Tourism must be SA’s defining story:
I found myself reflecting deeply during our recent strategy session at the Tourism Business Council of South Africa (TBCSA). What began as a routine discussion about global developments turned into something far more profound when one of my colleagues referenced an emerging ranking placing South Africa among the top 10 countries considered safe enough for extended stays amid rising global tensions.
The context was sobering. The world is once again watching conflict unfold, this time through the escalating hostilities involving the United States, Israel and Iran. Such geopolitical instability reshapes global travel patterns almost overnight. In moments like these, travellers do what human beings have always done: they seek safety, stability and places where life feels possible again.
Against this uncertain global backdrop, South Africa appearing on a list of destinations perceived as relatively safe is no small matter. It is a reminder that even in turbulent times, our country remains a place the world looks to with curiosity and hope.
But the reflection did not lead to celebration alone. It raised a deeper question for all of us around the table: Are we ready to seize this moment?
Although global instability may temporarily redirect travel flows, the real opportunity lies not in benefiting from conflict elsewhere but in ensuring that South Africa becomes a destination the world actively chooses, whether there is conflict in other regions or not.
We must remind ourselves that opportunity may knock unexpectedly but preparation determines whether the door opens.
Recent tourism figures suggest that the sector is on a path to recovery. Visitor numbers are rising again. Airports are busier. Hotel occupancy rates are improving. Tour operators are cautiously optimistic.
These numbers matter. But they do not tell the full story.
Around the boardroom table, many of us represent businesses operating at different points of the tourism value chain: hotels, tour operators, transport companies, attractions and service providers. Although the numbers may show growth, the lived experience across the sector tells a more complicated story.
For many businesses, especially smaller operators and those outside major metropolitan areas, the recovery remains uneven and incomplete.
As I often remind colleagues and policymakers alike: “Numbers can comfort us but they can also conceal the work that still lies ahead.”
Growth in arrivals does not automatically translate into growth in livelihoods.
Behind every statistic is a guide waiting for the next tour group; a family-owned guesthouse trying to rebuild after years of disruption; a township entrepreneur hoping international visitors will once again walk through their neighbourhood with curiosity rather than caution.
For them, recovery is not theoretical. It is personal. This is why complacency would be our greatest mistake.
The global environment is shifting rapidly. Geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty and changing trade relationships are reshaping the movement of people across borders. At the same time, technology is transforming how destinations are discovered, evaluated and ultimately chosen.
In such times, tourism does not reward those who wait. It rewards those who prepare.
In moments of global uncertainty, the destinations that succeed are those that prepare while others hesitate.
South Africa has many advantages. Few countries can offer our combination of natural beauty, cultural diversity, world-class hospitality and powerful historical narratives.
But advantages alone do not guarantee success. They must be supported by deliberate strategy and consistent execution.
One encouraging development has been the progress made through Operation Vulindlela, particularly regarding reforms that directly affect the tourism sector. Improvements in visa processes and regulatory frameworks may appear technical on the surface but their effect on accessibility and competitiveness is significant.
A traveller choosing between destinations rarely sees the internal policy work behind the scenes. They simply experience whether entry into a country feels easy or frustrating.
Visa reform, improved digital systems and smarter border management all play a role in ensuring that South Africa remains accessible to the world.
But policy reform alone cannot carry the sector.
The responsibility to build a thriving tourism economy ultimately belongs to all of us: government, business, communities and civil society.
This brings us back to the question I believe we must ask ourselves constantly: Are we shifting the needle? It is a simple question, but a powerful one.
Are our efforts leading to measurable improvements in visitor numbers, investment and job creation?
Are we expanding tourism beyond traditional destinations so that more communities share in its benefits?
Are we strengthening the sector’s resilience so that the next global disruption does not undo years of progress?
Our work must deliver a visible effect for three key constituencies.
The first is the traveller — the person deciding where to spend their time, curiosity and resources. For them, South Africa must be easy to reach, easy to explore and impossible to forget.
This means improving air access from key markets, expanding route connectivity and ensuring that our airports, roads and infrastructure meet global expectations.
It also means strengthening the meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions (MICE) sector, which has the potential to bring high-value visitors into our cities while showcasing South Africa’s capacity for global leadership.
The second constituency is the tourism business community: the entrepreneurs, operators and employees who power the industry every day. Their ability to grow depends on predictable regulation, supportive policy environments and access to markets.
