|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Format for print or mobile
South Africa: Xenophobia, Deep Roots, Today´s Crisis
AfricaFocus Bulletin
September 12, 2019 (2019-09-12)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
“In the early years after I got 'home,' it took me some time to
figure out how to respond to the idea that Africa was a place that
began beyond South Africa's borders. I was surprised to learn that
the countries where I had lived -- the ones that had nurtured my
soul in the long years of exile -- were actually no places at all
in the minds of some of my compatriots. … Though they thought
themselves to be very different, it seemed to me that whites and
blacks in South Africa were disappointingly similar when it came to
their views on 'Africa.' … This warped idea of Africa was at the
heart of the idea of South Africa itself. Just as whiteness means
nothing until it is contrasted with blackness as savagery, South
African-ness relies heavily on the construction of Africa as a
place of dysfunction, chaos and violence in order to define itself
as functional, orderly, efficient and civilised.” - Sisonke Msimang
As Daniel Magaziner wrote in South Africa´s Business Day on September 9, the
current xenophobic violence in South Africa is hardly unique to
that country, citing the similar violent rhetoric and actions that
have marked the United States as well. Increasing inequality paired
with the willingness of politicians to incite or tacitly tolerate
hate speech and hate crimes are indeed features in many countries
around the world. Magaziner notes that “In the wake of such horror
it is not surprising to see politicians and regular people cry,
rend their garments and insist that ´this is not who we are.´ But I
am not sure. I think maybe it is.”
In both the United States and South Africa, as arguably in many
other countries, confronting anti-immigrant mobilization requires
not only appeals to unity but also confronting deeply embedded
assumptions about national history and national identity.
While this AfricaFocus Bulletin contains links (at the end), to
current news and analysis of the latest violence, I decided to
prioritize reprinting the 2014 essay by Sisonke Msimang, originally
published by
http://africasacountry.com, for its eloquent posing of
questions still unanswered. Also included are one article and
additional links featuring recent public opinion surveys by South
Africa´s Human Sciences Research Council.
Another AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today and available at
http://www.africafocus.org/docs19/sa1909b.php contains the
full text of the speech by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa
on xenophobia and gender-based violence, as well as several other
related links.
For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on South Africa, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/country/southafrica.php.
For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on migration, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/migrexp.php.
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++
|
Belonging--why South Africans refuse to let Africa in
Sisonke Msimang
October 22, 2014
https://africasacountry.com/2014/04/belonging-why-south-africans-
refuse-to-let-africa
[Sisonke Msimang writes about money, power and sex. She lives in
Johannesburg.]
Any African who has ever tried to visit South Africa will know that
the country is not an easy entry destination. South African
embassies across the continent are almost as difficult to access as
those of the UK and the United States. They are characterised by
long queues, inordinate amounts of paperwork, and officials who
manage to be simultaneously rude and lethargic. It should come as
no surprise then that South Africa's new Minister of Home Affairs
has announced the proposed establishment of a Border Management
Agency for the country. In his words the new agency "will be
central to securing all land, air and maritime ports of entry and
support the efforts of the South African National Defence force to
address the threats posed to, and the porousness of, our
borderline."
Political observers of South Africa will understand that this is
bureaucratic speak to dress up the fact that insularity will
continue to be the country's guiding ethos in its social, cultural
and political dealings with the rest of the continent.
Perhaps I am particularly attuned to this because of my upbringing.
I am South African but grew up in exile. That is to say I was
raised in the Africa that is not South Africa; that place of
fantasy and nightmare that exists beyond the Limpopo. When I first
came home in the mid 1990s, in those early months as I was learning
to adjust to life in South Africa, I was often struck by the odd
way in which the term 'Africa,' was deployed by both white and
black South Africans.
Because I speak in the fancy curly tones of someone who has been
educated overseas, I was often asked where I was from. I would
explain that I was born to South African parents outside the
country and that I had lived in Zambia and Kenya and Canada and
that my family also lived in Ethiopia. Invariably, the listener
would nod sympathetically until the meaning of what I was saying
sank in. 'Oh.' Then there would be a sharp intake of breath and a
sort of horrified fascination would take hold. "So you grew up in
Africa." The Africa was enunciated carefully, the last syllable
drawn out and slightly raised as though the statement were actually
a question. Then the inevitable, softly sighed, "Shame."
