between public opinion and actual safety. Although about half the population mistakenly believes that LGBTQ+ individuals are not subjected to violence or persecution in their neighborhoods, the statistical picture raises serious concerns. According to the study's estimates, approximately 1.13 million South Africans have physically harmed or harassed someone because of their sexual orientation, and about 870,000 people targeted transgender individuals.
Commenting on these dual realities, Queer Dubs Chair Dr. Lwando Scott referenced the legacy of anti-apartheid activist and gay rights fighter Simon Nkoli, who once stated: 'we must be visible to be liberated.' Dr. Scott stressed that visibility remains an indispensable element of modern struggles, pointing out that the study clearly shows that people with LGBTQ+ family members, friends, or colleagues are significantly less likely to commit violence. He called for the continuation of both grassroots activism and academic work to demonstrate that queer people are an integral and permanent part of African society. Ultimately, the report underscores that while constitutional protection remains a vital shield, true acceptance is shaped through daily social connections. Forums like Queer Dubs believe that evidence-based discussions generated by this research are necessary tools for policy advancement, as understanding these changing attitudes is the only way institutions and society as a whole can collaborate to transform legal equality into real and safe lives for all South Africans.
On the occasion of World Population Day, observed on July 11th, discussions are taking place about how many people the planet can sustain. For a long time, the main problem was considered to be population growth and the pressure it exerts on resources such as food, water, housing, and the environment. However, today's problem in South Africa is different.
The main risk for South Africa is not rapid population growth, but the possibility that the country will fail to transform its relatively young population into a driving force for economic growth, social stability, and sustainable development before this chance disappears.
Demography goes beyond simple counting of people; it is related to understanding how changes in birth rates, mortality, and migration affect the economy, society, and public administration over time. These shifts determine the size of the future workforce, the burden on public services, urbanization patterns, and ultimately, the prosperity or difficulties of the country.
South Africa is undergoing precisely such a transition. The fertility rate in the country has steadily declined over the past decades: it fell from an average of 2.78 children per woman in 2008 to approximately 2.41 in 2024. Simultaneously, South Africans are living longer. The median age increased from 22 years in 1996 to 28 years in 2022, and the proportion of elderly people is predicted to increase significantly in the coming decades. These trends indicate not a demographic decline, but societal maturity.
For countries that prepare properly, this stage represents a unique opportunity known as the demographic dividend. When the share of the adult working-age population grows relative to dependents, economies can demonstrate faster growth, increased productivity, and improved living standards. Nevertheless, this outcome never happens automatically; demography creates opportunities, but policy determines whether they will be realized.
The recently concluded Population Policy+25 Review, approved by the Cabinet at the beginning of this year, paints a worrying picture. South Africa still has a young population capable of bringing long-term economic and social benefits. However, the structural conditions necessary to unlock this dividend remain extremely limited.
Persistent unemployment, unequal educational outcomes, healthcare imbalances, spatial inequality, weak municipal capacity, and chronic poverty continue to limit the opportunities of millions of young South Africans. Rural communities, especially female-headed households, remain disproportionately vulnerable, often bearing the dual burden of poverty, caregiving responsibilities, and reliance on social welfare. These factors are not merely social problems, but demographic risks.
When youth cannot acquire skills, find decent employment, or fully participate in the economy, the demographic dividend is postponed or lost altogether. Instead of ensuring sustainable economic growth, governments face increasing fiscal pressure due to the simultaneous rise in unemployment, inequality, and social protection needs.
Discussions within ESG often focus on climate change, emissions, and natural resource management, which is undoubtedly important. However, human capital is no less important for sustainable development. The future competitiveness of the country depends not only on its natural resources but also on the health, education, and productivity of its citizens.
These demographic trends require much more attention in both corporate strategy and government policy. Businesses planning future investments, workforce development, infrastructure, or consumer markets cannot ignore the profound demographic shifts currently underway. Similarly, governments responsible for evolving systems of education, healthcare, housing, transport, and labor markets must do so in line with changing demographic realities.