And the third constituency is the country itself.
Tourism is not merely a leisure activity. It is an economic engine capable of generating employment, stimulating investment and showcasing the best of South Africa to the world.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has repeatedly described tourism as a sector capable of driving growth and job creation. Yet the practical prioritisation of the sector across government and the broader economy has not always been consistent.
Advocacy must therefore evolve. It must move beyond simply speaking about tourism’s potential to demonstrating its effect.
When tourism grows, rural communities gain new opportunities. Small businesses gain customers. Young people gain pathways into the economy.
But perhaps the most important element of tourism is perception.
Destinations are not chosen solely based on geography or attractions. They are chosen based on how the world feels about them. We must remind ourselves that, in tourism, perception is not a soft issue; it is the front door to the economy.
The digital age has amplified this reality. Online platforms, global media narratives and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence increasingly shape how countries are perceived long before travellers set foot on their soil.
This means South Africa must become far more deliberate in how it tells its story. We must embrace technology not only to improve operational efficiency but also to shape global perceptions of who we are as a nation.
A compelling national narrative, grounded in authenticity, resilience and possibility, can be one of the most powerful tourism assets any country possesses.
Yet as important as strategy and technology may be, there is something even more fundamental required for tourism to thrive: unity.
Tourism succeeds when a country presents itself to the world as a cohesive team rather than a collection of competing interests.
And so, in moments like this, we must remind ourselves that we are ultimately working towards a shared objective: Team South Africa.
Our task is to raise the profile of South Africa as a destination that the world actively chooses to visit, not merely one that appears on travellers’ itineraries by chance.
If we succeed in this mission, tourism will not simply recover. It will become one of the pillars of South Africa’s economic future.
For us to succeed, I believe three reflections must guide our approach.
The first is unity of purpose. Government, business and communities must align around a shared vision for tourism growth.
The second is urgency and agility. The global travel landscape is evolving quickly. Decisions that once took years now shape outcomes in months.
And the third is the effect that shifts the needle. Tourism strategies must translate into real improvements on the ground: more visitors, more jobs and more opportunities for South Africans.
Or, as I prefer to put it: “When purpose is clear, urgency becomes natural and effect becomes inevitable.”
As we look ahead, it is worth remembering that travel has always been more than movement across geography. It has often been a journey towards transformation.
Few understood this better than Nelson Mandela. Long before the world knew him as Madiba, he travelled across Africa and beyond in the early 1960s seeking support for the struggle against apartheid. Those journeys helped build the international solidarity that would eventually change South Africa’s destiny.
Madiba understood something profound: that travel can be a bridge between people, ideas and possibilities.
Today, tourism offers South Africa another opportunity to build such bridges, this time towards shared prosperity. But achieving this will require action from every sector of society.
The government must continue to remove barriers and prioritise tourism as a strategic economic driver. Businesses must invest in innovation, quality and global competitiveness. Communities must embrace tourism as a pathway to opportunity.
And as citizens, we must all recognise that the way we welcome the world shapes the way the world sees us. If we pull together with purpose and conviction, South Africa will not merely benefit from moments of global uncertainty.
We will become a destination defined by possibility. And in doing so, we will honour Madiba’s legacy, proving once again that travel, when guided by purpose, can change the course of a nation.
Jerry Mabena is a chairperson of the Tourism Business Council of South Africa (TBCSA).
Order at the border: Illegal migration and the state’s responsibility:
South Africa’s debate on migration has become one of the most emotionally charged public conversations in recent years. Yet beneath the political rhetoric and social tension lies a deeper question that the country has not fully confronted: whether the South African state possesses the institutional capacity to manage migration in an orderly, lawful and humane manner.
Too often, the issue is framed in extremes. On one side, any discussion about illegal migration is quickly labelled xenophobic. On the other hand, anger about service delivery and unemployment is sometimes directed indiscriminately at foreign nationals. Both responses miss the central issue.
Migration management, in any functioning state, requires strong administrative systems, clear policy direction and capable institutions. It requires efficient documentation processes, credible border management and cooperation between law enforcement, immigration authorities and regional partners. When the systems weaken, disorder replaces management.
South Africa’s migration pressures must also be understood within a broader regional context. Economic instability, political crises and conflict in parts of the continent inevitably drive human movement. People move in search of safety, work and opportunity. That reality cannot be wished away.
