The South African and immigrants question: Unbundling causal factors not to ignore

By TONY ALABI 

Introduction:

We are often quick in our divides to defend the arguments for the attacks of immigrants as South Africans, on occasion of perceived immigrant nuisance value and to label such attacks as xenophobia when on the immigrant side of the debate. More so, when earning points reasonably comes easy with citations of cruelty, lack of empathy and poor reasoning to these conflicts.  There is the rage and actions taken by native citizens and the rage as pushback by immigrants. Unless this subject matters are clearly interrogated beyond the street level of the mayhem,  the individuals already fed with facts upon which they are acting and have always acted would rationalise their actions as appropriate and like wise the immigrants at the receiving end of the jungle justice. Unfortunately, the class of mindsets doing the rationalisation cuts across society from the bottom to the topmost; from the pauper to presidents in the continent and not just South Africans alone. Leaving no room for deep thinking that can lead to the social management of a phenomenon that can be delineated and easily isolated and solved with long term strategies. There are four causal factors to these incessant conflicts between immigrants and South Africans in South Africa. The human factor, the socio-economic factor, the government policies and the lack of pragmatic consensus as the framework for migrating Africans at the continent level.

The Human factor: 

Humans are territorial everywhere in the world. It is the duty of modern nation states to discern trends and agents of national security threats ahead of its occurrences. South Africa has a good national security architecture. Evidently, there is an unwritten code of the older ANC led government of South Africa,that promotes a “come one come all” black policy into South Africa. This sentiment is consistent with Pan African values of the continent. However, it appeared South Africa forgot that, her national integrity as a country stands the risk of buckling under intense human migration disruptions and its consequent social imbalances. The Mandela days experienced vast migration of blacks into South Africa as compensation for Africans who helped in South Africa’s struggle for freedom from white dominated rule called the Apartheid Government. This Pan African immigration sentiment continues to trail the ANC led government as the only reciprocal gesture to promote Pan Africanism. At some point such an influx of immigrants climaxed during the World Cup in 2010. Huge numbers of undocumented immigrants flooded South Africa with the ANC led government playing the ostrich repeatedly. How did these unprecedented migration pressures cripple the apartheid based Home Affairs Systems within thirty years before reforms? How did the inherent  Home Affairs System failures translate into the social space and on the streets to interpersonal arrangements for the South African and immigrants? 

Socio-economic Factor:

It is upon the above factor that South Africans have collectively built a new type of socio-economic society. Alas! What were we thinking as the educated class aka South African College Graduate(SACG) and the African College Graduate(ACG)? At both the public and private sector ends of the economy, we have inadvertently built a new type of Socio-economic society under new struggles different from the apartheid one.  What socio-economic outcomes do you expect from the massive influx of educated and uneducated and both poorly documented immigrants into South Africa? These multi-level arrangements in outcomes are never static. First, there was the socio-economic welcome stage, where gaps in needs (informal technical needs and formal technical needs) were filled by immigrants.  At most this lasted for a decade, until the birth of the native Born-Free South Africans. Within another decade,the native Born-Free South Africans grew in competency levels into such positions. Understand that, these Born-Free South Africans are not growing in a cocoon. They are growing side by side immigrants who were also having their immigrant version of Born-Free and New South African citizens or undocumented immigrants. Creating new social upsets across the board for limited and competing opportunities as blacks. All of these are occurring against a backdrop of government subsidies, limited service delivery, provisions, etc. These government services are usually not compensated for with the necessary siftings to significant changes in demographics(between citizens and immigrants or their offspring with competencies).   How do you think the private sector and the public sector would be responding as these setbacks pile on each other into new forms of socio-economic struggle for survival at the native citizens end and a new variety of immigrants(by birth, by immigration/ documented and undocumented)?

Government Policy-Programme Factor:

By the twentieth year of the South African -Arrangements in the new socio-economic struggle that emerged barely three decades post-apartheid, it became evident that immigrants were everywhere; in provinces and towns, townships and villages, competing for government service delivery  by rights, privileges and entitlements.  Unfortunately, government policies were never shaped to address the multi-demographic needs of the growing internationalised population. The Educated Class of the ANC led government were busy tackling what they considered more important to the socio-economic issues of labour relations, poor service delivery and a nation state that needed to appease citizen centred discontent in anticipation of winning the next cycle of popular votes during elections. 

Obviously, policy shifts were occurring to subsidise the critical.mass of South African native citizens and to improve the franchise of nationalism as promised! A continuous building of a new nation on an apartheid legacy framework would prove unsustainable with time.  Where the government is the major employer of the black population( native citizens and immigrants). A South African first, governance philosophy and nationalism soon emerged with damning rhetoric! The economic channels for survival (of all) went into an overdrive mode. You had to be BLACK ENOUGH to participate! The White minority recruited black ‘enough’  directors into their formal businesses. The citizens essentially sort partners (with other blacks) usually black immigrants (with enterprise know-how),  to use their native citizen black ‘enough’ rights and privileges to access government offerings in contracts, concessions and partnerships;  as the native citizens had to learn the ropes of private enterprise.

