University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc International Development Studies
Towards solidarity and inclusion?
A study of civil society organizations and the desecuritization of African
migrants in South Africa
August 2020
Thea Noffke
Student number: 11634669 thea.noffke@web.de
Supervisor: Carolina Maurity Frossard Second reader: Dr. Nicky Pouw
Abstract
Recurring xenophobic violence has troubled post-apartheid South Africa since the inception of its democracy in 1994. Societal traumas rooted in apartheid structures, resource scarcity and economic mismanagement have led to the othering and social exclusion of African migrants, creating further division in society. Although the roots of xenophobic violence in South Africa have been addressed amply in academic research, the role of civil society organizations in negotiating social inclusion and reframing the issue in terms of inclusion has been sparsely explored. Adding to this research gap, this study assesses the contribution of two civil society organizations, mainly operating in Cape Town and partially in Durban, to the ‘desecuritization’ of African migrants in South Africa. The primary data for this research has been collected through in-depth interviews with associates and employees of the
organizations as well as participatory research methods and participant observation. The findings revealed that civil society organizations play an important role in the protection and integration of African migrants in South Africa. However, their contribution to the
desecuritization of African migrants is profoundly limited by socially embedded narratives and overarching structures. The study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of civil society organizations’ role in transforming societal structures and the curbing of xenophobic violence in South Africa.
Keywords: migration, xenophobia, desecuritization, civil society organizations, South Africa
Acknowledgements
I would firstly like to thank Africa Unite and the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town for their willingness to participate in this research and for letting me be part of their organizations and their teams for the time of my fieldwork. Zoe, thank you for giving me so many valuable opportunities and for supporting the work I was doing. Lyle, Nthati and Bongeka, thank you for making me feel like a part of the team and for constantly encouraging me. Further, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Carolina Maurity Frossard for her support and understanding throughout the entire process of this thesis. Elvin, thank you for being my safe haven and lifeline these last months. Lastly, I would ike to thank my parents: I would not be where I am without you.
Table of Content
Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ 2 Acknowledgements __________________________________________________________ 3 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ____________________________________________ 6 List of Figures and Tables ____________________________________________________ 7 1. Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 8 1.1 Research Question and Sub-questions ____________________________________________ 9 1.2 Terminology _________________________________________________________________ 10 2. Theoretical Framework ___________________________________________________ 11 2.1 Securitization Theory _________________________________________________________ 12 2.2 Desecuritization ______________________________________________________________ 14 2.3 Shaping Social Imaginaries ____________________________________________________ 19 2.4 Integration __________________________________________________________________ 20 2.5 Restructuring Social Dynamics _________________________________________________ 20 2.6 CSOs and Security ___________________________________________________________ 21 2.7 Operationalization ____________________________________________________________ 24 2.8 Conceptual Scheme ___________________________________________________________ 24 3. Research Methodology ____________________________________________________ 25 3.1 Epistemology and Ontology ____________________________________________________ 26 3.2 Research Design ______________________________________________________________ 26 3.3 Research Location ____________________________________________________________ 27 3.4 Units of Analysis _____________________________________________________________ 27 3.5 Sampling ____________________________________________________________________ 28 3.6 Data Collection Methods ______________________________________________________ 29 3.7 Data Analysis ________________________________________________________________ 32 3.8 Ethical Considerations ________________________________________________________ 33 3.9 Positionality _________________________________________________________________ 35 3.10 Quality of Research __________________________________________________________ 36 4. Research Context ________________________________________________________ 39 4.1 Research Setting _____________________________________________________________ 39 4.2 Apartheid ___________________________________________________________________ 40 4.3 South Africa’s Migration History and its Consequences ____________________________ 41 5. Changing the way African Migrants are Imagined in South African Society ________ 50 5.1 Apartheid History and its Continuing Effects on Imagining ‘the Other’ _______________ 51
