Ngobese-Zuma now works with 'racist' Afrikaner lobby group

MARCH and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma has sparked controversy after calling for South Africa to have universities designated for different ethnic groups or tribes, with critics warning that the proposal echoes the logic of apartheid-era "separate development".

Ngobese-Zuma, whose movement has campaigned against immigration, reportedly argued that there was nothing inherently wrong with establishing universities along ethnic or tribal lines.

Her comments have drawn renewed scrutiny of her increasingly nationalist and anti-immigration politics, particularly amid her growing association with Afrikaner lobby group AfriForum and its chief executive, Kallie Kriel.

Critics say the proposal bears an unsettling resemblance to aspects of the apartheid government's education and administrative policies, which deliberately created institutions along racial and ethnic lines.

Under apartheid, the government established separate universities and other institutions for different racial and ethnic communities as part of its broader policy of "separate development".

The policy was closely associated with Hendrik Verwoerd and other architects of apartheid, who presented racial and ethnic separation as a form of self-determination while imposing political, economic and social restrictions on the Black majority.

Apartheid's system went beyond segregation in public facilities. It sought to divide South Africans into distinct racial and ethnic communities, including through the creation of Bantustans or homelands that were designated for particular Black ethnic groups.

The system stripped millions of Black South Africans of political rights in the broader South African state and attempted to confine them to territories based on ethnicity.

Critics argue that the proposed ethnicisation of universities risks reviving the underlying principle that South Africans should access public institutions according to racial or ethnic identity rather than as equal citizens.

Ngobese-Zuma's remarks have also intensified debate about the direction of March and March, particularly its strong opposition to immigration and emphasis on economic nationalism.

Some critics have compared her political trajectory to that of French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, citing what they describe as increasingly hardline nationalist, xenophobic and anti-immigration rhetoric.

Her association with AfriForum has added another dimension to the controversy. The organisation has long campaigned around Afrikaner rights, cultural autonomy and minority interests, while critics have accused it of promoting ideas that could facilitate racial or territorial separation.

AfriForum has rejected such characterisations and maintains that it advocates for minority rights, language and cultural preservation rather than apartheid.

The debate nevertheless comes at a politically sensitive time in South Africa, where questions about race, ethnicity, immigration, economic inequality and minority rights remain deeply contested.

For opponents of ethnic universities, the central concern is that South Africa's post-apartheid constitutional order was built precisely to dismantle racially and ethnically segregated institutions and establish a common citizenship.

The Constitution prohibits unfair discrimination, including on grounds of race, ethnic or social origin, and provides for equality before the law.

The controversy has therefore raised a broader question about whether demands for ethnic self-determination can coexist with the constitutional principle of a unified, non-racial South Africa.

For critics, the answer is clear: proposals to divide public institutions along ethnic lines risk reproducing the logic of the very system South Africa dismantled in 1994.