In the early years after I got 'home,' it took me some time to
figure out how to respond to the idea that Africa was a place that
began beyond South Africa's borders. I was surprised to learn that
the countries where I had lived -- the ones that had nurtured my
soul in the long years of exile -- were actually no places at all
in the minds of some of my compatriots. They weren't geographies
with their own histories and cultures and complexities. They were
dark landscapes, Conradian and densely forested. Zambia and Kenya
and Ethiopia might as well have been Venus and Mars and Jupiter.
They were undefined and undefined-able. They were snake-filled
thickets; impenetrable brush and war and famine and ever-present
tribal danger.
Though they thought themselves to be very different, it seemed to
me that whites and blacks in South Africa were disappointingly
similar when it came to their views on 'Africa.' At first I blamed
the most obvious culprit: apartheid. The ideology of the National
Party was profoundly insular, based on inspiring everyone in the
country to be fearful of the other. With the naiveté and arrogance
of the young, I thought that a few lessons in African history might
help to disabuse the Rainbow Nation of the notion that our country
was apart from Africa. I made it my mission to inform everyone I
came across that culturally, politically and historically we could
call ourselves nothing if not Africans.
What I did not fully understand at that stage was that it would
take more than a few lectures by an earnest 'returnee,' to deal
with this issue. This warped idea of Africa was at the heart of the
idea of South Africa itself. Just as whiteness means nothing until
it is contrasted with blackness as savagery, South African-ness
relies heavily on the construction of Africa as a place of
dysfunction, chaos and violence in order to define itself as
functional, orderly, efficient and civilised.
As such, the apartheid state was at pains to keep its borders
closed. The savages at the country's doorstep were a convenient
bogeyman. Whites were told that if the country's black neighbours
were let in, they would surely unite with the indigenous population
and slit the throats of whites. By the same token, black people
were told that the Africans beyond South Africa's borders lived
like animals; they were ruled by despots and governed by black
magic.
When apartheid ended, the fear of African voodoo throat slitting
should have ended with it. Indeed on the face of things, the fear
of 'Africa,' has abated and has been replaced by the language of
investment. South African capital has 'opened up' to the rest of
the continent and so fear has been taken over by self-interest and
new forms of extraction.
In the parlance of South Africans, our businesses have 'gone into
Africa.' Like the frontiersmen who conquered the bush before them
they have been quick to talk about 'investment and opportunity' to
define our country's relationship with the continent. The pre-1994
hostility towards 'Africa' has been replaced by a paternalism that
is equally disconcerting. Africa needs economic saviours and white
South African 'technical skills' are just the prescription.
Amongst many black South Africans, the script is frightfully
similar. The recent collapse of TB Joshua's church in Nigeria, in
which scores of South Africans lost their lives, has highlighted
how little the narrative has changed in the minds of many South
Africans. Many have called in to radio shows and social media
asking, what the pilgrims were doing looking for God in such a God
forsaken place?
In the democratic era we have converted the hatred of Africa into a
crude sort of exceptionalist chauvinism. South Africans are quick
to assert that they don't dislike 'Africans.' It's just that we are
unique. Our history and society are too different from theirs to
allow for meaningful comparisons. See -- we are even lighter in
complexion than them and we have different features. I have heard
the refrain too many times, 'We don't really look like Africans.'
Never mind the reality that black South Africans come in all shades
from the deepest of browns to the fairest of yellows.
This idea that South Africans are so singular in our experience;
that apartheid was such a unique experience that it makes us
different from everyone else in the world, and especially from
other Africans, is an important aspect of understanding the South
African approach to immigration.
