Malema Refuses To Stay Silent As He Exposes The Real Reason South Africans Are Stuck In The Past

EFF leader Julius Malema says South Africans vote according to historical loyalties rather than careful reasoning, and he maintains that immigration was not the reason voters in the 2026 local government elections backed the parties they did. His remarks come as the parties digest early results and as immigration has become a prominent issue in campaign rhetoric across the country.

Malema’s argument is that many voters remain tied to the parties that led the liberation struggle or that they have supported for decades, and that these ties shape their choices more than policy debates or the performance of individual councillors. In his view, the electorate has been slow to weigh a party’s current record against its promises, and that loyalty to historical identity has kept many people voting in the same patterns regardless of service delivery failures. It is a claim that many political analysts have made in various forms, although they disagree about how strong the effect is and how much it has changed in recent elections.

The immigration point is more contentious. During the campaign, several parties, including the ActionSA and the MK Party, raised concerns about foreign nationals, particularly over allegations that some non-citizens had voted or that migration policy was being neglected at the local level. Malema’s rejection of immigration as the explanation for the result places him against that line of argument. Critics of anti-immigrant rhetoric have argued that blaming foreign nationals for local service failures distracts from the real causes, such as weak municipal management, corruption and poor maintenance of water and electricity networks. Supporters of tougher migration policy counter that the public’s concerns are legitimate and that parties which ignore them risk losing voters.

The debate has practical stakes. Municipalities are responsible for water, sanitation, electricity, refuse removal and local planning, and many residents, especially in high-pressure urban areas, feel that these services have deteriorated. If voters are primarily guided by historical loyalty, as Malema suggests, then parties may have less incentive to improve performance, because they can rely on a loyal base. If voters are instead responding to immigration fears, then the parties that promised tough action may have gained ground. Malema’s position suggests the EFF sees neither explanation as flattering to the parties in government, and that it wants the focus kept on governance and economic inequality.

The comments also reflect the way the EFF positions itself in the political landscape. The party has long argued that South Africa’s economic structures still favour the established order and that voters should look beyond the parties of the past to demand radical change. By framing voters as captive to history, Malema implicitly presents the EFF as the party that can break those patterns, although critics would say the same accusation could be levelled at any party with a strong base of loyal supporters.

Whether Malema’s diagnosis is accurate will become clearer as final results are confirmed and as researchers examine voting patterns in wards and municipalities. For now, his remarks add a sharp contribution to a debate that will shape how parties campaign, how they negotiate coalitions and how they answer to the communities that elected them.

Vineyard feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com