The country's population policy, first adopted in 1998, initially viewed the population in the context of the broader goal of sustainable human development. A later review, Population Policy+25, confirmed the importance of including demographic data in government planning, budgeting, and program implementation.
Demographic changes cannot be reversed through political rhetoric or managed by isolated measures. This requires long-term investment in education, healthcare, job creation, effective local governance, and institutions capable of translating demographic knowledge into practical policy. As populations age, labor markets change: demand for healthcare increases, migration flows evolve, and cities expand while some rural areas shrink. These transitions affect everything—from infrastructure investment and fiscal planning to social cohesion and environmental sustainability.
However, demographic dividends are temporary. Every year that youth are excluded from quality education, productive employment, and meaningful economic participation, the window of opportunity narrows. Thus, on World Population Day, the question is not whether there are too many people in South Africa. The real question is whether we are creating the conditions for our citizens to become our greatest national asset.
In Durban on June 7, 2026, foreign nationals gathered near the Department of Internal Affairs offices, using mobile phones to watch a statement by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa regarding the immigration crisis. The article notes that incidents against migrants exhibit signs of typical riots, including mob violence, vigilantism, loss of life, vandalism, displacement, mobilization, and the use of inflammatory rhetoric.
Any African country strives to avoid being listed among countries of interest to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR). When this issue is raised at African Union meetings, some ambassadors may use the break time because they do not fear consequences. However, the situation is different for a country whose name regularly appears in ACHPR reports, creating a tense period for it. There is a fear that South Africa could be included in an ACHPR report as one of the problematic parties within the system of African Union states. Furthermore, its name will be recorded in world history as a country where mass deportations and riots comparable to events in 15th-century Spain, 17th-century France, or the pogroms of the Russian Empire occurred.
Although South Africa has previously faced anti-immigrant waves, the 2026 incident is unique. Prior to this, there were at least three events: violence in Alexandria, Johannesburg, in 2008, which resulted in 60 deaths; a surge in 2015 affecting Durban and Johannesburg, leading to the creation of a Special Working Group on Migration and Community Integration; and a third wave between 2019 and 2021, marked by attacks and shop robberies targeting foreigners, and the rise of more organized, politically sophisticated campaigns against migrants.
The recent wave was triggered by marches in Johannesburg, Pretoria, and Durban, called by an unofficial deadline of June 30 set by certain civil groups for the departure of illegal migrants from the country. Unlike previous waves, which were mostly spontaneous, the latest anti-immigrant actions have become more organized, led by political groups and certain non-state formations.
More than eight African countries—Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Ethiopia—actively repatriated their citizens from South Africa using charter flights and buses before the June 30 deadline. This was part of a mass movement involving over 25,000 foreign nationals.
A discussion is already underway about whether June 30 was successful. Organizers consider the success to be the thousands of people who responded to their call and the geographical spread of their marches across the country. Some see the absence of expected violence as a positive sign, while others are disappointed that the day could not be used to destabilize the country. However, attention must be paid to the condition of the victims. While the marchers have faces and leaders presented in the media as celebrities, their victims are often perceived as faceless masses. They are in collection points for repatriation, with luggage piled on top of each other, and mothers carrying infants on their backs.
Nevertheless, these people have names given to them by their loved ones. They possess feelings, are capable of experiencing pain and tears, and their skin is not stone, but soft and vulnerable, like ours. The suffering of the victims began several days before June 30: first under circumstances that forced them to leave their homes, then in physical and psychological torment in the state of homelessness on the streets of South Africa, and finally in the trials they will face on the way home.
In a report, France24 interviewed Congolese refugee Marcelien Mabako in KwaZulu-Natal, who had legally resided in South Africa for over 22 years. Mabako recounted how protesters invaded their homes and threatened residents, forcing many to abandon their belongings and flee. He reported that people left their dwellings, and he cannot return home or to work. Mabako, a proud hairdresser, noted that protesters looted homes and workplaces, committing thefts and beatings. He added that on the day of the visit, a foreign national was beaten and injured at a local market.