As long-time researcher Nahla Vahlji has noted, "the fostering of
nationalism produces an equal and parallel phenomenon: that of an
affiliation amongst citizens in contrast and opposition to what is
'outside' that national identity." In other words, South Africans
may not always like each other across so-called racial lines, but
they have a kinship that is based on their connection to the
apartheid project. Outsiders -- those who didn't go through the
torture of the regime -- are juxtaposed against insiders. In other
words foreigners are foreign precisely because they can not
understand the pain of apartheid, because most South Africans now
claim to have been victims of the system. Whether white or black,
the trauma of living through apartheid is seen as such a defining
experience that it becomes exclusionary; it has made a nation of
us.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) which sought to
uncover the truth behind certain atrocities that took place under
apartheid, was also an attempt to make a nation out of us. While it
won international acclaim as a model for settling disputes that was
as concerned with traditional notions of justice as it was with
healing the wounds of the past, there were many people inside South
Africa who were sceptical of its mission. As Premesh Lalu and
Brendan Harris suggested as the Commission was starting its work in
the mid 1990s, the desire for the TRC to create the narrative of a
new nation led to a selection of "elements of the past which create
no controversy, which create a good start, for a new nation where
race and economic inequality are a serious problem, and where the
balance of social forces is still extremely fragile."
This is as true today as it was then. Attending the hearings was
crucial for me as a young person yearning to better understand my
country, but I am objective enough to understand that one of the
consequences using the TRC as the basis for forging a national
identity is that 'others' -- the people who were not here in the
bad old days -- have found it difficult to find their place in
South Africa. Aided and abetted by the TRC and the discursive
rainbow nation project, South Africans have failed to create a
frame for belonging that transcends the experience of apartheid.
Twenty years into the 'new' dispensation, many South Africans still
view people who weren't there and therefore who did not physically
share in the pain of apartheid as 'aliens.' The darker-hued these
aliens are, the less likely South Africans are to accept them. Even
when black African 'foreigners' attain citizenship or permanent
residence, even when their children are enrolled in South African
schools, they remain strangers to us because they weren't caught up
in our grand narrative as belligerents in the war that was
apartheid.
While it is easy to locate the roots of xenophobia in our colonial
and apartheid history, it is also becoming clear that our present
leaders do not understand how to press the reset button in order to
remake our country in the image of its future self. They have not
been able to outline a vision for the new South Africa that is
inclusive of the millions of African people who live here and who
are 'foreign' but indispensable to our society for cultural,
economic and political reasons.
America -- with all its problems -- offers us the model of an
immigrant nation whose very conception relied on the idea of the
'new' world where justice and freedom were possible. Much can be
said about how that narrative ignores those who were brought to the
country as slave cargo. It is patently clear that America has also
denied the founding acts of genocide that decimated the people of
the First Nations who lived there before the settlers arrived.
Indeed, one could argue that while oppression and murder begat the
United States of America, the country's founding myth is an
inclusive one, a story of freedom and the right to life. In South
Africa murder and oppression also birthed a new nation, but the
founding myth of our post 1994 country has remained insular and
exclusive, a story of freedom and the right to life for South
Africans.
The South African state has always been strongly invested in seeing
itself as an island of morality and order in a cesspool of black
filth. The notion of South Africa's apartness from Africa is deeply
embedded in the psyche that 'new' South Africans inherited in 1994
but it goes back decades. For example, the 1937 Aliens Act sought
to attract desirable immigrants, whom it defined in the law as
those of 'European' heritage who would be easily assimilable in the
white population of the country.' This law stayed on the books
until 1991, when the National Party, in its dying days, sought to
protect itself from the foreseeable 'deluge' of communist and/or
barbaric Africans. The Aliens Control Act (1991) removed the
offensive reference to 'Europeans' but it kept the rest of the
architecture of exclusion intact.
March against xenophobia, Newtown, South Africa, 2015. Photo credit: GCIS.
As a result, when the new South Africa was born the old state
remained firmly in place, continuing to guard the border from the
threats just across the Limpopo, as it always had. It was a decade
before the Bill on International Migration came into force in 2003
and it too retained critical elements of the old outlook.
The ANC politicians running the country somehow began to buy into
the idea that immigrants posed a threat to security. Immigration
continued to be seen as a containment strategy rather than as a
path to economic growth. As President Jacob Zuma tightens his grip
on the security sector, and extends the power and reach of the
security cluster in all areas of governance, this attitude seems to
be hardening rather than softening.
