EPA Police officers advance to enter mens hostels after xenophobic violence in the area overnight forced foreign shop owners to close their shops for fear of attack in Actonville, Johannesburg. EPA/KIM LUDBROOKThe attacks on foreign nationals from the rest of Africa represent a pattern happening in many other countries in Africa, writes Modidima Mannya.
Johannebsurg - There are three easy things to do in the midst of the xenophobic problem facing the continent, South Africa in particular.
The first is the immediate condemnation approach. Second is asking what the government is or is not doing about it, and the last, which has now become the normal culture, is a call to stop this immediately.
All these simple things are a repetition of when similar occurrences took place, coupled with the usual unreliable commitments to take steps to deal with this problem once and for all. It sounds like King Goodwill Zwelithini assisted a lot of people with whatever he said, and that it is alleged to have fuelled these latest attacks. He seems to have assisted because the usual armchair critics have found someone on who to shift the blame.
The wrong assumption is that this is a South African problem alone. It is not. It is a continental problem and the main culprit is the continent as a whole. South Africa is no victim either and is a significant contributing player.
The attacks on foreign nationals from the rest of Africa represent a pattern happening in many other countries in Africa but with very specific common elements. They relate to the violent manner in which the attacks happen and what is clearly a lack of appreciation for each other.
Without agreeing with any form of attack on any person or any form of incitement, we must acknowledge our failure as a continent and country to have a robust debate about how we should deal with the influx of foreign nationals. The king seem to have raised an issue worthy of robust debate and a permanent solution. He said what seems to be a problem for many others, not only in South Africa but also elsewhere on the continent.
There are two key founding principles in the preamble to the predecessor to the African Union, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which amply explain the heart of this problem and provide a clear framework of what should happen to address this undesirable situation. These are:
l “Conscious of our responsibility to harness the natural and human resources of our continent for the total advancement of our peoples in all spheres of human endeavour; and
l “Inspired by a common determination to promote understanding among our people and cooperation among our states in response to the aspirations of our peoples for brotherhood and solidarity, in a larger unity transcending ethnic and national differences.”
The people attacked and the attackers are African. They are the people these founding principles were meant to benefit.
Firstly, it is important to interrogate why Africans from one African state move to another. In most instances it is either that governance in their country has failed and created political instability or economic hardship. And therefore most of those who move across the borders either move seeking safety or bread or both. This happens despite the existence of natural resources in their countries of birth which could be harnessed for their total advancement.
Secondly, it is important to interrogate whether any action has been taken to create a spirit of brotherhood and solidarity as envisaged.
Clearly not, especially in those instances where governance has collapsed. It is unthinkable that those governments which fail to harness their natural and human resources for the advancement of their citizens would be bothered to get involved in building solidarity for those whom they abuse.
Thirdly, the question therefore becomes what is the role of those states that claim to have functional governments in ensuring compliance with these founding principles? Have those states and governments insisted at the least on the creation of the collective environment required to give effect to these important founding principles? The painful reality must be no. Those states hide behind the principle of sovereignty. It is this principle in the Charter of the OAU and its successor the AU that effectively prevented the development of the continent envisaged in the charter.
As Nelson Mandela put it: “When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.”
African states and governments are well aware of the kind of life their citizens believe they must live.
In the words of medieval writer Christine de Pizan, “a person whose head is bowed and whose eyes are heavy cannot look at the light”. Our continental leaders from long ago committed themselves to the ideals set out in these founding principles.
But, as with the principle of sovereignty, they have elected to bow their heads. They have in the words of Mandela created outlaws out of Africans desiring a better life.
Africans have been reduced to swimming with crocodiles as they cross dangerous rivers heading to South Africa, running away from conflicts in their countries. Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Nigeria and Zimbabwe, among others, have exposed their citizens to extreme hardship. So many lives have been lost in the process and so many of the people displaced.
Africans, despite the abundance of natural resources on their continent and the commitment of their states to harness those resources, continue to live a life they do not believe in. At the heart of the problem is not whether South Africa or any other recipient country is doing enough or not to protect these Africans, but whether the continent is doing enough to create an environment where these Africans can live in their countries in peace, enjoy the benefit of their natural resources and find protection.
The issue is whether these Africans can move to other states with their human dignity intact, knowing they will not be seen as scavengers and competitors for the limited resources of the recipient country.
It appears so easy to put part of or the whole blame on His Majesty. And in the circumstances, it may be justifiable. But that very fact raises a fundamental question: whether our leaders have influence over us.
Many lives have been lost on the African continent, despite several appeals from leaders across its length and breadth. Why has this not brought about any change? The same can be said of South Africa today. The fact that despite the many legitimate calls for this to stop, citizens, for whatever good or bad reason, ignore these pleas.
The main medicine required is to build the brotherhood envisaged in the OAU Charter as a starting point.
* Mannya is a writer and commentator.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
The Sunday Independent
Related Stories