Thousands of South Africans joined an online and street-level protest this week calling on the government to declare gender-based violence (GBV) a national disaster, a demand activists say is necessary to match the scale of attacks on women across the country. The movement, which began on social media and crystallised in a coordinated “G20 Women’s Shutdown,” asked women to withdraw from work and the economy for a day, wear black, and lie down for 15 minutes at noon to honour those killed.
Organisers urged supporters to turn their social media profiles purple in solidarity; celebrities and ordinary citizens alike changed avatars and posted condemnatory messages. The day of action mixed symbolic grief and public inconvenience—stay-away orders for workplaces and schools, economic boycotts, and a visible online presence intended to push GBV into the national political spotlight.
- Advertisement -
South Africa already registers some of the world’s highest levels of gender-based violence. UN Women has said the rate at which women are killed in South Africa is five times higher than the global average, a statistic activists have cited repeatedly to justify demands for emergency measures. The campaigners say that, despite government rhetoric and policy initiatives, survivors continue to face inadequate protection, weak prosecutions and limited services.
The activists’ central legal demand is that the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) designate GBV a national disaster. Such a declaration, they argue, would unlock emergency funding, allow for nationwide coordination beyond individual departments, and permit the kind of rapid, concentrated intervention they say is required to curb femicide and assault. Organisers and advocacy groups say the move would also signal that GBV is not a social ill to be managed piecemeal but a crisis requiring extraordinary state resources.
But the NDMC has rejected calls for a disaster declaration, saying gender-based violence does not meet the centre’s legal criteria for national disasters. The centre has not provided a change of policy, and its position reflects a legal and bureaucratic divide over how to classify and respond to persistent social emergencies that do not conform to sudden-onset disaster models.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has repeatedly framed the problem in strong terms: in 2019 he said South Africa had “declared gender-based violence and femicide a national crisis.” Yet activists and organisers of the shutdown say that declaration has produced limited practical change on the ground. They want clear benchmarks—expanded survivor services, faster and better-resourced police responses, stronger prosecution and prevention programmes—and argue that crisis language has not been followed by sufficient budgetary or institutional overhaul.
The standoff exposes a deeper policy dilemma. Disaster declarations are traditionally geared toward acute incidents—storms, wildfires, floods—where emergency powers and funds are mobilised to restore immediate stability. Structural social problems such as chronic violence and entrenched inequality require long-term investments in policing, justice, health and social services and shifts in cultural norms. Legal authorities contend that widening the disaster-management framework to cover chronic social crises would require new legislation or reinterpretation of existing rules.
Advocates counter that the distinction is artificial when the human toll is continuous and catastrophic. “Women are being killed at rates far above the global average,” said one campaign organiser in a statement released with the shutdown. “Calling this a crisis without treating it like a national emergency is a bureaucratic comfort; lives are at stake.”
The shutdown also highlighted the tensions between symbolic protest and measurable policy wins. Social-media visibility—purple avatars, viral hashtags and celebrity endorsements—can elevate awareness and pressure officials. But translating a day of disruption into sustainable policy change requires sustained organising, legal strategy, and political bargaining. The campaign’s next moves include lobbying lawmakers for legislative changes, pushing for budget reallocations and monitoring provincial responses where most policing and social services are managed.
For survivors and families of victims, the protests serve both as a demand for policy and an insistence on recognition. The mass of small, local protest actions—walkouts from classrooms and workplaces, vigils, and the public lying-down at noon—was designed to make absence visible and costly, forcing employers, institutions and the state to account for the human and economic fallout of GBV.
Government officials face competing pressures. Denying a disaster classification keeps the response within conventional departmental lines but avoids the large-scale, politically fraught budget shifts a national emergency designation might require. Accepting the activists’ demand would be a dramatic recalibration of both policy and funding priorities, potentially creating a precedent for categorising other chronic social problems as disasters.
The shutdown has made two things clear: the public appetite for bolder, more visible action on gender-based violence and the limits of symbolic declarations without accompanying structural change. As the debate over classification and resources continues, activists are preparing to sustain pressure through legal petitions, parliamentary engagement and more public campaigns—aiming to turn national outrage into durable political commitments.
Whether the state will respond with emergency-style mobilisation or with incremental reform remains the central question. For many activists and survivors, the urgency is not abstract; it is a matter of life and death, and they say the time for gestures has long passed.
By News-room
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