None of South Africa's current crop of political leaders seem to be
asking the kinds of questions that will begin to resolve the
question the role that immigration can and should play in the
building of our new nation. South Africa's political leadership
sees Africa in one of two ways: either as a market for South
African goods, differentiated only to the extent that Africans can
be sold our products; or as a threat, part of a deluge of the poor
and unwashed who take 'our jobs and our women.'
No one in government today seems to understand that postapartheid
South Africa continues to be the site of multiple African
imaginations. One cannot deal with 'Africa' without dealing with
the subjectivity of what South Africa meant to Africa historically,
and the disappointment that a free South Africa has signified in
the last decade.
So much of the pan-Africanist project -- even with its failings --
has been about an imagined Africa in which the shackles of
colonialism have been thrown off. South Africa has always been an
iconic symbol in that imaginary. Robben Island and Nelson Mandela,
the burning streets of Soweto, Steve Biko's bloodied, broken body:
these images did not just belong to us alone. They brought pain and
grief to a continent whose march towards self-determination
included us, even when our liberation seemed far, far away. With
the invention of the 'new' South Africa the crucial importance of
African visions for us have taken a back seat. South Africans have
refused to admit that we are a crucial aspect of the African
project of self-determination. In failing to see ourselves in this
manner, we have denied ourselves the opportunity to be propelled --
transported even -- by the dreams of our continent.
What would South Africa be like without the 'foreign' academics who
teach mathematics and history on our campuses? How differently
might our students think without their deep and critical insights
about us and the place we occupy in the world? How might we
understand our location and our political geography differently if
'foreigners' were not here offering us different ways of wearing
and inhabiting blackness? What would our society look like without
the tax paying 'foreigners' whose children make our schools richer
and more diverse? What would inner city Johannesburg smell like
without coffee ceremonies and egusi soup? What would Cape Town's
Greenmarket square be without the Zimbabwean and Congolese taxi
drivers who literally make the city go?
In an era in which borders are coming down and becoming more porous
to encourage trade and contact, South Africa is introducing layers
of red tape to the process of moving in and out of the country. The
outsider has never been more repulsive or threatening than s/he is
now. This is precisely why Gigaba's announcement of the Border
Management Agency is so worrisome. Yet it was couched in careful
language. Ever mindful of the xenophobic reputation that South
Africa has in the rest of the continent, Gigaba asserts, "We value
the contributions of fellow Africans from across the continent
living in South Africa and that is why we have continued to support
the AU and SADC initiatives to free human movement; but [my
emphasis] this cannot happen haphazardly, unilaterally or to the
exclusion of security concerns."
Ah, there it is! The image of Africa and 'Africans' as haphazard,
disorderly and ultimately threatening is in stark contrast to South
Africa and South Africans as organised, efficient and (ahem) peace-
loving. The subtext of Gigaba's statement is that South Africans
require protection from 'foreigners' who are hell bent on imposing
their chaos and violence on us.
Nowhere has post-apartheid policy suffered from the lack of
imagination more acutely than in the area of immigration. Before
they took power, many in the ANC worried about the ways in which
the old agendas of the apartheid regime state would assert
themselves even under a black government. They understood that
there was a real danger of the apartheid mentality capturing the
new bureaucrats. Despite these initial fears, the new leaders
completely under-estimated the extent to which running the state
would succeed in dulling the imaginations of the new public
servants and burying their intellect under mountains of forms and
rules and processes. They also didn't understand that xenophobia
would be so firmly lodged in the soul of the country, that it would
be one of the few phenomena would unite blacks and whites.
South Africa's massive immigration fail is a tragedy for all kinds
of reasons. At the most basic level, the horrific levels of
violence and intimidation that many African migrants to South
Africa face on a daily basis represent an on-going travesty of
justice. Yet in a far more complex and nuanced way, South Africa's
rejection of its African identity is a tragedy of another sort. All
great societies are melanges, a delicious brew of art and culture
and intellect. They draw the best from near and far and make them
their own. By denying the contribution of Africa to its DNA, South
Africa forgoes the opportunity to be a richer, smarter, more
cosmopolitan and interesting society than it currently is.
