![There are “no free people without a free press” [+ video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Al-Jazeera-Emmy-Award-1-360x180.webp)
![The Prophet’s legacy beyond nostalgia and ritual [+ videos]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/awqaf-photo-360x180.webp)
![International law ‘under siege’, says Iranian ambassador to SA [+ videos]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AGM-Nadel-panel-1-360x180.webp)
![A mother’s taweez and the Cape’s interfaith traditions [+ video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Michael-Weeder-Book-Launch-9May26-360x180.webp)
![UpScrolled, TikTok and the weapons of war [+video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Main-resized-360x180.webp)
DR FATIMA HENDRICKS comments that the controversial DA flag burning advertisement ‘exhibits a concerning disregard for the profound sacrifices made to achieve South Africa’s democracy and the principles enshrined in the national flag’.
THE recent TV advertisement campaign by the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) party in South Africa has sparked widespread anger and condemnation among the public.
The controversial advertisement, which depicts the South African flag burning to ashes before being restored, has generated significant controversy and debate in the lead-up to the crucial May 29 election.
In the advertisement, a voice-over warns that ‘life will only get worse’ under the African National Congress (ANC), the ruling party that has been in power since 1994. As the flag is seen being consumed by flames, the advertisement then reverses the burning process, with the speaker urging voters to support the DA. The advertisement concludes with the statement, ‘This election is about survival’, as the flag is replenished and returned to its original form.
The divisive and provocative nature of the advertisement has elicited strong reactions from the public and various stakeholders, with many condemning it as disrespectful and potentially inciteful. Critics have argued that the burning of the national flag, a powerful symbol of the country’s unity and identity, is a highly sensitive and emotive issue that should not be used for political gain.
Despite the backlash, the DA’s controversial advertisement has succeeded in generating significant attention and discussion around the party’s messaging and campaign strategies ahead of the upcoming election. While the advertisement’s effectiveness in swaying voters remains to be seen, it has undoubtedly sparked a heated debate about the role of political advertising and the boundaries of acceptable campaign tactics in the South African political landscape.
In addition, the recent remarks by Helen Zille and the DA’s campaign strategy have sparked justifiable criticism and outrage. Zille’s dismissive attitude towards those critical of the DA as mere non-voters is a concerning display of arrogance and disregard for diverse perspectives. Her polarising rhetoric, framing the choice as either supporting the DA or being part of a ‘brigade’ against the flag, is divisive and fails to acknowledge the nuances of political discourse.
Speaking on Radio 702, Zille dismissed the critical backlash as coming from individuals who were unlikely to ever support the DA in the first place. She framed the situation as a choice, positing that one is either ‘part of burning the flag’ or ‘part of those of us like the DA who want to restore the flag’. This divisive rhetoric serves to paint the ANC in an unflattering light and position the DA as the righteous defender of national symbols.
Meanwhile, DA leader John Steenhuisen has characterised the prospect of an ANC-EFF coalition as a ‘doomsday’ scenario for the country, yet has not definitively ruled out the possibility of the DA partnering with the ANC in government. This ambiguous stance suggests a willingness to compromise ‘principles’ for the sake of political expediency, which could be seen as undermining the party’s claims to so-called moral superiority exposed in their flag burning advert. The juxtaposition of Zille’s combative language and Steenhuisen’s equivocal position highlights the potential disconnect between the DA’s rhetoric and its actual willingness to engage in the messy realities of coalition-building and compromise are jarring.
DISRESPECTFUL
Moreover, the DA’s decision to co-opt the national flag as a symbol of their party’s agenda is a brazen and disrespectful act. The flag represents the unity and shared aspirations of all South Africans, not a single political entity’s vision. By depicting it as ‘ravaged’ under ANC rule, the DA may be guilty of appropriating a sacred national symbol for partisan gain, undermining its intended purpose of fostering reconciliation and national pride.
President Ramaphosa’s has condemned the flag burning as ‘treasonous’ and ‘despicable’. The South African Human Rights Commission (HRC) has strongly condemned the controversial depiction of the South African flag being burned. The SAHRC spokesperson, Wisani Baloyi, expressed the commission’s alarm at such behaviours that involve the desecration of national symbols, which they view as a grave violation that undermines the country’s democratic principles. Baloyi emphasised that the burning of the national flag carries significant risks, as it can seriously jeopardise social peace and security within the nation. The SAHRC’s stern rebuke highlights the sensitive and divisive nature of this issue, as the protection of national symbols is seen as a matter of great importance for upholding the democratic ideals that South Africa has fought to establish.