5.2 Imagining African Migrants in Post-apartheid South Africa _________________________ 54 5.3 Concluding Thoughts _________________________________________________________ 64 6. Towards an Integration of African Migrants __________________________________ 65 6.1 Education ___________________________________________________________________ 65 6.2 Welfare _____________________________________________________________________ 67 6.3 Access to Employment and Higher Education _____________________________________ 68 6.4 Legal Assistance and Advocacy/Lobbying ________________________________________ 72 6.5 Concluding Thoughts _________________________________________________________ 75 7. Restructuring Social Dynamics _____________________________________________ 76 7.1 Achieving Rapprochement Through Exchange and Conflict Mediation ________________ 76 7.2 Restructuring Social Dynamics Through Empowerment ____________________________ 82 7.3 Protest and Sit-in at Greenmarket Square ________________________________________ 84 7.4 Concluding Thoughts _________________________________________________________ 86 8. Discussion and Conclusion ________________________________________________ 88 8.1 Relating the Three Dimensions of Desecuritization _________________________________ 88 8.2 How are CSO Initiatives Contributing to the Desecuritization of African Migrants in South Africa? ________________________________________________________________________ 91 8.3 Limitations to CSO Initiatives’ Contribution to Desecuritization _____________________ 94 8.4 Concluding Thoughts _________________________________________________________ 98 8.5 Theoretical Reflection _________________________________________________________ 98 8.6 Limitations of This Study ______________________________________________________ 99 8.7 Further Research ____________________________________________________________ 102 8.8 Recommendations ___________________________________________________________ 102 Bibliography _____________________________________________________________ 104 Appendices ______________________________________________________________ 113
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
1951 Convention United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 1998 Act 1998 Refugees Act
ANC African National Congress
AU African Union
AUSC Africa Unite School Club
BASP Bachelor Support Program
BEE Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment
CSO Civil Society Organization
DHA Department of Home Affairs
DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo
EAP Employment Access Program
NP National Party
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
SADC Southern African Development Community
RRO Refugee Reception Office
SAHRC South African Human Rights Commission Scalabrini Centre Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Conceptual Scheme. ... 25
Figure 2. Map of South Africa. ... 40
Figure 3. Participatory Method 15.03.2020. ... 56
Figure 4. Adjusted conceptual scheme. ... 91
1. Introduction
This qualitative study was conducted in Cape Town and, partially, in Durban, to address civil society organizations’ (CSOs) role in the desecuritization of African refugees, migrants and seekers in South Africa. In the last decades, African refugees, migrants and asylum-seekers in South Africa have faced tightening securitization policies infringing on their rights, pushing them to the margins of society (Amit, 2013; Ilgit & Klotz, 2014; van Lennep, 2019). Furthermore, increasing xenophobic sentiment and xenophobic violence are threatening the lives and livelihoods of these groups (Crush, 2008; Crush & Ramachandran, 2010; Mlilo & Misago, 2019; Tati, 2008). Since 1994, xenophobic violence has killed hundreds of people across the country and left thousands displaced (Mlilo & Misago, 2019). The responses by local and international CSOs offering relief to severely harmed African refugees, migrants and asylum-seekers, and aiming to enhance social cohesion to prevent the continuation of xenophobia, have risen since the nationwide xenophobic outbreak in 2008 (Misago, 2016; Pugh, 2014). However, the securitization of, and xenophobic violence against, these groups, prevail.
The securitization of migration endangers development in host countries, increasing inequality, marginalization and societal divides (Crush & Ramachandran, 2010). The xenophobia resulting out of this “seriously diminishes benefits and positive returns from international migration” (Crush and Ramachandran, 2009, as in Crush & Ramachandran, 2010, p. 224). While there is a rise of xenophobia and violent assaults against African refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers in South Africa and while these assaults have been addressed numerous times by scholars in the fields of Human Geography and International Affairs (Crush, 2001; Crush, 2008; Neocosmos, 2010; Tati, 2008), the role of CSOs in the process of the desecuritization of African migrants in contemporary South Africa has been
sparsely researched. The recurring xenophobic violence, the latest of which happened in fall 2019, highlight the need to further shed light on how CSOs can enhance social cohesion in South Africa. This study aims to address this research gap, in order to understand how the dangerous trends of securitization are counteracted by CSO initiatives. It thereby draws theory from Security Studies to make an inference and contribution to the field of International Development Studies.
The main research question of this study is: How do CSO initiatives contribute to
the desecuritization of African migrants in South Africa? In order to answer this question,
the thesis firstly presents the theoretical framework in Chapter 2, in which also a brief literature review is given on the existing debates around the role of CSOs in the security context. Furthermore, the application of the theory in the empirical context is discussed. Chapter 3 explains the research methodology as it is applied in this study. Chapter 4 consists of an overview of the research context in relation to migration policies, the securitization of African migrants, xenophobia, as well as CSO responses to the latter. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 analyze the findings of this research, guided by the three sub-questions. Chapter 8 discusses the findings, answering the main research question. It concludes with reflections on the theory, a consideration of the limitations of the study and recommendations.
