The recent engagement between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Donald Trump at the White House was less a bilateral diplomatic meeting and more a global stage for misinformation and political spectacle. .
It exposed not only Trump’s unpredictability as a political actor, but also the South African delegation’s lack of readiness to defend the country’s constitutional democracy and complex social realities.
President Ramaphosa remained calm and composed throughout, offering a masterclass in charm, restraint and strategic dialogue. However, his diplomatic poise was let down by a delegation that failed to speak with a unified and assertive voice.
Silence in the face of a populist storm
Trump’s antics came as no surprise. Using misleading visuals sourced from another country, he revived the long-discredited myth of a so-called “white genocide” in South Africa. With the world watching, President Ramaphosa was forced to respond in real time to a theatrical performance rather than a genuine diplomatic exchange.
This fits squarely within the agenda-setting theory, as outlined by McCombs and Shaw, which shows how political figures can manipulate public discourse by elevating certain issues over others. Trump’s tactic, emotional manipulation through imagery and falsehoods, completely shifted the narrative. South Africa’s delegation was unprepared to reclaim that narrative.
To his credit, President Ramaphosa responded with respect and composure. But diplomacy also requires assertiveness, especially when misinformation is used as a political weapon. His team should have been equipped to counter falsehoods, firmly and factually, not emotionally.
What should have been said
The South African delegation had a golden opportunity to educate, reframe and reclaim the narrative. Instead, we saw hesitancy and, in the case of opposition leader John Steenhuisen, political grandstanding. Here are five clear facts that should have been placed on the global record:
- There is no white genocide in South Africa. This myth is a dangerous distortion. Crime is a national issue that affects all South Africans, across race and class, with no state-sanctioned targeting of any group.
- We are actively addressing crime. Specialised police units, community policing forums and intelligence-led operations are part of a constitutional response to law enforcement.
- Land reform is driven by the Constitution. Expropriation without compensation is a democratic process aimed at redress and equity. It is not an attack on property rights.
- Political expression is protected under our Constitution. Misleading visuals do not reflect government policy. South Africa’s robust public debate is a hallmark of democracy, not disorder.
- Freedom of speech is upheld in law. People are not imprisoned for their views. Where speech causes harm, our courts provide remedies, just as the United States claims to do.
This moment could have been used to show that South Africa is not a failing state in need of saving. Rather, it is a young democracy navigating postcolonial and post-apartheid challenges with maturity and resolve.
The illusion of the West as saviour
Another troubling aspect of the meeting was how South African leaders—businessman Johan Rupert, President Ramaphosa and Steenhuisen, appeared to echo the same refrain: asking America for help to fight crime. Rupert requested assistance to deal with gangsterism, Ramaphosa asked for support in combating crime, and Steenhuisen even mentioned livestock theft.
While concerns around safety are valid, the optics of these appeals are problematic. They reinforce a tired narrative that casts Africa as helpless and the West as the rescuer. In today’s multipolar world, this is not only outdated, it is also strategically risky. Africa must stop looking outside for solutions to its internal challenges. South Africa, in particular, has managed a peaceful democratic transition, held multiple free elections and built institutions that, while not perfect, are rooted in constitutional values. This is not a fragile state. It is a state that has managed diversity, tackled inequality and weathered numerous crises.
President Ramaphosa and his team could have said: yes, we face challenges, but so does the United States. In America, unarmed Black citizens are killed by police with alarming frequency. George Floyd’s murder outraged the world, yet no serious observer would claim it reflects official policy. The same logic should apply to South Africa. Isolated incidents, however tragic, do not define government intent.
Sharing these comparisons would have added valuable context, reminding the world that no country has a monopoly on justice, order or moral standing.
Trump’s politics of performance
Trump is not a statesman. He is a populist who understands narrative power more than most. His politics are grounded in performance, grievance and simplicity. This meeting was not about South Africa. It was about how the interaction could serve his domestic political goals.
Trump’s behaviour aligns with Murray Edelman’s theory of symbolic politics, crafting dramatic moments to create the illusion of leadership. He thrives in environments where facts are fluid and where emotional punch matters more than truth. South Africa entered that theatre without a plan or a shared message.
The risk of a divided voice
Also damaging was the lack of unity among South African voices. Rather than presenting a consolidated national position, members of the delegation appeared to pursue personal or party gains. Steenhuisen’s attack on the MK Party and EFF was not only unnecessary, it was poorly timed. It lent weight to Trump’s distortions rather than correcting them.
In international diplomacy, a fragmented voice is seen as a sign of weakness. South Africa must learn from this. When on a global stage, internal politics should take a back seat to national cohesion.
This is where the idea of a “strategic narrative”, as discussed by Miskimmon, O’Loughlin and Roselle, becomes crucial. Countries must craft and project a consistent story about who they are and what they stand for. South Africa’s story should have been: we are a complex but resilient democracy, committed to justice, diversity and redress, on our terms.
Conclusion: lessons in power, performance and posture
President Ramaphosa demonstrated grace, dignity and restraint in a moment designed for disruption. His poise reminded us that leadership is not about loudness, but about composure. But diplomacy also requires clarity and the courage to defend national integrity.
South Africa must resist the urge to seek approval from global powers who neither understand nor prioritise our unique circumstances. We are not weak. We are not voiceless. And we are certainly not bound by the narratives crafted by others who reduce African complexity to a few headlines or hashtags.
If there’s one lesson from this diplomatic misfire, it is this: silence in the face of falsehoods is not strategy, it is surrender. South Africa must speak with clarity, confidence and unity, or risk allowing others to tell our story for us.
Tshepo Matseba is the Managing Director at Reputation 1st Group, Strategic Partner at Ebony+Ivory Integrated Communication Agency, and former President of the Public Relations Institute of Southern Africa (PRISA). He writes in his personal capacity.
BUSINESS REPORT
