Mutumwa Mawere

In attempting to address the above questions, one is easily reminded that the recent xenophobic violence in South Africa, the continent's youngest child, suggest that key foundational and constructional issues required to build a sustainable and inclusive post apartheid state may have been overlooked and no serious thought may have been applied in defining what kind of South Africa we want to see and who should prosper or not in it?

The apartheid state had its own architects who thought long and hard about what kind of civilization they wanted to see. Equally, the colonial state had its own intellectual and conceptual foundation and it was, therefore, not accidental that race was a critical variable in separating citizens.

The post colonial African state should also have its own architects but regrettably the experience in Africa has shown that most of the continent's founding fathers tend to be blinded by the past and less challenged by the prospects of creating a new mutual founded on values and principles of equality, liberty and the rule of law.

The manifestation of xenophobia during the first 20 years of the post-apartheid state confirms that the South Africa mind may not be any different from the thinking that has informed many Africans in terms of identity in the post colonial era. For example, Nigerians know who is and is not a Nigerian. Equally, at the core of President Mugabe's world view, for example, is a notion that to be an authentic Zimbabwean one has to fit into a certain profile and such a description excludes politically active white persons and black Africans born outside Zimbabwe or from foreign born black Africans.

It is important that we pause to think seriously about what kind of Africa we want to see. Many of us who live in South Africa are acutely conscious that a Polish born South African, for example, is easily accepted as an authentic citizen than a Namibian born South African. Identity is not necessarily a bad starting point in any nation building enterprise but it can be poisonous if not properly located in a developmental context.

Although the precise number of South African residents who were born outside the country and are black is not known, their contribution to the national economy when aggregated could well constitute a significant component of the gross national product. A number of 3 million Zimbabweans, for example, are often used as the total of all Zimbabweans living and working in the country. Their contribution to the national economy of South Africa must be significant and raises the question of why if such contribution in the form of taxes is beneficial to nation building, an anti-Zimbabwean sentiment could successfully take root.

The colonial state was informed by a value system that recognized white Africans as the primary contributors to the state through income taxes and, therefore, to the extent that the contribution of natives was marginalized, a view was held that it could not be right for natives to be involved in the administration of a state that was meant for only those who were deemed to be the authentic contributors to the tax base. If Africans (born outside S. Africa) are also investors in the post apartheid state as taxpayers, why then would they be excluded from participation in government contracts in the name of BEE or not be represented in the various political institutions? What is evident is that many Africans born outside South Africa have willingly accepted that they can invest in the government of South Africa without being represented.

Many of the tax paying Zimbabweans in South Africa are angrier with Mugabe and not angry about their non-participation in a government that they finance through their income in form of taxes. Would it be acceptable if foreign born black Africans living in South Africa were to be granted a tax waiver to fully accommodate the proposition that they can never be part of South Africa? Any civilization in which citizens and residents are expected to contribute their income to a government in which they are not represented is manifestly unjust.

However, it must be accepted that many foreign born black South Africans have chosen to shy away from actively participating in the politics of their host country choosing to continue to live as if they are in transit. The recent xenophobic violence was a wake up call to all of us not to be silent about the identity question. As members of AHS, we subscribe to the notion that Africa belongs to all who invest in it. While we accept that nationalism is an important driver of nation building, we also have to subscribe to the noble idea that Africa's future lies in all the people who acting in their self interest create the income that can then be used to advance the interests of the continent.

Africa as a general and South African in particular has to be more accommodating if it is to deliver on its promise. Any progressive nation has to accept that it has to create an enabling environment to harness the required skills and mobilize the capital necessary to bridge the inherited dualistic economy. I am informed that the total membership of the ruling party in South Africa, the African National Congress Party, is around 700,000 and can you imagine what would happen if foreign born black South Africans could come to the realization that it is absurd that they can continue to contribute without representation their income to a government they feel alienated from and then proceed to take a constructive decision to be active participants in nation building of their host country.

We, therefore, encourage an open debate on the challenges and solutions to the question of xenophobia and how it can be transformed into a positive instrument for change.

Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign people. It comes from the Greek words ξ?νος (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and φ?βος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe a fear or dislike of foreigners or of people significantly different from oneself.