1.1 Research Question and Sub-questions
How do CSO initiatives contribute to the desecuritization of African migrants in South Africa?
§ How do initiatives carried out by CSOs shape, and are shaped by, social imaginaries framing African migrants?
§ How do initiatives carried out by CSOs change the way African migrants are integrated into society?
§ How do initiatives carried out by CSOs change the way African migrants relate to, and are related to, in local communities?
Whilst questions one and two are considering impact on a societal level, sub-question 3 is looking at how impact is achieved on a community level. This discrepancy in levels can be attributed to the fact that, in the context of this research, social imaginaries determine structures on a societal level and thus need to be examined accordingly. Similarly, this research deals with integration in relation to dynamics on the societal level which is often determined by structures that go beyond local communities such as institutions and
legislation. Relationships on the other hand, are of more personal nature and first of all need to be examined within local communities in order to be understood. However, the questions all link to how CSO initiatives contribute to the desecuritization of African migrants in South African society.
1.2 Terminology
For reasons of readability, the umbrella term ‘African migrants’ is used in this research to refer to African migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers and undocumented migrants alike. There is an ongoing debate about the dangers of using ‘migrants’ as an umbrella term, as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) argues that “[b]lurring the terms ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’ takes attention away from the specific legal protections refugees require […] [and] can undermine public support for refugees and the institution of asylum at a time when more refugees need such protection than ever before” (McConnell, 2016, n.p.). Despite acknowledging that the vulnerabilities of refugees and especially undocumented
migrants in South Africa and their risk of being severely affected by securitization measures is much greater than those of economic migrants, “anti-foreigner attitudes” (Misago, 2016, p. 457) and securitization in South Africa affect all of these groups alike (see Chapter 4). Nevertheless, CSO initiatives address migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and undocumented migrants equally and do not exclude people based on their respective vulnerabilities or the lack thereof. I therefore chose to include all of these groups in the scope of this research, inclusively using the term ‘African migrants’ in reference to all African foreign national who immigrate to South Africa.
In addition, it is important to state that this research was focusing on African migrants specifically, as securitizing speech and xenophobia is South Africa is targeting predominantly this group (see Chapter 4). However, the CSOs in focus were non-exclusively addressing all migrants, no matter the country of origin. Nevertheless, all beneficiaries I encountered during the field work were from other African countries, weighing further into my decision to focus on this specific group.
2. Theoretical Framework
This chapter gives an overview of the main theories and existing debates around the concepts used in this research. First, it outlines existing literature on securitization theory, before narrowing down to the debates on securitization of migration. Subsequently, desecuritization theory, which is the framework guiding this research and which evolved out of securitization theory, is discussed and related to migration. While securitization theory is not applied as a framework in this paper, a thorough understanding of securitization theory is the premise for understanding desecuritization. Moreover, in application to the case study of South Africa, this research departs from the assumption that a securitization of African migrants has already occurred, which is further explained in Chapter 4. This chapter continues by
illustrating how, for the empirical application to the case study, the concept of
desecuritization is segmented into three dimensions. These are guided by the previous discussions on desecuritization theory. The chapter concludes by giving a brief overview of the literature concerning CSOs and their role in security, highlighting the academic relevance and research gap which this study aims to address.
2.1 Securitization Theory
Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, more commonly known as the Copenhagen School, define security as a social process that is constructed through the use of speech-acts treating specific issues as an ‘existential threat’ (1998). In their primary work “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” (1998), the authors argue for a deeper understanding of security, exceeding the traditionalist understanding of security which is confined to the military-state agenda.
Security actors can use this articulation to move ordinary political issues to the security agenda, “us[ing] whatever means are necessary to block a threatening development” (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 22). This means, that any object or issue can be securitized by intensifying the narrative that surrounds it to the point where it is perceived as an existential threat indicating the social construct that is security (Buzan et al., 1998). Buzan et al. (1998) further point out the importance of the addressed audience, arguing that “a discourse that takes the form of presenting something as an existential threat to a referent object does not by itself create securitization – […] but the issue is securitized only if and when the audience accepts it as such” (p. 25). Understanding securitization thus means “understand[ing] the processes of constructing a shared understanding of what is to be considered and collectively responded to as a threat” (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 26).
