International Day of Countering Hate Speech

In several African countries, anti-migrant sentiment is increasingly emerging against a backdrop of high youth unemployment, rising living costs, economic inequality, strained public services, and widespread dissatisfaction with political leadership. These frustrations are real. Many communities face significant challenges accessing jobs, healthcare, housing, and economic opportunities.

However, rather than focusing solely on the structural causes of these challenges, public discourse sometimes redirects blame towards migrants and foreign nationals. Migrants become visible symbols of broader frustrations that may stem from governance failures, economic stagnation, corruption, or inadequate public investment.

In this environment, slogans about “protecting local jobs,” “defending communities,” or “putting citizens first” can easily become vehicles for exclusionary narratives. The distinction between legitimate concerns about economic policy and hostility towards migrants becomes increasingly blurred.

One of the more troubling trends is the way hate speech is sometimes repackaged as civic activism. Movements may present themselves as defending local businesses, protecting national interests, or demanding government accountability. While these objectives can be legitimate, problems arise when entire groups of people are collectively blamed for societal problems solely on the basis of nationality or origin. Language that portrays migrants as economic invaders, job stealers, criminal threats, a burden on public services, or obstacles to national development can gradually normalise prejudice and create an environment where discrimination appears justified.

Importantly, this rhetoric often gains traction because it draws upon genuine grievances. The danger lies in converting legitimate frustrations into campaigns against vulnerable groups rather than addressing the underlying causes of those frustrations.

Communication has a critical role to play at precisely this point. Responsible public communication does not dismiss legitimate concerns about unemployment, overstretched public services, or economic hardship. Rather, it provides evidence, context, and proportion. It distinguishes between structural policy failures and the actions of individuals, avoids broad generalisations about entire communities, and resists language that assigns collective blame based on nationality or origin. By doing so, communication helps prevent legitimate public frustration from hardening into prejudice and hate.

There is also the growing tendency to define belonging in narrow national terms, which risks undermining regional integration, economic cooperation, and social cohesion across the continent.

This responsibility extends well beyond governments. Journalists, editors, civil society organisations, political leaders, faith-based organisations, educators, researchers, and communication professionals all shape how migration is understood by the public.

Editorial decisions about headlines, imagery, terminology, data presentation, and whose voices are amplified can either reinforce stereotypes or encourage informed public dialogue. Responsible communication deliberately avoids sensationalism, verifies claims before publication to provide appropriate context, and equips audiences to understand complex issues rather than reducing them to narratives of blame.

Moreover, many African migrants are themselves moving within the continent under difficult circumstances, often driven by conflict, climate shocks, economic necessity, or the search for livelihoods. The distinction between “local” and “foreign” is often more fluid than xenophobic narratives suggest.

Ironically, African societies have long histories of migration, trade, intermarriage, and cross-border cooperation. Many liberation movements were supported by neighbouring countries and by people who crossed borders in pursuit of freedom, safety, or opportunity. Consequently, the rise of xenophobia presents a significant challenge to the ideals of Pan-Africanism.

Addressing xenophobia requires more than condemning acts of violence after they occur. It requires understanding why exclusionary narratives resonate and confronting the conditions that make them attractive. To governments, civil society, and communities, the challenge is to ensure that the language of active citizenship, people’s power, and community protection is not hijacked to justify exclusion. Genuine people-centred development should seek to hold institutions accountable, address inequality, and expand opportunities for all, not turn vulnerable groups into convenient targets for broader societal frustrations.

For organisations working in development, governance, peacebuilding, and humanitarian action, communication should be viewed as part of conflict prevention rather than simply a tool for public awareness. Publishing balanced evidence, challenging misinformation with verified facts, amplifying stories of successful social cohesion, explaining the structural drivers of migration, and encouraging constructive civic participation can reduce the space in which fear, misinformation, and hate speech flourish. Responsible communication does not avoid difficult conversations. It enables societies to have those conversations in ways that preserve human dignity, strengthen accountability, and reduce the risk of vulnerable groups becoming scapegoats for wider societal challenges.

To further the ideals of Pan-Africanism and see them realised, the future of social cohesion in Africa may depend on whether societies can transform legitimate grievances into constructive civic action rather than allowing them to be redirected into campaigns of fear, exclusion, and division.