On the 20th of June at the World Refugee Day event hosted by the Department of Home Affairs, Minister of Home Affairs the Honourable Mr Malusi Gigaba put forward his vision for refugee protection for South Africa.
For many in the audience, there were two contextual elements that framed his comments. The first was an amendment to the refugee act, currently at the oral hearing stage of parliamentary process, which seeks sharply to constrain work rights for asylum seekers at the same time ensuring proof of identity and residence to those renewing their permits. At the same time here is an as-yet-unseen Green paper that is due for release before the end of June laying out several new directions including, reputedly, the creation of an indefinite refugee status for refugees in South Africa thus closing the option of permanent residence or citizenship, and the creation of some kind of SADC identity document to facilitate movement between countries and in policy separate economic migrants from the more immediate humanitarian concerns of refugees.
The second contextual element was the testimonies, given immediately prior to the Minister’s speech, the first two of which, particularly, evidenced many of the qualities and positive contribution of refugees to which the Minister subsequently referred. It was a most dignified segue to the Minister’s own presentation.
The Minister’s vision, both in content and tone, provided a clear and welcome departure from a number of recent government pronouncements, and pointed toward a clear ideological and strategic framework from which policy can presumably be developed.
His point of departure was South Africa’s positive record in such matters. Rightly he spoke of South Africa as having one of the world’s most advanced refugee legislations, marked by the immediate inclusion of asylum seekers into the community, not to be separated by encampment. He talked in terms of the overwhelmingly favourable disposition of South Africans and the temptation of blaming refugees for pre – existing problems. It was a refreshingly positive take on the polity and one that is much needed in the current political climate.
This tone continued in comments describing the “resilience and enterprise” that refugees bring to a country, and the need for South Africans to pay better attention to their positive contribution. At the same time he expressed his abhorrence of xenophobia and the temptation to blame refugees for pre – existing problems citing the needs for better social integration and public education in the host community.
He talked of the management of the asylum process and its need for improvement. These remarks began with honest acknowledgement of some of the issues – the openness of the current system to abuse which saps much needed resources following up on spurious claims and compliance issues, the need for fair treatment and timeous processing of genuine claims, and the twin scourges of xenophobia and corruption. And he referred to the need for political leadership, backed by policy – but also implementation – change.
He lastly referred to the need for integration of refugees into the community “in order to unleash their [refugees’] full potential.
Implicit in the comments is the desire for a realistic separation of the different policy responses needed for migrants and refugees, in particular migrants from impoverished countries looking for better opportunities but who appear “refugee-like” in their social and economic profile but whose nature of need is of a different order. This is a formidable challenge both at a policy and operational level and demands a new found sophistication from government and department alike.
This overall honesty of the situation, as well as due acknowledgement of refugees’ contribution potentially sets the standard by which current and future performance of the department, current legislative amendments and future proposals should be judged. It is here that one is left with a number of critical questions, such as:
Against this positive background we need to ask, how the curbing of work rights for asylum seekers balance the need for this positive contribution to be realised? We know that the first year of a refugee’s life in a new community is critical in setting a forward orientation – whether the person will move toward the pole of social integration or sink into social and economic isolation resulting in deep and irreversible poverty.
A similar question can be raised about the proposal apparently contained within the green paper to create the status of indefinite refugee? How is this to be understood as promoting integration and leveraging the positive economic and social benefits to which the Minister refers? This seems to imply the creation of a permanent class of “other”.
And is there, within the inevitable budgetary constraints, the political and departmental will to cement the acknowledged gains in the fight against corruption within the department at the same time as raising the skills level to deal with the complexity of cases presenting, providing the backing policies that recognise and deal with cases that present genuine protection needs and obligations but which do not fall neatly within existing refugee definitions?
Lastly there needs to be some definition of the government’s disposition to issues such as the practice of “first safe country of asylum” in its status adjudications, recognising that many of the countries immediately to our north may not have the resources to enact comprehensive and consistent policy towards the protection of refugees.
The Minister talked of addressing the causes of refugee flight – this notion can be extended to not burdening some countries beyond their capacities.
That said, the minister’s presentation went a long way to reframing helpfully the current conversation around policy in this vital area. The metaphorical devil remains in the political imperatives, policy detail and implementation practice.
Fr. Peter-John Pearson Johan Viljoen
SACBC Parliamentary Liaison Office Jesuit Refugee Service Southern Africa
Tel: + 27(0)21 461 1417 Tel: +27 11 618 3404
One would agree that war heroes are born not out of a normal situation of life but as victors of the monsters persecuting the society. AIDS pandemic has been one of the merciless monster infecting unbearable pain in our societies. We have seen our brothers and sisters terribly suffering, we have seen graveyards quickly expanding being filled with our fellows who have lost the battle against AIDS, we have witnessed the numbers of widows and widowers increasing, we have been struggling to find solution for high number of orphaned children, the families have been destroyed, stigma being part of life, others dying out of denial, victims flooding for treatment, churches and governments going all out to fight but with little progress, many people taking advantage of the sufferers, hot debates and condemnations, misconceptions etc. but all in the name of AIDS. Will it come to an end? Is AIDS free generation possible? Yes it is possible because “With God all things are possible.” Mk 10:27. Let us hold hands together and make sure the dream of AIDS free generation is realised soon. http://www.sacbc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/UNAIDS-and-PEPFAR-announce-dramatic-reductions-in-new-HIV-infections-among-children-in-the-21-countries-most-affected-by-HIV-in-Africa.docx