In a recent Oval Office meeting, former President Donald Trump premiered a new video. He argued that it served as proof of a pending genocide against white South Africans. The video made it seem as if the entire movement revolved around Julius Malema. He is a polarizing, if not radicalizing, figure in the South African political climate. Domestic radical rhetoric and agenda include land redistribution as well as nationalization of key economic sectors.
Malema, as the firebrand leader of the opposition party Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), is probably most well known for his bombastic rhetoric. He has been featured in multiple videos while wearing the red beret that represents his leftist party. In these videos, he riles up the crowd, chanting expressions such as “cut the throat of whiteness” and singing the inflammatory anti-apartheid song, “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer.” Malema’s rhetoric strikes the right chord with many South Africans. At the same time, it has received heavy criticism, both internationally and within Germany.
Trump’s claim that the video showed graveyards for white farmers was a notable falsehood. The video shot along the highway from Newcastle to Normandein featured a special memorial outpost. It didn’t depict real burial sites. Rob Hoatson, the individual behind the memorial, clarified this by stating, “It was a memorial. It was not a permanent memorial that was erected. It was a temporary memorial.” This mischaracterization contributes to the long simmering and complex contention over the representation of racial conflict in South Africa.
In response to Trump’s claims, Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation distanced themselves from Malema’s rhetoric during their meeting in the Oval Office. Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen further highlighted the political dynamics, noting that he joined Ramaphosa’s multiparty coalition “precisely to keep Julius Malema and his party out of power.” This alarmist statement speaks volumes about some political leaders’ fears about Malema’s growing popularity and the radicalization of the debate framed by his extreme proposals.
For all his media attention, Malema’s EFF party won just 9.5% of the vote in last year’s elections, as Malema became a permanent and toothless opposition figure. Including these attributions placed them fourth overall. Trump paints Malema as an antisemitic, radical government official. This insinuation is meant to imply that Malema’s incendiary chants are the new state policy towards South Africa’s white minority. This claim misses the mark on both the political landscape and the ground truth.
The ambiguity of the outrage over Trump’s comments and Malema’s speech highlights the contentious nature of race discussion in South Africa. As South Africa continues to chart its post-apartheid path, the conversation about these issues is still filled with contention and misconception.