However, unmanaged migration places strain on stretched public systems. Schools, hospitals, housing programmes and policing services are under immense pressure. When the state fails to maintain clear and credible systems for entry, documentation and enforcement, the consequences are felt by everyone — migrants and citizens alike.
Migrants themselves often become the most vulnerable victims of the institutional weakness. Without proper documentation processes or legal pathways, many fall into informal economies where exploitation is common. Human trafficking networks thrive in precisely these conditions of weak governance.
For citizens, the visible breakdown of migration management feeds perceptions that the state has lost control of its borders and administrative systems. When the public begins to lose confidence in the state’s ability to regulate migration, social tension inevitably rises.
This is why the migration question should not be reduced to slogans about borders or compassion. A responsible approach must recognise both realities: the dignity of migrants and the legitimate governance responsibilities of the state.
Compassion and the rule of law are not opposites. In fact, effective governance is what allows compassion to function in practice.
A state that cannot process asylum claims efficiently, issue permits within reasonable timeframes or enforce immigration law consistently fails both migrants and citizens. Administrative paralysis benefits no one except criminal syndicates that exploit the gaps.
South Africa therefore needs to shift the migration debate away from emotional polarisation and toward institutional reform.
Border management must be strengthened not only through physical infrastructure but through intelligence-driven cooperation with neighbouring states. Migration documentation systems must become faster, more transparent and less vulnerable to corruption. Interdepartmental coordination between Home Affairs, law enforcement agencies and the justice system must improve significantly.
Equally important is ensuring that deportation processes for individuals who violate immigration laws operate within a clear legal framework while remaining efficient enough to maintain public confidence in the system.
None of the steps requires abandoning South Africa’s constitutional values. On the contrary, they are necessary to uphold them.
The Constitution affirms both human dignity and the rule of law. The principles must work together. A state that loses its ability to administer the law fairly and consistently ultimately weakens the protections it promises.
The migration pressures confronting South Africa are therefore not simply about who crosses the border. They are about whether the country can rebuild the administrative capacity required to manage migration responsibly in a complex regional environment.
If the conversation continues to be dominated by accusation and denial, the problem will deepen. But if South Africa approaches migration as a question of governance, institutional strength and regional cooperation, a more balanced and sustainable path might be possible.
Migration will remain a feature of our globalised world. The real question is whether the South African state will build the systems capable of managing it with both firmness and fairness.
The answer will shape not only migration policy but public confidence in the state.
Busaphi Machi is the IFP deputy chief whip in the National Assembly and a member of the portfolio committee on home affairs
NHI is bugbear of the upper crust:
Some of South Africa’s most powerful business lobbies, private healthcare interests and affluent constituencies have turned to the courts to challenge the national health insurance (NHI) Act.
They are determined to protect profits and their exclusive access to quality healthcare. Behind the legal arguments lies a determination to preserve a longstanding imbalance in which access to quality healthcare remains heavily determined by income, medical aid status and private purchasing power.
The NHI debate is fundamentally about whether South Africa is ready to shift from a deeply unequal two-tier system, where healthcare is a market privilege for those who can afford it, towards a more just and inclusive model that treats healthcare as a social right for all citizens.
It is no coincidence that the fiercest and most vocal resistance to the NHI does not come from the poor. Instead, it comes from those with the most to lose in a more equitable system, such as business interests, private hospital groups, medical scheme administrators, brokers reliant on substantial profits and upper-class individuals whose privileged access to superior care has long been secured through financial means.
While these opponents often frame their objections in terms of feasibility, governance shortcomings and fiscal risks, the underlying issue is their anxiety that the NHI will dismantle a healthcare hierarchy that has served them well for generations.
But what kind of healthcare system does South Africa need? The answer cannot be found in market forecasts or the anxieties of private healthcare shareholders. It must be found in the Constitution, the lived realities of the poor and the democratic imperative to dismantle structural inequality.
NHI forces South Africa to confront a moral question it has postponed for far too long: Will healthcare remain a class privilege or will it finally become a fundamental right?
NHI is not an ideological experiment, as its critics claim. It is not a war on doctors or private hospitals. For too long, South Africa has lived with a healthcare system that mirrors the worst features of society.
NHI is a constitutional and social justice intervention designed to ensure that access to healthcare is determined by need, not income.