Many scholars have added to the initial framework for analysis of securitization, provided by Buzan et al. (1998). Most prominently, critique has been expressed towards the
empirical applicability of the framework (Hansen, 2000; Stritzel, 2007; William, 2003). Whilst the Copenhagen School clearly divides securitization into (1) the speech act, (2) the securitizing actor and (3) the audience, Stritzel (2007) argues that in empirical application, the respective audience cannot always be clearly determined, implying that the theory does not sufficiently address the social realities in which securitization can happen. Hansen (2000) argues that performativity such as body language, discourses, as well as silence need to be included when articulating security, indicating that security is a social construct which is spoken and enacted in everyday practices. William (2003) likewise argues for a broadening of the meaning of speech acts, including “communication […] conveyed through electronic media” (p. 525), meaningfully extending how securitization theory can be understood in real-life settings. Bigo (2002) voices critique of the Copenhagen School’s clear distinction
between the political domain and security, arguing that importance needs to be given to the structural position of the security actor. He infers that securitization is a product of power dynamics within a system made up of institutions and powerful leaders reinforcing set roles and ascriptions (Bigo, 2002). Extending the framework for analysis of securitization with the aforementioned suggestions allows for a clearer understanding of these processes in real world security contexts.
2.1.1 Securitization of migration.
In their work, Buzan et al. (1998) examine the application of securitization theory to five distinct sectors, of which the sector of societal security is most relevant for this paper. In its core, societal security is about a group identity which can feel insecurity because of a collectively defined potential threat endangering the continuity of the community (Buzan et al., 1998). Since identities are self-constructed, the referent object is a self-proclaimed community of people who define themselves through a common we-identity: “Threats to
identity are thus always a question of the construction of something as threatening some ‘we’—and often thereby actually contributing to the construction or reproduction of ‘us’” (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 120).
A common societal security issue which is increasingly given importance on a global scale, is migration. The recurring framing of migrants along the lines of socioeconomic interests, security, identity and politics justifies the security actors, most commonly the state, politicians and security apparatuses, to adopt very strict control measures such as tightened immigration legislation, border control and deportation (Ceyhan and Tsoukala, 2002). These are often accompanied by the implementation of socioeconomic controls such as
inaccessibility to welfare, employment and education opportunities for undocumented migrants and a limited access to these opportunities for ‘legal’ migrants (Ceyhan and Tsoukala, 2002). In the light of global developments of continuing securitization of migration, scholars have increasingly revisited discourses of desecuritization, assessing its impacts in the context of migration (Aradau, 2004; Hansen, 2011; Huysmans, 1995, 1998; Ihlamur-Öner, 2019). This will be further explored in the following section.
2.2 Desecuritization
The concept of desecuritization has been coined by Waever (1995) in his article
“Securitization and Desecuritization”. As Hansen (2011) points, is still widely understood as a part of securitization theory instead of as a theory on its own. There are several approaches to desecuritization (Aradau, 2004; Hansen, 2011; Huysmans, 1995, 1998; Ihlamur-Öner, 2019, Waever, 1995), the main arguments of which will be outlined in the following.
Hansen (2011) defines desecuritization as “the shifting of issues out of emergency mode and into the normal bargaining processes of the political sphere” (p. 531), thus deconstructing the narrative of ‘an existential threat’ (Hansen, 2011). When addressing
desecuritization, Hansen (2011) draws on Waever (1995), who argues for a responsible agency in the realms of security, in which actors commit to self-reflexivity and morality. This normative understanding of desecuritization has been revisited by several scholars (Aradau, 2004; Huysmans, 1995, 1998; Ihlamur-Öner, 2019). Referring to the concept of speech-acts, Hansen (2011) argues that desecuritization, like its counterpart, cannot just be ‘uttered’ in order to be consummated. It rather needs to be ‘performed’ and is therefore a process that needs to transform social practices and reality towards a non-threatening, morally justifiable sphere (Hansen, 2011). Adding to Hansen’s (2011) approach, Aradau (2004) suggests that ‘emancipation’ could be used as an alternative term for desecuritization, as democratic
principles need to be restored in a society divided by securitization. Emancipation would give desecuritizing actors the authority needed to tackle securitizing measures institutionally (Aradau, 2004). This, consequently, would allow minorities to claim universal rights and thus include them as actors in the desecuritization process (Aradau, 2004).
