JUGUETES QUE DEBEMOS UTILIZAR PARA LA ESTIMULACIÓN

This case study of the double crisis of mass migration from Zimbabwe and xenophobia in South Africa has aimed to make a number of contributions to the literature on migration in countries in crisis. First, it focuses on a crisis that is intrinsic to the migration process itself and, furthermore, only affects migrants; that is, the crisis of anti-migrant intolerance and xenophobic violence in South Africa. Xenophobia, by definition, is targeted at migrants and assumes crisis proportions when it manifests in extreme xenophobia; that is, both acute and chronic forms of violence against migrants. Migrants are the direct victims of this crisis and are forced to make a whole set of choices to mitigate, ameliorate or escape the tide of hostility and hatred that they are forced to confront on an almost daily basis. Extreme xenophobia in South Africa is increasingly manifesting itself in attacks on informal migrant entrepreneurs which raises the critical question of how xenophobia disrupts and destroys business activities and livelihoods, on the one hand, and what options and strategies are available to migrants under attack. However, anti-migrant intolerance and xenophobia is not confined to South Africa and, indeed, is spreading in both the global South and North. South Africa regrettably offers other jurisdictions a mirror of their own future if they fail to acknowledge the reality of xenophobia and counter its devastating effects.

Second, the study focuses on a situation of double bind, that is, when the migrants leave a country in crisis and are then caught up in a crisis in the host country. One of the most common responses to crisis situations in a destination state is for migrants to return temporarily or permanently to their country of origin. The calculation of how to respond becomes a very different one when return is not necessarily a viable or sustainable option because of crisis conditions in the country of origin. The key question in relation to the crisis of extreme xenophobia in South Africa is whether return is actually a viable option for Zimbabweans. As this report clearly demonstrates, return is not a viable option for Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa because the alternative livelihood opportunities in Zimbabwe itself are virtually non-existent. At the same time, remittances to Zimbabwe from migrants are critical to the survival of those who remain. Xenophobic violence can cut off the flow of remittances and impact not only on those immediately affected but those who depend on a regular and stable transfer of cash and goods.

Third, there is the question of whether there is any causal connection between increased migration flows to South Africa and extreme xenophobic violence. In other words, does an increase in migration to the country and a particular community heighten everyday xenophobia and set the stage for acts of extreme xenophobia? And since Zimbabweans are easily the largest group of migrants by nationality, are they more likely to be the victims of xenophobic violence than migrants from other countries with less visibility? Attitudinal surveys show that Zimbabweans are intensely disliked by the majority of South Africans and that this translates into a particular form of verbal loathing. The most noteworthy shift in the targets of xenophobic violence since 2008 is migrants in general to migrants running businesses in the informal economy. Because increasing numbers of Zimbabweans work in the informal economy, they have, by definition, become more vulnerable to attack. Narratives of the migrants themselves collected for this project paint a desperate picture but also of resolve, determination and the drive to begin again when their businesses are reduced to ashes.

Fourth, there is the issue of whether extreme xenophobia acts as a disincentive to further migration to South Africa. This certainly seems to be the belief in some official circles in South Africa. Friebel et al. provide some evidential support for this, arguing that xenophobic violence provides a dampening effect on migration from Mozambique which is mitigated by the strength of a potential migrant’s social networks in South Africa.240

There was no noticeable decline in migration from Zimbabwe after 2008 which seems to suggest that the xenophobic violence did not dissuade Zimbabweans from migrating to South Africa in the same way as in Mozambique.

Friebel, G., Gallego, J. and Mendola, M. (2013). Xenophobic Attacks, Migration Intentions, and Networks: Evidence from the South of Africa. Journal of Population Economics 26: 555-591.

75

The difference between Mozambique and Zimbabwe may be that in the former there are viable alternative livelihood strategies to migration, which simply do not exist in the latter.

Fifth, since the primary focus of this research project is the crisis of xenophobia in South Africa, it is important to understand how the two governments (South African and Zimbabwean) have responded to xenophobia in general and the rash of extreme xenophobia in particular. From the perspective of the victims of xenophobic violence, it is clear that the overwhelming impression is that governments do nothing to help and do nothing to mitigate the problem. Particular criticism is reserved for the police and their failure to protect or punish. Police behaviour, as experienced by the migrants, simply makes them more vulnerable and is clearly motivated itself by xenophobic attitudes. Most evident, at a policy level, is the repeated denialism of the South African government at all levels. This position does a great deal more harm than good. If there is no xenophobia, there is no problem to address. The first step for any government wishing to rid a country of the plague of xenophobia is actually to admit that there is a serious disease.

Sixth, there are other local and international stakeholders in South Africa who do recognise the reality of xenophobia and attempt to intervene or ameliorate the crisis. These include migrant associations, non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations, faith-based organisations, international organisations with a strong local presence and the representatives of other governments and regional bodies. While these organisations are increasingly combining and working in concert, their impact on government policy is extremely constrained. On the contrary, they are more often working against government in the courts to protect the constitutional and other rights of migrants. Collaboration and cooperation is essential to achieve any progress but it is clear that most increasingly feel that the best approach is to work at the community-level in xenophobia hotspots. Many of these programmes are in their infancy and certainly none of the migrants interviewed in this project had any knowledge or contact with any of them.

Finally, while the growing presence of Zimbabweans and other migrants in the informal economy may be disruptive to established South African business-owners, a persistent challenge here is that migration itself is treated as an aberrant process harmful to those who are at its receiving end, even if it is undertaken due to exceptional circumstances, as is the case for Zimbabweans. The urgent need to discuss and implement concrete ways to address xenophobia and also broader circumstances which precipitated the exodus of forced migrants from this country are shrunk down in a restrictive manner to limiting migrants’ entry and amplifying border controls. By doing so, a consistent, if troubling message is transmitted, that migrants contribute to xenophobic tendencies by their mere existence in receiving states like South Africa. Such a belief also undercuts the human rights of migrants and their right to be fully integrated into South African society.241

76