The SAHRC has expressed significant concern that the controversial utterances, statements, and conduct of certain political figures may potentially incite related hostilities as South Africa approaches the upcoming elections. While freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected right, the commission maintains that speech that seeks to enrage, coupled with xenophobic or hateful rhetoric, and the incitement of violence, is fundamentally at odds with the core values enshrined in the South African Constitution. These include principles of human dignity, ubuntu, equality, non-racism, non-sexism, and the rule of law. The commission views such speech that promotes hatred or violence as deeply concerning, as it directly undermines the fundamental tenets of the Constitution.
In his book, Flag Burning, Michael Welch’s analyses the intense societal backlash against flag burning as a moral panic in the case of the USA. Responses to the act of flag burning as a specific type of street protest has often result in a polarised debate, with two distinct viewpoints emerging. One perspective holds that this form of expression is a constitutionally protected right to protest, while the other perspective considers it to be a subversive and criminal activity. Welch’s examination delves into the collision of these conflicting ideologies and demonstrates the relevance of sociological concepts in developing a more nuanced understanding of such forms of protest. The polarisation surrounding flag burning as a protest method highlights the complex interplay between individual rights, social norms, and the perceived threat to national symbols. Those who defend this action as a constitutionally protected form of protest argue that it is a legitimate exercise of free speech and a means to draw attention to social or political grievances. Conversely, the opposing view considers flag burning to be a disrespectful and unpatriotic act that undermines the sanctity of national symbols and cohesion. Welch’s analysis examines this ideological clash through a sociological lens, exploring the underlying social, cultural, and political factors that shape the divergent perspectives on this form of protest examining the societal tensions and power dynamics at play, moving beyond the simple binary of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
Welch says that the flag in the USA is a secular symbol that has been imbued with a quasi-sacred status through the concept of ‘American civil religion’. As a result, any perceived burning or misuse of the flag is interpreted as an act of sacrilege, eliciting a fervent and emotionally charged reaction from the public. This heightened sensitivity to flag desecration reflects a deeper societal anxiety about the boundaries of acceptable patriotic expression and the perceived threats to the established social and political order.
Similarly, in the South African context, flag burning raises complex questions about our collective consciousness and the anxieties surrounding national identity and symbols. The act of flag desecration is not merely perceived as a form of vandalism, but rather can be seen as a profound affront to the core principles and foundations upon which our democratic society is built. This is because the national flag serves as a potent symbol, representing the shared values, history, and collective identity of a nation’s people. When the flag is deliberately desecrated or defaced, it is often interpreted as a direct challenge to the democratic system itself, as well as the rights, freedoms, and ideals that this system is meant to uphold. This symbolic transgression can be viewed by many as a troubling attack on the very fabric of a democratic society, striking at the heart of the social contract and the principles of civic participation and national unity.
The DA campaign strategy exhibits a concerning disregard for the profound sacrifices made to achieve South Africa’s democracy and the principles enshrined in the national flag. While political discourse should undoubtedly allow for robust debate and constructive criticism, the DA’s approach appears to have crossed the line. Their tactics risk exacerbating societal divisions and eroding the shared sense of national identity that the flag represents. Rather than engaging in genuine, solutions-oriented dialogue, the party has resorted to inflammatory rhetoric and symbolic appropriation, further polarising the electorate and distracting from the critical issues facing the nation. This behaviour represents a disservice to the democratic values and principles that South Africans have fought so tirelessly to uphold. It is incumbent upon all political actors to demonstrate respect for the nation’s history and to prioritize the pursuit of national reconciliation and progress over short-term political expediency.
Welch’s application of the ‘moral panic’ framework provides a critical lens through which to examine the social construction of the ‘flag burning problem’. However, by identifying the ‘flag burners’ as the perceived ‘folk devils’ responsible for the threat, this narrative serves to stigmatise and marginalise certain perspectives that may hold merit. Through this critical analysis, Welch suggests how the framing of the ‘flag burning problem’ may function to maintain the status quo, rather than addressing the underlying issues or concerns.
The South African Arts and Culture Minister, Zizi Kodwa, has indicated that the department’s legal team is considering taking legal action against the DA for what is described as a disrespectful portrayal of a national symbol. Despite the strong public backlash, former DA leader Helen Zille and other party officials have defended the controversial advertisement, asserting that it was intended to provoke thought about the potential risks of a coalition government led by the ANC and EFF. The SAHRC commission’s stance, however, is that such speech is incompatible with the country’s constitutional values and principles.
- Dr Fatima Hendricks is an independent researcher.