Soon, to be black ENOUGH meant exclusion of immigrants at all levels of government policies by default. Immigrants were no longer employable by the government (no more skills gaps to fill), and even where the essential services needed exceptional immigrant skills, such demands were knocked off by new policies.of South African nationalism.  A strong government policy which was anti-immigrant began to soar along the corridors of government offices.  As these anti-immigrant government policies soar, it slowly but surely caught on, with the personal sentiments of individual multilayered experiences on the streets ultimately. Meanwhile, immigrants at the lowest ebb began to feel the economic pinch and were motivated to seek alternatives to survival. Where South Africans born and bred could not obtain Identification Booklets or even obtain an ID-Number since birth what were the hope for the immigrants? South Africans who came of age at eighteen years committed suicide, because they could not access a valid identity number and booklet to be integrated into their own society because the Department of Home Affairs was in disarray and decadence.

Until policy efforts from the government doubled their efforts and changed strategy, these CONDITIONINGS by poor governance continued to underscore outcomes for citizens hardship.  Do we really think all of these had no effect on the perception of immigrants in South Africa? How should a South African reconcile government crack down by policy and programmes on immigrants that can no longer access the public sector with the sentiments of Pan African open door policy? Such ambivalence of the South African government was loud enough for all south Africans to hear and become a repeater station to a finite sentiment that rejects immigrants.  That the real rejection of immigrants at all levels of governance soon became a sentiment on the streets with numerous nuisance value citations from the unconventional survival strategies of immigrants was an expected outcome. South Africa cannot keep an ANC led sentiment of open doors to black immigrants from all over the world and tighten the nozzle of policy and programmes for only South Africans to access government benefits by rights and entitlements.  Such sentiments do not match the needed pragmatism to the entire quagmire. There are no current government efforts to stratify the ambivalent sentiments and to stop the conflicting signals they emit to South Africans and immigrants. As the government provides protection for immigrants they offer their protection to citizens parades to crack down on immigrants. This is confusing!

African Union Factor:

Based on all the factors above, it is important to note that the African Union does not have a pragmatic solution or framework for South Africa and the rest of fifty-three member states for the migration of African citizens cross-border, continent wide.  Much of the debates on continent-wide migration were left to activist rhetoric for or against, and the ideas of Pan Africanist.  Africa’s 1.3billion population is without any real policies that can be placed on the grounds of each country to correct these civil outbursts between native citizens and immigrants. At least if the Europeans mapped 54-member countries as the new nation states which we claim to hate for its poorly delineated boundaries that unduly divided us, yet as the new leaders  of these states, we weaponize geographic territorially against each other; both the educated and uneducated. This goes to show the depth of our lack of thinking  over this issue. The African Union needs a migration policy that addresses critical socio-economic issues beneath a formal AfCFTA. Most of Africa’s socio-economic integration surrounding migration and its dynamics will continue to spark challenges amongst the everyday natives seeking market based geographic opportunities. How should Africans avoid labelling each other and breeding conditions of animosity when they migrate and seek to benefit from each other’s geography based market economy? Africa’s formal and informal economy will dwell side by side and may never fuse into singularity. How should Africans co-exist under such a trade and commercial regime with its inherent socio-cultural identities?

Then, there is the label FOREIGNER instead of immigrant and the label of XENOPHOBIA instead of socio-economic conflict, both key words go to invigorate the subject matter of immigrant-citizen clashes only in africa. How did we even buy into such a lopsided narrative to deepen the anguish and pain from its experience and to further alienate ourselves as Africans by adopting such mainstream words and language? South Africans are not xenophobic and immigrants into South Africa are not foreigners. Both key words in conveying the hatred in experiences as the narrative must change at all levels of this conversation.

The AU needs a pragmatic solution to this phenomenon and must not be at governmental level alone. The AU must learn to place her feet on the streets of the continent by assisting members States with her visibility to improve social balance, friendliness and the worthiness of AU programmes for member states. Appointing AU Ambassadors amongst agitating South Africans to promote peace and improve communication and understanding will come at a paltry cost to the AU.  Funding intra-africa migration and following through with its data to help member states regulate themselves within their capacities would go a long way to mitigate risks left to itself. At the AU level, there is supposed to be a member states template to initiate all types of migrations and to document immigrant movements in and out all 54-member States.

My Final Words:

The South African government must not see or think of this phenomenon as their singular responsibility even where it sits right on them for most of their inaction. The Pan Africanist sentiments motivating the ANC led government for thirty years and that kept her working around open door policies while her internal institutions were collapsing under such burden is understood. It is not a decision South Africa can make alone. SADC for immigrants around the southern tip as well as ECOWAS for the West of Africa and others must have their regional summits to address pragmatic steps to socio-economic migration and its modern complexities. We have always had a communal (Ubuntu) system across the continent where traditional persons of immigrant status lived in an allocated enclave while they came out from such enclaves to do business and some of these places become integrated into larger modern African cities. I am not advocating appropriation of lands before this discourse turns on its head. It’s a mere analogy to pragmatism. There is a need for an African Union conference on human migration in Africa. The AU needs to set the framework for new policy rules and guidance to initiate the needed changes in member states from colonial policies about immigration to a New African Policy towards the “Africa We Want”.   It is hoped that such depth of guidance would impart a new form of culture to co-existence in the continent between immigrants and citizens wherever. Long live Africa.

The post The South African and immigrants question: Unbundling causal factors not to ignore appeared first on Vanguard News.