Steven Friedman
WORM’S EYE VIEW
If Thabo Mbeki is serious about African solidarity, he might try encouraging it at home. An important feature of the early Mbeki presidency has been its stress on Africa.
Besides the “African renaissance’s” new status as a symbol, Mbeki has been far more concerned than his predecessor to encourage peace and economic growth in the rest of the continent. Much effort is being devoted to taking a leadership position in Africa and in signalling that our future is bound up with it.
The problem with this new focus is that it seems to apply only outside our borders. At home, hostility towards African immigrants remains high and is regularly the cause of violence, only some of which makes the headlines.
As recent articles in this newspaper show, immigrants resent this deeply.
The response of Mbeki and the African National Congress is, in the main, passive. While Minister of Home Affairs Mangosuthu Buthelezi – and much of the citizenry – continue to denounce “uncontrolled” immigration, Mbeki and his movement remain silent: they do not encourage the hostility, but nor do they much to fight it.
Besides the fact that there is an uncomfortable contradiction between waxing misty-eyed about Africa, but not about Africans who arrive here, there are good practical reasons why the president and the ANC should actively combat anger towards immigrants. Much of the debate about immigration in this society hinges on economics – whether newcomers contribute economically to the society or drain resources from it. And the standard complaint about immigrants is that they use resources which we cannot afford to share.
But international evidence on immigration suggests that it is less an economic problem than a political and cultural one.
In societies which have large immigrant populations, there is little evidence that, economically, they take more than they give. But immigration does create problems because the foreigners are often, particularly in times of stress, blamed by locals for every conceivable problem. The differences between their habits and beliefs and those of citizens are seized on as a convenient target of frustration and anger.
Elsewhere as here, this can threaten public order and democracy itself (witness the rise in some European countries of right-wing extremists who use anti-immigrant sentiment as their lever to public support).
So, contrary to our local debate, immigration is not a social or economic threat. But the attitudes it unleashes can endanger societies. One obvious solution is to get rid of the immigrants. But, even if the evidence that we need them is rejected, the reality is that, whatever the home affairs minister and much of the public might want, that is simply not going to happen. When there is a sharp imbalance between the economies of neighbouring states, people in the poorer countries move to the richer one in search of opportunity, whatever governments do.
Countries with far more resources than ours have tried to control immigration and have had little success: it is not clear why we should do any better.
If we continue to rely on this “solution”, then, we will not rid ourselves of immigrants. And, because we are doing nothing else, their presence will pose a continuing threat to peace which will damage our chances of progress.
In our own interests, then, we have little option but to commit ourselves to making this a more welcoming place for immigrants in general, those from Africa in particular.
Given the state of our immigration debate, the idea that the president and his government should, far from trying harder to throw foreigners out, launch a programme to absorb them, must seem bizarre. Given our problems, how can we afford to do this?
The real question is how we can afford not to. A government commitment to encourage acceptance of immigrants is not a politically correct luxury. It is essential to the health of our society because the alternative is a continuing threat of violence and disorder.
If Mbeki and the government made the commitment, they would have much experience from which to learn: several societies have strategies to integrate immigrants and encourage friendlier attitudes towards them.
Three approaches are worth mentioning. The first is the Israeli: because the state was founded on the idea that Jews from anywhere in the world belong there, considerable government effort is devoted to turning foreigners into citizens. Language instruction and job placement services are routine for immigrants. In Brazil, absorption has been achieved less by deliberate programmes than by a long- standing culture in which people from places as far apart as Japan and Europe are welcomed and encouraged to take on the local language and customs.
Neither of these approaches may be possible here, although we could learn from them. But, at the very least, we have little option but to adopt the response of Britain and some similar societies. They are less enthusiastic about immigrants but, through agencies committed to improving race relations, they do try to encourage citizens to see cultural differences as normal rather than a threat.
Mbeki’s renaissance symbol and the priority he gives the rest of Africa equip him, the ANC and his government ideally to initiate a programme of this sort.
What he and they would have to do would cost the country little. They need only start by signalling clearly that African immigrants contribute to this society skills, ideas, energy and labour and that they should be welcomed rather, than despised. Given the president’s ability to talk convincingly about the need for an African identity, that should not be a problem – all he may need to do is to add a little to his existing speeches.
There is a strong groundswell of anti- immigrant sentiment here, so Mbeki and his colleagues would not win instant popularity if they took this initiative. But trying to lead rather than follow public opinion when this is in the national interest is a key ingredient of leadership.
Nor would changing opinion on this issue be as difficult as it might seem. Research suggests that public opinion on immigrants is not uniformly hostile – there are examples of amity and co-existence as well as hostility. Government influence has not yet been used on this issue: there is every reason to expect that a governing party popular enough to win almost two-thirds of the vote should not find it beyond its power to persuade citizens to take a different view of immigrants.
So a government campaign to promote acceptance of immigrants, particularly from elsewhere in Africa, is both necessary and feasible. If Mbeki continues to duck the issue, concern for our interdependence with Africa will continue to lack credibility – and a sore will continue to fester in our society.