![The market-builder who restrained the market [Part 2]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/PHOTO-2026-08-25-17-16-32-360x180.jpg)
![The merchant preceding the Prophetic mission [Part 1]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/01-360x180.jpg)
Political theorist DR MPHUTLANE WA BOFELO explores the distinction between activists and politicians, and warns how mercenary politics and mafia networks undermine genuine struggles for justice, development and collective liberation.
A professional outsider agitator, or professional revolutionary, mobilises communities to become agents of their own emancipation and development. Such figures reject paternalism and patronising attitudes. They are neither preachers nor teachers, neither leaders nor managers, but facilitators, guides and mentors, grounded in faith in the intrinsic abilities and potential of ordinary people. Their role is to create enabling conditions in which communities can discover, develop and exercise their own collective power.
This praxis is not acquired through abstract theorising alone but through lived experience, experimentation and sustained engagement in social struggle. At its core lies a fundamental distinction between the political activist and the politician.
Political activist versus politician
Political activists use the language and platforms of politics to challenge injustice and inequality embedded in systems, structures and institutions. Their objective is to expand people’s power beyond conventional political institutions, often seeking to transform politics into revolutionary practice rooted in collective action.
Politicians, by contrast, are professionally embedded within formal political institutions. Their careers depend on occupying positions within political parties or the state, often requiring them to preserve the very systems that sustain their authority. Whereas activists derive legitimacy from mobilising communities, politicians derive legitimacy from holding office.
History illustrates this distinction. Vladimir Lenin sought to translate revolutionary theory into political practice through mass organisation and state transformation. Joseph Stalin subsequently consolidated power within the revolutionary state, while Leon Trotsky challenged Stalin’s model by advocating the doctrine of permanent international revolution. Whatever one’s assessment of these historical figures, they illuminate the enduring tension between revolutionary activism and institutional political power.
The corruption of activism: Mercenaries and mafias
The integrity of activism is undermined by the emergence of political mercenaries and development mafias. These actors commodify struggle, reducing collective liberation to transactional politics.
Political mercenaries are opportunists who attach themselves to causes primarily for personal or material gain, shifting loyalties to the highest bidder. Principles become negotiable, and movements become vehicles for private advancement.
Development mafias, meanwhile, are networks that exploit the language and legitimacy of activism to manipulate governments, corporations, donors and communities. Through intimidation, corruption, coercion and patronage, they capture resources, distort markets and enrich themselves. In doing so, they erode the moral foundations of activism, delegitimise authentic social movements and reinforce the very systems of domination they claim to oppose.
Case studies
Examples from India and South Africa demonstrate how these dynamics operate in practice.
In India, land mafias function as coercive rent-seeking networks that exploit legal ambiguities and weak governance to dispossess landowners.
Bihar has experienced hundreds of land dispute-related killings over the years, illustrating the deadly consequences of criminalised property relations.
Similarly, illegal sand-mining mafias in states such as Madhya Pradesh reveal the nexus between organised crime and environmental destruction.
Their operations routinely involve intimidation, corruption and violence, with law enforcement officials and journalists often facing serious threats.
South Africa presents another manifestation of this phenomenon.
Construction mafias — frequently operating under the guise of so-called ‘business forums’ — have used intimidation and extortion to demand a share of infrastructure contracts, causing significant project delays and escalating public costs.
Alongside this, building hijacking remains a persistent feature of urban crime, particularly in Johannesburg. Portrayed in the acclaimed film Jerusalema (2008), the practice involves criminal syndicates taking control of abandoned or poorly managed buildings, extorting tenants and operating outside the law. More than an expression of organised crime, it reflects the enduring socio-economic inequalities of post-apartheid South Africa, where housing shortages, weak governance and economic exclusion create fertile ground for criminal exploitation.
Conclusion
The distinction between activist and politician remains important, but the emergence of mercenary actors and mafia networks introduces a further layer of complexity.
Activists seek to transform politics into a vehicle for collective emancipation.
You may also want to read
Politicians tend to institutionalise politics as a profession.
Mercenaries and mafias, by contrast, treat politics as a marketplace in which influence, loyalty and public causes become commodities to be bought and sold.
For communities striving for justice, development and self-determination, recognising these distinctions is essential.
Genuine activism requires integrity, consistency, accountability and an unwavering commitment to collective liberation. Without these qualities, movements risk becoming indistinguishable from the very systems of exploitation they were created to challenge.
Dr Mphutlane wa Bofelo is a cultural worker, skills development facilitator and political theorist who focuses on the interface between politics, governance and development, and strategy and leadership.
