A remarkable and worrying change is taking place in South African student politics, and it demands honest investigation.
The space that was once defined by grassroots advocacy and direct engagement with students' needs is increasingly being replaced by a style of politics that prioritizes visibility over value and rhetoric over results. The petition put forward as part of what SASCO has prepared as the fourth pillar of its struggle is not an isolated development. This is part of a broader pattern in which political actors, facing declining influence on campuses, attempt to regain relevance by involving themselves in global debates that seem morally cogent but yield little practical results for the people they claim to represent.
The petition, launched on 9 March 2026, is supported by a coalition of structures including SASCO, ANCYL, YCLSA, PSCUP, Wits PSC, UKZN PSC, UJ PSF, PSC UWC, UCT Alumni, PSA YL, COSATU, SWAYOCO and the PSC. On paper, this alliance suggests scale and organizational depth. In fact, the reaction it has generated highlights a very weak connection to the land.
After being in circulation for more than a month, the petition has only 1,517 signatures. For organizations that claim to represent thousands of students and workers across multiple campuses and regions, this figure is simply not low. This is telling. It reflects his failure to unite even his own constituencies on an issue he considered urgent and morally decisive. This is not mere public indifference. It suggests rejecting a message that is not in line with doctrine or life priorities. When such outreach structures fail to convert support into participation, it indicates that their leadership is saying a thing that ordinary students and activists are no longer hearing.
The contents of the petition explain why this separation exists. It calls on universities, colleges, private institutions, the Department of Higher Education and Training and Parliament to condemn genocide and apartheid in Palestine, the occupation of Western Sahara, the UAE's role in the Sudan conflict and political repression in Eswatini. It then seeks to completely end institutional ties with Israeli, Emirati, Moroccan and Swati entities in academic exchanges, research partnerships, financial investments, donations and service contracts. These are not symbolic suggestions. They are making broader institutional demands that will require universities to fundamentally restructure the way they operate within the global academic system.
The problem is that the petition attempts to present this as a balanced human rights intervention when it clearly is not. The inclusion of Sudan, Western Sahara and eSwatini gives the impression of a broader ethical position, but these contexts have almost no structural footprint within South African higher education. There is no significant academic pipeline, no major collaborative research programs and no significant financial relationships that would be meaningfully disrupted by disruption. Their inclusion does not reflect active advocacy or strategic involvement. This appears to hide the central focus of the petition, which is Israel, by surrounding it with other causes that are not being pursued with the same intensity or seriousness.
This becomes even more apparent when one considers the absence of organizations directly involved in those additional conflicts. There is no meaningful representation from Sudanese academic bodies, Saharawi advocacy groups or pro-democracy movements on the Eswatini side to shape the demands or contribute to the outline of the petition. This absence matters because real international solidarity is built through consultation and partnership, not perception. What is presented here is not a nexus of conflicts. It is a manufactured narrative designed to give political cover to a predetermined position.
However, the most serious issue lies in the practical implications of what is being demanded. Academic exchanges are not abstract concepts. They create opportunities for South African students to study abroad, access new knowledge systems and build networks that improve their prospects in an increasingly competitive global economy. Research partnerships are not ideological statements. They are the backbone of modern scholarship, enabling joint innovation, shared infrastructure and access to international funding that South African universities cannot generate on their own. Financial investments and donations support scholarship, infrastructure, and research capacity in a system that is already underfunded. Service contracts often outline the technical and operational systems that keep institutions functioning efficiently.
To call for the immediate severance of all these ties is to call for a narrowing of opportunity. This would mean fewer exchange programmes, less research output, limited access to global funding and a decline in institutional competitiveness. Restricting cooperation in critical areas such as water management, agriculture, health care and technology, where South Africa faces real developmental challenges, will directly weaken the country's ability to respond effectively. These are not far-reaching consequences. These will be felt in lecture halls, laboratories and postgraduate programs across the country.
There is also an issue of reliability which cannot be ignored. The scale of withdrawal of troops that is being proposed is not realistically implementable the way it is being presented. Universities are bound by long-term agreements, international funding frameworks and complex governance structures. These cannot be undone through Facebook and Instagram political announcements. It appears that the authors of the petition understand that these demands are unlikely to be fully met, yet they put them forward anyway because the objective is not implementation. The purpose is presence. It's about being seen to take a stance, regardless of whether that stance translates into meaningful or responsible outcomes. Looking at the signatures collected to date, one would not be surprised to learn that some of the leaders of the structures that created and supported the petition may not have signed it themselves.
This is the essence of populist politics. It prioritizes appearing decisive rather than being effective. It replaces practical solutions with sweeping declarations that attract attention but avoid accountability. In this case, it allows SASCO and its allies to position themselves as ethical actors on the global stage, while sidelining the far more difficult task of addressing the immediate crises facing students and workers at home.
The alliance with COSATU reinforces this dynamic. Both organizations have deep historical roots and claim to represent large constituencies, yet their convergence around this campaign highlights a troubling misalignment. Students across South Africa are struggling with rising tuition costs, delays in financial aid, expensive accommodation and concerns about the quality and relevance of their education. Workers face wage pressures, job insecurity and limited economic mobility. These are urgent issues that require direct, sustained and practical intervention. Redirecting political energy toward campaigns that have little bearing on these realities, primarily for the sake of political clout, does not advance the interests of these constituencies. It avoids them.
Repeated invocation of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle to justify these positions also does not withstand serious examination. This history is complex and cannot be reduced to a single strategy of secession. Academic engagement during that period also played a role in maintaining intellectual exchange and strengthening critical voices. To selectively interpret that history to justify the contemporary political situation is not only wrong, but strategically misleading.
Continuity is another weakness that undermines the credibility of this campaign. If academic segregation is to be regarded as a principle, it must be applied universally. The selective focus seen here suggests that political alignment, rather than consistent moral reasoning, is driving these demands. Universities cannot function effectively under such circumstances. Their strength lies in openness, intellectual diversity and the ability to overcome differences without imposing a political litmus test on knowledge.
What this moment ultimately highlights is the growing gap between the political leadership and the people it claims to represent. The low uptake of the petition is no accident. This is a sign. This reflects a growing awareness among students and workers that not all activism is equal, and not all campaigns serve their interests. There is a growing reluctance to support initiatives that prioritize symbolism over substance and rhetoric over results.
South African higher education is already under pressure. It requires careful, strategic leadership that expands opportunity rather than limiting it. Calls that would isolate institutions, reduce collaboration, and limit access to global knowledge systems should be taken with the seriousness they deserve. They are not free moral signals. They bring real results.
If SASCO, COSATU and their allies are serious about rebuilding credibility, the way forward is not through loud declarations or widespread petitions. It is through reconnecting with the everyday realities of students and workers and focusing on issues where they can deliver concrete results. Engagement with global issues is not a problem. The problem is that local interests are sacrificed for political theatre.
South African universities should be strengthened, not shrunken. They should be open, not restricted. They should remain places where knowledge is expanded through engagement, not limited to politics. Anything less risks turning educational institutions into instruments of ideology, and that is a direction that serves neither the students nor the country.
About the author: Kamohelo Chauke is a community and student activist at the University of the Witwatersrand, where he has held several leadership positions, including serving as a member of the Student Representative Council from 2021 to 2023.