South Africa suffers from a profound crisis of inequitable allocation and inefficient financing. The country spends approximately 8.5% of GDP on health — a level more than enough to support a pathway towards universal health coverage if organised rationally and fairly.
Yet despite this substantial national spend, outcomes remain deeply unequal because of South Africa’s two-tier healthcare system: heavily resourced for a privileged minority in the private sector, while chronically overburdened for the majority in the public sector. That is the central contradiction the NHI seeks to resolve.
Evidence shows that more has been spent in the private sector than in the public sector since 2008, even though the public sector serves the majority of South Africans. The per capita disparity is even more revealing. In 2021-22, private spending per person was approximately five times higher than public spending per person. This financing structure entrenches inequality.
This is precisely why the language of “choice,” so often invoked by NHI opponents, is misleading. In a country where millions have no meaningful purchasing power, “choice” is a euphemism for class privilege.
The current system offers selective protection to those who can afford medical aid contributions, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses. In such a system, the market does not allocate healthcare according to need; it allocates it according to wealth. In practice, money determines who gets healthy, who lives and who dies.
The NHI intervenes in healthcare financing and resource pooling, exactly where injustice resides. It proposes a single publicly funded health financing system that pools resources into one NHI Fund, which then purchases quality health services on behalf of all South Africans, based on need rather than ability to pay.
This is the essence of universal health coverage, whose premise is that every person should receive the healthcare they need, when they need it, irrespective of their wealth.
So why, then, the ferocious opposition? Because NHI threatens privilege and profit built on fragmentation. It threatens the pricing power of dominant private hospital groups. It threatens the bloated administrative overheads of medical schemes.
The department has exposed the scale of this problem. At the start of 2024, there were 71 medical schemes offering 311 options, with 833 trustees, gross administration costs of nearly R21 billion and principal officers costing almost R140 million, some earning more than R6 million a year.
This administrative complexity is a symptom of fragmentation. It creates duplication, inflates transaction costs, encourages perverse incentives and makes fraud easier to conceal. Reported fraud, waste and abuse in the medical scheme environment in 2023 amounted to R28 billion in a single year.
The above debunks a persistent myth that private financing is inherently efficient. South Africa already spends enough collectively to build a far more equitable system. What it lacks is not money but a financing architecture aligned to social solidarity rather than market segmentation.
Opposition to NHI represents a coalition of the privileged against the poor’s right to decent healthcare. It is the political and economic fightback of those who have long enjoyed the luxury of world-class care where wealth buys life, dignity and speed, while the poor are forced to queue, wait and too often die in silence. At its core, the battle over NHI is between the constitutional promise of equality and the entrenched privilege of those who continue profiting from exclusion.
Opponents of NHI are mobilising South Africans to fear change. But what South Africans must fear most is the acceptance of inequality and the humiliation of being regarded as less worthy because one cannot produce proof of payment.
NHI is opposed so fiercely because it asserts that the life of a domestic worker, a farm labourer, a child in Stinkwater and a professional in Sandton must carry equal claim on the nation’s health resources.
South Africa’s democracy was not built to protect privilege. It was built to improve the lives of South Africans. NHI is part of the unfinished work of the 1994 promise. It gives practical expression to section 27 of the Constitution and to the broader struggle for social justice.
It will be a betrayal of the dream of 1994 to accept that a deeply unequal market should continue deciding who gets quality care and who must be excluded.
Critics raise weaknesses in the public health system and corruption as ammunition against NHI. These are legitimate concerns. Governance matters. Corruption must be fought ruthlessly. Administrative capacity must be built. But these are arguments for doing NHI properly, not for abandoning it. No one suggests dismantling public education because schools are imperfect or abandoning policing because crime exists. Yet when it comes to NHI, the privileged demand perfection as a precondition.
International experience supports this direction. Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) was founded on the principle that healthcare must be free at the point of use and financed through public means. It has endured because that principle is morally sound. Cuba, despite severe economic constraints, has demonstrated the power of a primary healthcare-centred system to deliver strong outcomes through equity, prevention and community-based care. South Africa’s NHI is not a copy of either model but it shares the same ethical foundation: health is a right, not a privilege for the few.
History will not judge us by how effectively we protect profit. It will judge us by whether we had the courage to ensure that no South African is denied care because they lack money. NHI demonstrates that courage.
Cornelius Monama is a public servant and writes in his personal capacity (X: @cmonama).
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
