A Presentation to the SAPES Policy Dialogue Forum
By Takura Zhangazha
Thursday 30
April 2015
Cde Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me begin by thanking the SAPES Policy Dialogue Forum for
inviting me to share my thoughts on issues to do with African migration and
xenophobia. I have changed the topic
slightly in order to better suit our regional context by making reference to
Southern Africa. I have however written
on the issue of the perilous exodus of our African brothers and sisters to
Europe for the continental news website thisisafrica.me
The topic under discussion when one takes into account recent
and tragic incidences of
xenophobia in South Africa becomes not only relevant but urgent and serious for the region.
xenophobia in South Africa becomes not only relevant but urgent and serious for the region.
This is because the
statements coming from South African President Zuma concerning the cause and
effect of xenophobia in his country will have far reaching connotations for
migration in the region. Mainly because
his statements laid primary claim to south African ‘exceptionalism’ after he
accused neighbouring governments of causing increased influxes of their
citizens to his country due to bad governance. By implication, this can be
interpreted to mean that such a similar accusation cannot be pointed at his own
country.
Statements also made by the current chair of SADC, Zimbabwean
President Mugabe who used the ‘bright lights’ syndrome by explaining that
emigrants to South Africa tend to view Johannesburg as the ‘urban’ have not helped
either. By inference, this would mean that the rest of the region should be
perceived as a rural backwater. An assertion which does not reflect reality nor
adequately explain why we are in this
current conundrum.
It is these two responses of Presidents Zuma and Mugabe that
must give cause for reflection beyond collective condemnation of the tragic
xenophobic attacks. Knee jerk responses, closing of borders, harassment of
travelers will only alleviate symptomatic challenges around the issue which does
not appear to be showing signs of long term dissipation.
As has been cited by a number of academic and specialist
human geographers, migration is an historical fact of Southern Africa. While it
has been analysed in terms of pre-colonial Africa, the greatest volume of
studies on the same subject, are for Africa’s postcolonial period. Not least because the colonial era saw marked
increases in migration through forced resettlements but also introduced what
academic Deborah Potts refers to as ‘circular migration’ in sub-Saharan
Africa. This term refers largely to the
lack of permanence in the migratory patterns of peoples across borders.
Causes and theoretical explanations for such migration cut
across historical, political and economic spheres of analysis. Theoretically they are also structuralist
(modernization), radical (Marxian) and ethnographic. The common motivation for people crossing borders
in all of these instances is economic or related to the political economy of a
specific period and time. From colonialism through to post independence
economic structural adjustment programmes, political conflict (refugees and
forced departure) and individual pursuit of better livelihoods over time.
What is beyond dispute is that migration in Africa is not
only an historical fact of our lived realities but it continues to inform our
regional cultural, political economic livelihoods. In other words, in and of itself,
migration is not a problem. Mainly
because the legacies or direct effects of its causes are still amongst us
today.
But herein lies the problem.
That we are still grappling with these issues is an indictment on our
inability to address the key legacies of colonialism and inorganic
post-colonial leadership. Not for a lack
of trying but more for a lack of collective effort and consistency. Tremendous efforts have been made to deal with continental development challenges through
the transformation of the OAU into the AU and the launch of NEPAD.
These efforts are however falling short of their intended
objectives let alone their expecting beneficiaries.
Especially where one considers the contemporary continued
gravitation to the in similar fashion to that established by the Witwatersand
Native Labour Association (WENELA (minus the infamous ‘Chibaro’ system.)
The luring factor of the South African economy is, as was the
case when our forefathers/mothers trekked the forests or got on the railway
wagons toward ‘egoli’, remains apparent.
The only marked difference is that in the same country of
destination we are no longer all Africans in relation to the political
consciousness of the anti-colonial struggle era. That country now has its own citizens who have
a greater sense of entitlement to what their country has to offer them as opposed to what it can give the rest
of us as Africans’
This means therefore, they cannot be expected to assume their
country is the repository of the region’s economic challenges, even despite the
historical liberation solidarity that we all share. This is because while the past is important
to acknowledge and analyse, it unfortunately is not the sole determinant of a
better future for all Southern Africans.
What is required is a holistic understanding of the causes
for both the migration and its violent domestic resistance in the destination
country.
This would mean that all SADC countries, if they can have
agreement on industrialization roadmaps must clearly have agreements on minimum
standards of social service delivery to their people in tandem greater
commitment to democratic values and principles.
It would entail a shift from blunt neo-liberal and state capitalist
frameworks as dictated by either western or eastern financial institutions all
of which have led to the failure to localize the regional political economy for
people centered development in Southern Africa. The result of which has been the retrogressive
bifurcation of the region and continent by rampant global capital and the
tragic pitting of brother against brother, sister against sister for a pittance
share of the pie.
Furthermore, it would entail increasing the popular
legitimacy of regional and continental bodies together with their programmes
beyond inorganic summits of heads of state and government which are viewed more
as events than serious policy discussion platforms by the people of the
continent.
To conclude, there are a multiplicity of reasons as to why
migration and resistance to it in Southern Africa are becoming an thorn in the
flesh of the liberation struggle’s progressive legacies. These include the impact of colonialism on
African societies the inorganic leadership of
the region on real matters by our post independence leadership and the
elite nature of our regional and continental institutions. It is easy to argue that all of these are
work in progress, but the sad truth is that there is little to show, apart from
the historical legacy of our liberation struggles.
As the revolutionary Amilcar Cabral once wrote, ‘“Always bear in mind that the
people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head. They are
fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their
lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children.”
If for once, SADC and African
leaders understood this, especially from a regional perspective, then perhaps
African migration, in whatever form, would be more welcome and not dehumanizing
as it appears to be today.
No comments:
Post a Comment