No. 50: The Perfect Storm: The Realities of Xenophobia in Contemporary South Africa

The world recently watched with dismay as South African citi­zens violently attacked foreign nationals in communities across the country. Tens of thousands of migrants were displaced, amid mass looting and destruction of foreign-owned homes, property and businesses. Senior officials and politicians seemed bemused and perplexed by the xenophobic violence. The media was quick to advance several theories about the mayhem. One focused on historical factors, particularly South Africa’s divisive and alienating apartheid past. Another blamed poverty and the daily struggle for existence in many of South Africa’s poorer communities. A third criticized the ANC govern­ment for poor service delivery and a failure to redistribute the fruits of the post-apartheid economic boom to the poor. Finally, the country’s immigration policies were seen as at fault. None of these theories explic­itly tackles the phenomenon of xenophobia itself.\nIn late 2006 SAMP undertook a national survey of the attitudes of the South African population towards foreign nationals in the country. The data from this survey allows us to analyze the state of the nation’s mind on immigration, immigrants and refugees in the period immedi­ately prior to the recent upsurge of xenophobic violence in South Africa. By comparing the results with those of previous surveys conducted by SAMP in the 1990s, we are also able to see if attitudes have changed and in what ways. Are they better now than they were in the days that prompted the South African Human Rights Commission to set up its Roll Back Xenophobia Campaign and partner with SAMP in a study of immigration, xenophobia and human rights in the country? Has xeno­phobia softened or hardened in the intervening years? Are xenophobic attitudes as widespread and vitriolic as they were then? How many South Africans were poised, in 2006, to turn their negative thoughts about for­eign nationals into actions to “cleanse” their neighbourhoods and streets of fellow Africans?\nThe 2006 SAMP Xenophobia Survey shows that South Africa exhib­its levels of intolerance and hostility to outsiders unlike virtually anything seen in other parts of the world. For example: Compared to citizens of other countries worldwide, South Africans are the least open to outsiders and want the greatest restrictions on immigration. Earlier data showed a hardening of attitudes in the late 1990s. The proportion of people wanting strict limits or a total prohibition on immigration rose from 65% in 1997 to 78% in 1999 and the proportion of those favouring immigration if there were jobs available fell from 29% to 12%. Similarly restrictive views still prevail. Two changes were evident in 2006, one positive and one negative. On the positive side, the proportion who agree to employed-related immigration rose from 12% in 1999 to 23% in 2006. In part, this reflects the immi­gration policy shift in 2002 which promoted a new skills-based approach. On the negative, the proportion of those wanting a total ban on immigration increased from 25% in 1999 to 35% in 2006. And 84% feel that South Africa is allowing “too many” for­eign nationals into the country. Nearly 50% support or strongly support the deportation of foreign nationals including those living legally in South Africa. Only 18% strongly oppose such a policy. Nearly three-quarters (74%) support a policy of deporting anyone who is not contributing economically to South Africa. Some 61% support the deportation of foreign nationals who test positive for HIV or have AIDS with a mere 9% strongly opposed. If migrants are allowed in, South Africans want them to come alone, as they were forced to in the apartheid period. Less than 20% think it should be easier for families of migrants to come with them to South Africa. Nearly three-quarters (72%) think that foreign nationals should carry personal identification with them at all times (the same as in 1999). Only 4% strongly opposed the suggestion. The proportion of South Africans wanting their borders to be electrified increased from 66% in 1999 to 76% in 2006. Only 2% are strongly opposed to such a policy. South Africans do not want it to be easier for foreign nationals to trade informally with South Africa (59% opposed), to start small businesses in South Africa (61% opposed) or to obtain South African citizenship (68% opposed). \nMany post-apartheid migrants to South Africa are asylum-seekers and refugees. How do South Africans view the issue of refugee protection and South Africa’s responsibilities towards them? The Survey found that: South Africans are divided on refugee protection with 47% sup­porting protection and 30% opposed. Nearly 20% have no opin­ion on the matter. Nearly three quarters are opposed to increasing the number of refugees currently in the country. Two-thirds are against offering permanent residence to refugees who have been in the country for more than 5 years. As many as half favour a policy of requiring all refugees to live in border camps. Only 6% are strongly opposed. Only 30% agree with allowing refugees to work. And 60% want a policy of mandatory HIV testing of refugees. \nIn the 1990s, SAMP found that many South Africans were generally not in favour of extending basic constitutional rights to foreign nationals (to which they are legally entitled). In 1999, less than 20% felt that refu­gees should always be entitled to legal and police protection. In the case of “illegal immigrants” the figure was less than 10%. Temporary workers and visitors were viewed a little more sympathetically although only 13% felt they should automatically enjoy police protection.