BBC covered the experience of a Malawian woman: 'They came with machetes—the deadline for migrant departure from South Africa is approaching.' Esnat Joseph, 36, comforting crying triplets, stated: 'I am very scared and traumatized.' She left her home in an informal settlement in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, and found shelter in an open field where about 7,000 foreigners, mostly Malawians, had gathered with their belongings about two weeks earlier.
She recalled: 'People came to my house and told me: 'You must leave. We don't want you here anymore. So go back to your country.' There were ten of them, armed.' She described South African men swinging machetes and whips, striking her husband's head and neck while holding him, as if intending to kill him. Fortunately, he survived by God's grace but is now in the hospital.
A story from The Guardian about Jackson Makungwa details his struggle as a Malawian in South Africa. After ten years there, he had only two small suitcases because he could not extend his work permit for two years. He expressed frustration, stating: 'I don't want to be in the country illegally, but the system doesn't allow me to be here legally.' Initially, he resisted leaving despite his mother's pleas, but after an attack on a friend, he decided to leave, fearing violence. Makungwa showed a photo of his two-month-old son, born to a South African mother, whom he could not take with him due to lack of travel documents.
Similar victim testimonies can be found in an Al Jazeera piece 'Migrants in South Africa Fear Violence Before June 30,' featuring the voice of Esnat Joseph, a Malawian immigrant in Durban: 'I am very scared and traumatized,' describing how attackers 'came to my house and told me: 'You must leave'.' These incidents against migrants show signs of a riot: mob violence, vigilantism, loss of life, vandalism, displacement, mobilization, and inflammatory rhetoric. This riot continues as of the writing of this article in July. Many internally displaced victims do not know where to go; some arrive in hundreds at embassies, which have turned into temporary refugee centers.
The author notes that the marchers returned to the comfort of their homes, unaware of the suffering they caused others. In the future, when the situation stabilizes, damaged bilateral relations will need to be restored through diplomatic efforts by the government. The victims will be in an even worse position: in addition to the life left behind in South Africa, lost assets, fractures, and scars from fleeing to their homeland, they will have to start a new battle at home, rebuilding social ties that have been inactive for a long time. The most difficult and painful stage will be psychological adaptation to the new reality.
The events that took place in the country are reminiscent of three key historical moments. The first is March 31, 1492, in Spain, when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella issued the infamous Bull Decree, giving Jews until July 31, 1492, the choice: accept Catholicism under pressure or face expulsion. This tragedy led to mass dispersion and diaspora, known today as Sephardim. The second moment relates to October 1685 in France, when Louis XIV issued the Edict of Fontainebleau, banning Protestantism, ordering the destruction of Huguenot churches, closing Protestant schools, and giving pastors only two weeks to convert or leave. Many victims of this persecution in 1688 arrived in South Africa as French Huguenots, settling in present-day Franschhoek and introducing viticulture.
The third example relates to colonial South Africa, specifically the consequences of the notorious Natives Land Act of 1913. This law prohibited the Black population of South Africa from buying, renting, or occupying land outside designated areas, leading to the sudden eviction of thousands of families from white farms. Sol Plaatje documented the human losses from these evictions in his 1916 book 'Native Life in South Africa,' where he stated: 'Waking up on the morning of Friday, June 20, 1913, the indigenous inhabitant of South Africa found himself not a slave, but an outcast on his own land.' Plaatje described how victims wandered on public roads with their belongings, similar to the Congolese and Malawians mentioned earlier.
It is unclear whether the Zulu word 'Abahambe' ('they must go'), which became the political slogan of this anti-immigrant campaign, rhymes with the Spanish word 'Alhambra.' Nevertheless, these human sufferings must be documented, as Plaatje did in 1913, to help our nation when the inevitable moment of self-reflection arrives.