In spite of ourselves South Africans still have a chance to open
our arms to the rest of the continent. The window of opportunity
for allowing our guests to truly belong to us as they have always
allowed us to belong to them is still open. I fear however, that
the window is closing fast.
*******************************************************************
Why do people attack foreigners living in South Africa?: Asking
ordinary South Africans
Steven Gordon
HSRC Review, September 2018.
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/review/hsrc-review-sept-2018/foreigners-in-sa
A new study from the Human Sciences Research Council contributes to
our public debate on anti-immigrant violence by looking at the
opinions of ordinary South Africans. Using public opinion data, Dr
Steven Gordon looks at which explanations for anti-immigrant
violence are most popular amongst the country’s adult population.
By understanding how the public views this important question, we
can better comprehend which xenophobia prevention mechanisms would
be most acceptable to the general population.
The South African Constitution is regarded as one of the most
progressive in the world. One of its central features is the
recognition of the right of all citizens to certain socio-economic
rights including basic housing, healthcare, education, food, water,
and social security. Including socio-economic rights in the
Constitution has direct, practical implications for government,
which is expected to fulfil these rights through concrete action.
It is crucial that government’s progress in delivering on these
expectations is monitored.
The HSRC’s South African Social Attitude Survey (SASAS) series is a
useful tool to measure the extent to which South Africans are
satisfied with their socio-economic circumstances, but the series
does not measure the extent to which government has complied with
its obligation to progressively realise socio-economic rights. Such
a measurement would require insight into the national budget and
what portion of the budget the state dedicates to socio-economic
goods. However, how South Africans perceive their circumstances
matter and it provides valuable insight into how government has
fared in providing basic goods such as water, sanitation, housing
and electricity.
Anti-immigrant violence is one of the major problems facing South
Africa. This type of hate crime discourages long-term integration
of international migrants and acts as a barrier to otherwise
economically beneficial population movement. It also sours the
country’s international relationships on the African continent.
Relations between South Africa and Nigeria (one of the region’s
largest economies) have, for example, deteriorated because of
recent episodes of anti-immigrant attacks. Since the early 1990s,
state officials, legislators and policymakers in South Africa have
debated the causes of anti-immigrant violence. There are a thousand
different opinions on what causes such hostility and some
politicians (like former President Jacob Zuma) have even suggested
that this problem does not exist.
Getting an unbiased survey answer
Data from the South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS) 2017
was used for this study. A repeated cross-sectional survey series,
SASAS is specially designed to be nationally representative of all
persons 16 years and older in the country. Survey teams visited
households in all nine provinces and the sample size was 3,098.
Fieldworkers informed respondents that they were going to be asked:
“some questions about people from other countries coming to live in
South Africa”. Respondents were then asked the following: “There
are many opinions about why people take violent action against
foreigners living in South Africa. Please tell me the MAIN REASON
why you think this happens.” This question was open-ended which
allowed respondents to answer in their own words. This encouraged
respondents to give an unbiased answer.
The response
Using SASAS, I identified main causes of xenophobic violence given
by the public. These explanations are depicted in Table 1 across
economic groups. Here, I use the well-known Living Standard
Measure: Low (1-4), Medium (5-6) and High (7-10). Almost every
person interviewed was able to offer an explanation for why people
attack foreigners in South Africa. Only a small minority (5%)
described such violence as irrational, illogical or unknowable. An
even smaller portion (2%) of the public rejected the premise of the
question and said that attacks against foreigners were ‘just the
work of criminals’. Before the different reasons are discussed in
more detail, it is important to note that when talking about
international migrants, respondents made little distinction between
different types of foreigners. Most made general reference to this
group and only a relatively small proportion cited specific types
(e.g. undocumented) of foreigners.
The financial explanation
The most popular explanation given for attacks against
international migrants concerned the negative financial effect that
immigrants had on South African society. About a third (30%) of the
public identified the labour market threat posed by foreigners as
the main reason for anti-immigrant violence. The other main
economic causes identified by the general public were: (i) the
unfair business practices of foreign-owned shops and small
businesses; and (ii) immigrants use up resources (such as housing).