\nThere have been some changes for the better since 1999. In 2006, there were drops in the proportion of South Africans who would deny basic rights to refugees and temporary workers and visitors. But the majority of South Africans still do not believe that either should auto­matically enjoy police or legal protection.\nSince so many South Africans also believe that the majority of foreign nationals in their country are here illegally, this means, in effect, that they believe that basic rights should be denied to many if not most for­eign nationals. With the exception of treatment for AIDS, at least two-thirds of South Africans still feel that irregular migrants in the country should be extended no rights or protections. Given that the police are believed to be major beneficiaries of the presence of irregular migrants (through bribery and protection rackets), this is alarming indeed.\nWhile South Africans clearly favour highly restrictive immigration policies, it does not necessarily follow that they dislike foreign nationals per se (which would make them xenophobic as opposed to merely defen­sive and protectionist). In South Africa, however, the 2006 Xenophobia Survey shows that negative opinions on immigration policy go hand-in-hand with hostile attitudes towards foreign nationals. If xenophobes view foreign nationals as a threat, they will generally attribute negative motives to “the invader.” In 1999, 48% of South Africans saw migrants from neighbouring countries as a “criminal threat”, some 37% said they were a threat to jobs and the economy, and 29% that they brought dis­ease. Only 24% said there was nothing to fear.\nSouth Africans continue to consider foreign nationals a threat to the social and economic well-being of their country. Indeed, along certain indicators, attitudes have hardened since 1999. The proportion arguing that foreign nationals use up resources grew by 8% from 59% in 1999 to 67% in 2006. The association of migrants with crime also intensified (45% in 1999 to 67% in 2006) as did the idea that migrants bring disease (24% in 1999 to 49% in 2006). The only positive sign was that more South Africans (6% more) felt that foreign nationals bring needed skills to South Africa. At the same time, two-thirds still believe that they are not needed.\nForeign nationals are often seen in South Africa as “job-stealers.” South Africans are also sometimes accused of treating all foreign nation­als as an undifferentiated group. The Survey therefore tried to assess whether South Africans distinguish between migrants in terms of where they are from. On these issues the Survey found the following: Migrants from North America and Europe are regarded more favourably than those from other SADC countries who, in turn, are more favourably perceived than those from the rest of Africa. However, these preferences are purely relative. A majority of South Africans have an unfavourable impression of migrants wherever they are from. Within Africa, migrants from Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are regarded in the most favourable light. Thirty-nine percent of those surveyed, for example, hold a favourable view of Basotho. Mozambicans (who only 14% of South African view favourably) and Zimbabweans (12%) are viewed much less favourably. Most unpopular of all are Angolans, Somalis and Nigerians. The supposed “economic threat” posed by immigrants does not appear to be based on personal experience as very few respond­ents have experience of losing a job to a foreign national (85%). Around two-thirds say they do not know anyone who has person­ally lost a job or heard of anyone in their community who has. In SAMP surveys in the 990s, respondents were asked how much contact they had with people from neighbouring countries in Southern Africa (from which the vast majority of migrants come). Surprisingly few was the answer (80% had little or no contact in 1997 and 60% in 1999). In the 1999 SAMP survey only 4% of respondents said they had “a great deal of contact.” SAMP concluded that the vast majority of South Africans form their attitudes in a vacuum, relying mainly on hearsay and media and other representations. In 2006, the proportion with little or no contact had hardly changed. What has changed is the proportion with no contact at

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.