Zimbabwe's Exodus: Crisis, Migration, Survival

Chapter Seventeen. Silence and Fragmentation: South African Responses to Zimbabwean Migration

chapter Seventeen Silence and Fragmentation: South African Responses to Zimbabwean Migration Tara polzer The recent movement of people from Zimbabwe to South Africa is one of the largest concentrated inflows of migrants in South African history. A rapid influx of hundreds of thousands of people would be treated by most countries as a serious crisis requiring immediate intervention. Yet South Africa’s official reaction to this movement has been characterised by a studied determination not to acknowledge that anything is out of the ordinary. South African diffidence has been especially evident at the highest levels of government and within various ministries and departments, but it can also be seen in organised civil society. These groups have all have failed to recognise the specific nature and challenges of contemporary Zimbabwean migration. In practice, the impacts of migration are left to Zimbabwean social networks, (often poor) South African citizens and local level public service providers to address. The fragmented and inadequate set of responses has produced two major disjunctures: first, between the needs of Zimbabwean migrants and the capacity and/ or motivation of formal institutional frameworks and services; and secondly, between the impact of Zimbabwean migration and the ability to manage these impacts. This chapter examines the range of informal and formal South African responses to Zimbabwean migration by key governmental and civil society actors up until late 2008. ZIMBABWE’S EXODUS: CRISIS, MIGRATION, SURVIVAL 378 Three different perspectives are proposed for evaluating these responses: a law and rights-centred perspective; a developmental and migrant needs-centred perspective; and a politics and institution-centred perspective. Each of these perspectives asks a different central question and each highlights the roles of different actors within the heterogeneous categories of “government” and “civil society.” A legal and rights-based perspective looks at the international and domestic legal responsibilities of the South African government towards Zimbabwean migrants and asks what government responses should be and how existing responses compare with these responsibilities and obligations. The key actors are governmental departments particularly Home Affairs and the social welfare departments of Health, Education, Social Development and Labour, the South African Police Services, and local municipalities. The role of civil society from this perspective is either to monitor government actions and press government to fulfil its obligations or to fill service gaps by providing parallel services. In contrast, a migrant-centred and developmental perspective focuses on the question of what Zimbabwean migrants actually do and need and how governmental and civil society responses support or undermine these needs, regardless of whether or not they are enshrined in law. An example is the need of most Zimbabweans in South Africa to earn and remit money and goods to family members remaining in Zimbabwe. This is a key developmental issue but not one that is clearly defined as a right in either domestic or international law. From this perspective, Zimbabweans themselves are key actors in their own right, both as individuals and through more or less formal associations. Here, informal practices, relations and structures within governmental and non-governmental spheres in South Africa are as important as formal policies. Finally, a political and institutional perspective asks why South African institutions have responded to Zimbabwean migration in the ways they have. The overall lack of an “emergency” atmosphere – the “business as usual” approach – requires explanation. More particularly, it is necessary to explain why certain responses have been adopted while others have been rejected or ignored, and why the responses by different actors remain essentially fragmented rather than coordinated. In addition to the governmental and non-governmental actors considered in the legal/rights perspective, a political perspective brings in actors not otherwise directly involved in providing services to, or making policies about, Zimbabweans in South Africa but who have important impacts CHAPTER SEVENTEEN SILENCE AND FRAGMENTATION 379 on the context in which such policies are made. Such groups include the Office of the Presidency, the ruling African National Congress party and Parliament. Considered together, these perspectives lead to the conclusion that the South African government has not fulfilled its international or domestic legal obligations towards Zimbabwean migrants, resulting in significant abuses of migrant rights. Civil society has been largely ineffective in putting pressure on the government to change its policies and practices in relation to Zimbabweans and has also not been able to mobilise and coordinate a sufficient parallel welfare support and protection system. Responses to the welfare and protection needs...