No time for denialism
Opinion I By Loren B Landau and Tara Polzer I Those who heard the dog bite remember its bite.
Over the past two weeks, those same people have seen World Cup fever give way to a feverish effort to prevent the forthcoming melee. No one has been readying themselves more fervently than migrants, many of whom have made their way to safety either in South Africa or beyond its borders. Some, who heard the dog barking and, remembering the brutal attacks of May 2008, fear its mortal bite.Following last week's meeting of the inter-ministerial committee dedicated to addressing the expected attacks, senior government officials have developed a co-ordinated, if somewhat ambivalent, approach to the relapse into xenophobic violence. Along with the firm (if fallacious) statements that South Africa is not a banana republic, where people can murder with impunity, officials have been denying that the threats should be taken seriously. Only this week, newspapers quoted President Jacob Zuma's response: "I'm not certain whether there have been threats of xenophobia. I know that there have been rumours that have been reported."
As of now, he continued, there was no "concrete evidence" of attacks. The hundreds of Zimbabweans and others who are fleeing hostile communities are, if we are to believe what officials tell us, simply seasonal farm workers returning home. The minister and the deputy minister of police, and others, have accused "prophets of doom" and "Afro-pessimists" of trying to rob South Africa and, presumably, the ANC, of its World Cup glory by talking about xenophobia.
But the words of senior politicians do have significant impact. Stating that the attacks are "mere rumours" or "mere crime" is worrying. Most obviously, it reveals government leaders who are either out of touch with their own intelligence and police services, or are willing to publicly prevaricate about threats to the country's residents. Police and intelligence services have been warning of rising tension and the seriousness of threats since early in the year, well before any public or media discussions, which are now accused of "creating" or "fuelling" violence.
At what point do distributing threatening pamphlets, regular verbal threats in communities, and community meetings in which people outline their plans to get rid of foreigners constitute more than a rumour? But, whatever the reasons for their response, all South African residents will be the losers.
What we have seen over the past few weeks is not only a government unwilling to acknowledge the threat of xenophobic violence, but an administration that seeks to deny others the possibility of raising the warning flag. Moreover, by denying xenophobia as a motivation, the inter-ministerial committee does not acknowledge, and cannot explain, why specific groups are targeted. Labelling an attack xenophobically motivated does not mean that all South Africans are consumed by bigotry and hatred.
But some people regularly single out specific groups for abuse, explicitly couching their threats in discriminatory language. If shouts of "You Makwerekwere, get out" are, indeed, "disguising" alternative motivations, as Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa suggests, local political and business interests are playing on existing sentiments and anger. These attacks might be criminal, but they ignore the tools - hatred, bigotry, and a willingness to turn to violence - that enable them. By shifting the blame for violence to purportedly "unpatriotic" or "Afro-pessimist" (read "racist") individuals, media outlets, and institutions that speak openly about the violence, Mthethwa is taking aim at the messengers, not the perpetrators. This is a dangerous trend for a democratic country that is, at least formally, committed to open and public debate.
If we are lucky enough to avoid the conflagrations that caught hold in 2008, let us not forget that the dog has already bitten. Only this week, a Ghanaian was shot down in the streets of Khayelitsha, flying straight in the face of the heart-warming pan-African solidarity mustered during the World Cup. A few days earlier, passengers shouting insults against foreigners threw a Zimbabwean out of a moving train. How is that "opportunistic crime"? Moreover, hundreds if not thousands of people have fled their homes in Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng out of fear. As much as the government deserves to bask in its World Cup victory, the international and continental media are already taking notice.
Which is worse for the country: violence and fear, or a government ready to deny that ethnic cleansing is being attempted on its watch? Denying that ethnic, national and other divisions exist will not help us in our search for unity. The lives and livelihoods of foreigners and other outsiders are now at risk. This should alarm us. What should worry us more are threats to political credibility and a society in which elected officials heed warnings, accurately identify and diagnose problems and treat the population - regardless of origin - with respect and provide them with the security they deserve.
· Landau and Polzer are researchers in the Forced Migration Studies Programme, at the University of the Witwatersrand
|
|