It is interesting to note that poor people were not more likely to
give economic reasons than the wealthy.
Criminal activity
The criminal threat posed by international immigrants was the
second most frequently mentioned cause of anti-immigrant violence.
Almost a third (30%) of the adult population said that the violence
occurred because communities were responding to the criminal
activities of international migrants. Many people attributed the
violence to foreigners’ involvement in illegal drug trafficking
specifically. Poor people were found to be particularly likely to
give illicit drug trading by foreigners as a main cause. About 5%
of adults identified other threats from foreigners as the main
reason for the attacks. These threats included disease, sexual
exploitation of women and children as well as a general sense that
immigrants wanted to ‘take over the country’.
Jealousy
Overall, 70% of the general public identified the threat posed by
immigrants as the main explanation for anti-immigrant violence in
South Africa. Looking at the minority that named a non-threat
explanation for the violence, we found that few identified
individual prejudice or misinformation spread about international
migrants as a reason for anti-immigrant violence. Remarkably, the
most frequent non-threat explanation for violence was jealousy.
Approximately 10% of the population told fieldworkers that envy of
the success or ingenuity of foreigners had caused this kind of hate
crime. People who responded in this way tended to tell fieldworkers
that South Africans were lazy when compared to international
migrants.
Conclusion
Most South Africans have a strong opinion about why anti-immigrant
violence occurs in the country. Reviewing the responses given to
fieldworkers, it is apparent that the majority of reasons provided
by the general population concern the harmful conduct of
international migrants. There is no evidence to support the belief
that South Africa’s international migrant community is, however, a
significant cause of crime or unemployment in the country. Indeed,
as former President Jacob Zuma has himself acknowledged, many in
the migrant community “contribute to the economy of the country
positively”. Current Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba has
himself said that it is wrong to claim that all foreigners are drug
dealers or human traffickers.
If a progressive solution to anti-immigrant violence is to be
found, then there is a need to persuade the general population to
support a different interpretation of the causes of anti-immigrant
violence. Only with public support can anti-xenophobia advocates
end hate crime against immigrants in South Africa. Government and
activists need to change the way ordinary people think about this
type of hate crime.
Additional articles based on HSRC survey
“How should xenophobic hate crime be addressed? Asking ordinary
people for solutions”
HSRC, 6 August 2019
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/media-briefs/sasas/how-should-xenophobic-
hate-crime
Steven Gordon, “What research reveals about drivers of anti-
immigrant hate crime in South Africa”
The
Conversation, September 6, 2019
**********************************************************
Additional Sources
News stories on the xenophobic attacks in South Africa have been
plentiful. For coverage by Google news worldwide visit http://tinyurl.com/y2yw5j37.
Coverage on South Africa news sites can be found at http://tinyurl.com/y4h5w4v8, and
coverage on Nigerian websites at http://tinyurl.com/y5ll7nae.
For a series of stories that go beyond the news to sharp analysis
and first-hand coverage, the South African site New Frame stands
out:
https://www.newframe.com/?s=xenophobia.
Commentaries in The
Daily Maverick can be found at http://tinyurl.com/y5dlqlkr.
On the relationship of South Africa to other African countries,
three commentaries that are particularly worth reading are:
Nnimmo Bassey, “Xenophobia and the New Apartheid,” September 4,
2019
https://nnimmobassey.net/2019/09/04/xenophobia-and-the-new-
apartheid/
Tafi Mhaka & Suraya Dadoo, “South Africa is becoming a pariah in
Africa,” September 10, 2019
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/south-africa-pariah-
africa-190909145153827.html
Nanjala Nyabola, “Failed decolonisation of South African cities
fuels violence,” September 11, 2019
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/failed-decolonisation-
south-african-cities-leads-violence-190910123546431.html
For an in-depth analyses of South African public opinion on
xenophobia, see the 2013 and 2014 monographs from the Southern African
Migration Project (SAMP): Migration Policy Series 63 and 66,
under the titles Soft Targets and Xenophobic Violence
in South Africa.
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to suggest material for inclusion. For more
information about reposted material, please contact directly the
original source mentioned. For a full archive and other resources,
see http://www.africafocus.org
|
