“The mysterious incompatibility of bias and brigandry” sums up the government’s curious responses to the current xenophobic violence.
It is the title of an essay by Loren B Landau, the director of the Forced Migration Studies Programme at the University of the Witwatersrand, for a newsletter of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation.
“In the face of widespread alarm the president initially told us that there had been only rumours and no ‘threats’ of xenophobia. We then heard that the migrants lining the highway were simply seasonal farm workers returning home.”
Now that the attacks had continued, however sporadically, Landau said the police continued to insist that these were merely opportunistic criminals working under the guise of xenophobia.
“Regardless of the doublespeak, the logic and evidence are clear: people are being targeted because of where they are from.”
Raising the question of what was behind this unwillingness to acknowledge what was really going on, Landau said a partial answer was revealed by accusations from the ministry of police that “prophets of doom” and “Afro-pessimists” were spreading rumours to try to rob South Africa and the ANC of their World Cup hosting glory.
If that logic held, “normal” looting and murder was something that the world had come to expect and could do little to tarnish South Africa’s recently polished image.
“Apparently, crime we can deal with as it is rooted in the poverty and inequality inherited from apartheid. The solution to that pathology is continued redistribution and accelerated service delivery — all part of the ANC agenda. Allowing that South Africans — most of whom are ANC supporters — are somehow bigoted, Afrophobic, or generally xenophobic strikes at the party’s reputation and self-image.”
Landau said the tacit acceptance of violence was disturbing.
“More importantly, this public denialism — this insistence that the very real crime we have seen is somehow “normal” and non-xenophobic — only means violence is likely to continue. Labelling an attack xenophobic does not mean that all South Africans are bigots, just as saying South Africa is a dangerous place does not mean all are brigands. But denying the shouts of ‘you makwerekwere get out’ and pamphlets blaming foreigners for crime, disease and unemployment are simply tools for criminals, ignores the power of sentiment and extant anger. These attacks are criminal, but they use the tools of hatred and bigotry,” Landau said.
Lawrence Mushwana, the South African Human Rights Commission chairperson, told Parliament last week that, at a recent meeting of high commissioners and ambassadors, some were “very critical” of the government for denying xenophobia. “Their argument was that if it is pure crime, why is it targeting foreign nationals?” Mushwana said.
But Zweli Mnisi, the spokesperson for the police minister, Nathi Mthethwa, said the government was not covering up any form of violence. “While certain sectors have chosen to debate the semantics of whether this is xenophobia or Afrophobia, our view is that we are dealing with crime.”
The government was not ignorant of the threats — it had become aware of these rumours long before the start of the World Cup, he said.
“That is why part of our response strategy was to quell and ensure they [the rumours and threats] do not assume a life of their own,” said Mnisi. “If indeed these were directed against all foreign nationals in South Africa, we have lots of foreign nationals from UK, France, China, Brazil etc. Why are they not being targeted? Why are these acts ‘pushed’ along certain racial and socioeconomic statuses?”