There is nothing unusual about xenophobia. It rears its ugly head all over the world in some form or the other, but the recent violent attacks against foreign born black South African citizens and residents has forced all of us to begin to question the commitment of South Africans to the United States of Africa project. The construction of the South African government as a people's project funded by income earning citizens and residents suggests that it would be an absurd outcome for the victims of such attacks to also be tax paying persons. The image of a South African is an artificial one that was largely inherited from its colonial/apartheid past. To the extent that the South African state is partly financed by the tax contribution of such targeted persons, it is incumbent upon all of us to begin a constructive conversation on the complex issue of xenophobia and how best new citizens can integrate themselves into the host country in as much as Indian, Anglo Saxon, Jewish, Chinese, etc have done.

The African Peer Review Mechanism process did identify in its report on South Africa that: "......tendencies of xenophobia exist in SA society, and need to be checked by government......" However, President Mbeki's response to the APRM report on behalf of the SA government, at the APRM meeting in Accra, Ghana, was, ".......the finding that tendencies of xenophobia exist in our country are simply not true......". President Mbeki was not alone is assuming that all was well and that it was safe to take for granted the need to invest in a new African identity founded on different principles and values to the ones that informed the colonial experience.

What was shocking to many was that the savage attack were targeted at black people of foreign descent with the majority still living in denial that rational South Africans could stoop that low. There has been criticism that the government of South Africa was slow in accepting responsibility for the unfortunate development that has seen the persecution, massacre, and economic dispossession of economic and political visitors from the continent. While the criticism may be valid, one has to accept that the visitors from Africa have also chosen to alienate themselves from the broader issues that confront a development state like South Africa. The wounds of apartheid have hardly healed and over the last 14 years, a new language has been introduced into the vocabulary that citizens are owed something by the post apartheid state.

The foundation of the post apartheid state has, therefore, been premised on the principle that for stability and security to prevail, the benefits of economic progress must be shared and the government must play an active role in the process. In defining who should benefit, it has been accepted that only black persons who were previously disadvantaged ought to be the beneficiaries. As long as an economic test is relevant in defining who is and is not South African, xenophobia will be an inevitable outcome.

The fact that Africans from Somalia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria and others were attacked was not accidental because they happen to share the same pigmentation as the targeted beneficiaries of the post apartheid state and no rational explanation has been provided on why it is the case that African visitors are ending up being the beneficiaries from a system that was not designed for them. It is noticeable that there are no visible political role models from the targeted groups that have been attacked. We have no Nigerian born South Africans, for example, in any senior position in the ANC or other political formations. Indians, for example, are well represented in the political landscape of South Africa and, therefore, it is natural for any Indian national who may be a new South African to be easily integrated into the society. If the Chinese can make the case that they should also be classified as black persons in so far as the empowerment legislation is concerned, it should also be the case that African visitors should also be classified in a similar manner.

There is no doubt that the xenophobic attacks may well have been motivated by criminality but it would be simplistic to suggest that the phenomenon has no deep rooted causes that should be examined critically by all who genuinely share the belief that Africa's promise can only be honored if the issue of identity and citizenship is rigorously interrogated. But an important point also is not whether the attacks were xenophobic or criminal, but rather how the two are inter-related. Xenophobia ignited a criminal response by a desperate and illiterate populace where a dignified and consultative approach would have worked!

Now lets examine some of the causes for Xenophobia that have been put forward. Analysis of the statements by academics, government, activists, NGO's, etc. suggests that there is only one very simple and ordinary reason: It's the economy, stupid! The energy and food crisis that is affecting not only South Africa has its own consequences and it must be accepted that one such consequences is a feeling of hopelessness and alienation by the majority who have not witnessed any meaningful change in their standard of living since the end of apartheid. Indeed, the economy is not producing enough jobs to mop up the surplus labour in the SA labour market, and therefore there is widespread unemployment, especially amongst the youth.

Then there's also a culture of entitlement, a topic that has been richly researched by many South African commentators and analysts, creates a dangerous recipe for social discontent and unrest! So you have armies of unemployed youth - many in the prime years of their lives - who have very little prospect of getting a job, who feel a high sense of entitlement based on promises made during Apartheid, and during the first five years of the post-colonial state!

Then there are cases of ‘foreigners willing to work for less therefore crowding South Africans out of the labour market'! This is a perfect market situation of supply and demand....there are those willing to supply their labour at a wage rate X, and if the rest aren't willing to do the same, then they better acquire more skills so as to earn the kind of wages they consider as being fair, or they better sit and do nothing and wait for government hand-outs! And when they do, the culture of entitlement is reinforced, and the resentment for those who do work at those X wages, intensifies! Click Here for more!