On the surface, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni’s remark, “We will smoke them out”, regarding illegal miners trapped underground in Stilfontein, North West, appears to be a decisive stance on illegal mining — a pervasive issue in South Africa.
However, the underlying implications of this statement expose complex intersections between political rhetoric, governance accountability, and human rights.
By refusing assistance to individuals whose lives are in immediate danger, Ntshavheni’s stance raises significant questions about the state’s role in protecting its people, regardless of legal status.
This analysis examines the political and ethical dimensions of the minister’s statement within the broader context of governance and crisis management in South Africa.
The Context of Illegal Mining and Its Challenges
Illegal mining is not new to South Africa, nor is it a trivial matter. Often driven by extreme poverty and a lack of economic alternatives, individuals engage in this dangerous work to sustain themselves and their families.
The consequences, however, are grave. Illegal mining undermines formal economic activities, poses significant safety risks, and contributes to environmental degradation. Moreover, this shadow economy is often controlled by illicit networks, adding complexity to an already volatile situation.
Despite these challenges, the state has to balance enforcement with humanitarian obligations. Failing to acknowledge the socio-economic forces driving illegal mining, Ntshavheni’s stance appears punitive and reactionary, suggesting an unbalanced prioritization of criminal justice over social justice.
Political Rhetoric and Its Impact on Governance
Political rhetoric is a powerful tool that not only influences public perception but also shapes government actions. In this case, Ntshavheni’s language — “We will smoke them out“ — employs an aggressive tone typically associated with combat rather than crisis management.
This approach reflects a concerning shift toward dehumanising marginalised individuals, casting them not as desperate individuals but as adversaries.
Such rhetoric is not without precedent; political leaders worldwide have historically used combative language to justify coercive actions against perceived threats to national interests.
In South Africa, however, such language resonates differently due to the nation’s past struggles with oppression and the post-apartheid emphasis on Ubuntu, which stresses community, empathy, and shared humanity.
The minister’s language risks alienating large segments of the population and reinforces perceptions of an elitist state disconnected from the realities of poverty and survival on the ground.
The Role of Government in a Crisis: Human Rights and Ubuntu
One of the core tenets of democratic governance is the state’s responsibility to protect human life. This duty extends even to those who may be involved in illegal activities.
By denying aid, the government is effectively abandoning vulnerable individuals in a life-threatening situation. Ntshavheni’s refusal to intervene underlines a worrisome moral inconsistency: a government that advocates for human rights cannot selectively apply compassion.
From a governance standpoint, the government’s decision not to intervene undermines the principles of Ubuntu. South Africa’s emphasis on Ubuntu implies a commitment to collective care and mutual respect, which includes responding with empathy and pragmatism in crises.
The refusal to provide aid suggests a divergence from these values and signals a concerning shift toward punitive governance models that overlook humanitarian considerations.
Ethical Implications and the Accountability of Government Actions
The ethical implications of Ntshavheni’s statement extend beyond the immediate crisis. Failing to act in situations of life-threatening danger sets a precedent that could be applied to future cases, thereby endangering human rights protections.
Such policies may foster an environment where individuals deemed “undesirable” or “criminal” are increasingly marginalized by state institutions. This selective approach to humanity and rights protection could erode public trust, deepening the disconnect between the government and communities who feel economically and socially excluded.
Furthermore, this stance could have implications for South Africa’s international reputation. As a country often heralded for its progressive human rights framework and its post-apartheid commitment to social justice, adopting a punitive approach could attract criticism from human rights advocates and international organisations, potentially affecting South Africa’s standing within the global community.
Policy Alternatives and Recommendations
An effective approach to illegal mining must address both the legal and socio-economic dimensions of the issue. Rather than relying solely on law enforcement, the government could implement integrated policies that consider long-term socio-economic support, rehabilitation programs for illegal miners, and structural reforms in mining policies that provide opportunities for community inclusion in the formal economy.
A multi-stakeholder approach that includes community leaders, civil society organisations, and mining companies could foster a more sustainable and humane approach. Rather than demonizsng those driven to illegal mining out of economic desperation, the government could seek to create pathways that allow them to participate in legal, safe, and productive economic activities.
Such an approach would align more closely with South Africa’s commitment to human rights and social justice, demonstrating that even in moments of crisis, the state’s actions are guided by principles of Ubuntu and inclusive development.
Conclusion
Minister Ntshavheni’s “We will smoke them out” statement reflects a political moment where rhetoric, governance, and human rights collide. By adopting a combative tone and denying humanitarian assistance, the government risks undermining both public trust and its ethical obligations.
A compassionate, multifaceted approach to illegal mining that considers both enforcement and socio-economic support could better reflect South Africa’s democratic ideals and commitment to social justice.
Ultimately, this incident underscores the need for accountability and a reflective approach to crisis management that upholds human dignity.
For a nation rooted in principles of Ubuntu, South Africa’s response to vulnerable populations, even those on the wrong side of the law, should be guided by empathy and a commitment to inclusive, humane governance.
Anda Mbikwana is a PhD candidate and a municipal finance and leadership in governance expert, he writes in his personal capacity.