Huysmans (1998) similarly proposes that the desecuritization of migration is a “normative project” which requires the development of “ethico-political dimensions” (1998, p. 571). He states that:
[…] once one understands that the representation of the migrant as an existential threat has implications for how a community defines its good and just way of life, ethical questions can no longer be subsumed under an instrumental rationality which justifies security policy as a necessary reaction triggered by an existential threat such as a destabilising invasion of migrants. (Huysmans, 1998, p. 570)
Huysmans (1998) further argues that once this shift has happened, one needs to ask the questions: “how [can] we desecuritise migration?” (p. 570). According to him, this means acknowledging that migration is not a threat per se but is constructed as such by the security measures applied at the hand of security actors (Huysmans, 1998). The foundation of
desecuritization is thus the awareness of the social construct built around the ‘existential threat’ and the knowledge (re)produced by it (Huysmans, 1998).
Opposed to the Copenhagen School’s extensive framework for securitization, there is not one concrete way of analyzing desecuritization (Hansen, 2011; Ihlamur-Öner, 2019). In fact, theories on desecuritization often seem “unsystematic or even contradictory” (Hansen, 2011, p. 527), with a wide range of scholars suggesting different approaches to the issue (Aradau, 2004; Hansen, 2011; Huysmans, 1995, 1998; Ihlamur-Öner, 2019; Waever, 1995). As there is a wide variety of approaches to the concept of desecuritization, it can be difficult to practically apply (Ihlamur-Öner, 2019). For this end, Huysmans (1995) and Hansen (2011) have discussed several approaches guiding the understanding of desecuritization processes in real-world settings. Huysmans’ (1995) approaches to understanding desecuritization are thereby more specifically tailored to the context of migration, whereas Hansen (2011) discusses the general context of security. These arguments are briefly outlined in the following, starting with the most general application of desecuritization by Hansen (2011).
Hansen (2011) firstly defines “change through stabilisation” (p. 539) as an approach to desecuritization. Here, either a solution has been found to deal with the security issue, or the issue has been removed from the security agenda but remains latent (Hansen, 2011). Secondly, she discusses “replacement” (p. 541), where one security issue is simply replaced by a different one. Thirdly, Hansen (2011) describes “[r]earticulation” (p. 543), a form of desecuritization that attains the “fundamental transformations of the public sphere, and of the identity and interests of Selves and Others” which “include[es] a move out of the friend-enemy distinction” (p. 543). Although rearticulation seems inherently positive, it does not consider that the social world is dynamic, suggesting that a final state of desecuritization is impossible as deeply rooted resentment might remain latent (Hansen, 2011). Lastly, Hansen (2011) suggests “silencing” (p. 544) as desecuritization, where an issue is strictly kept out of
the security agenda by denying it any recognition or simply excluding it from the public discourse.
Further, Huysmans (1995) discusses three strategies through which desecuritization can be achieved: 1) objectivist strategy, 2) constructivist strategy and 3) deconstructivist strategy. Firstly, the objectivist strategy is concerned with aggregating arguments and information which eventually convince the local society that migrants are not a threat (Huysmans, 1995). The constructivist strategy, on the other hand, is concerned with making people understand that securitization is a social construct, by aiming to understand the process of securitization first before it can attempt to desecuritize. Hence, this is a strategy that is at danger of perceiving the social world as static and thus can fall short of achieving desecuritization (Huysmans, 1995). Lastly, the deconstructivist strategy desecuritizes by revealing the human being behind the migrant, telling stories which bring different facets of “the cultural alien” (Huysmans, 1995, p. 53) to light. This approach facilitates the
deconstruction of the local-migrant dichotomy which often guides everyday interactions (Huysmans, 1995).
Going a step further, Huysmans (1998) argues that in order to be able to desecuritize migration, the political rationality of governments needs to be rethought. More practically, this means that desecuritization can only take place if the governance of a society, into which security has entered, can no longer be justified on moral grounds and thus needs to be
restructured (Huysmans, 1998). Therefore, Huysmans (1998) resumes that shifting from a management of migration flows towards a renegotiation of who belongs to a certain society and can therefore legally participate in it, which he sees as a prerequisite for successful desecuritization. Ultimately, Ihlamur-Öner (2019) concludes that desecuritization is
allowing for spaces in which marginalized and insecure subjects can be acknowledged and heard.
As noted, scholars’ approaches to how the concept of desecuritization can be applied and understood empirically varies, and the understanding of desecuritization is broadly defined. For this research, desecuritization is applied in the context of societal security and migration. As Huysmans (1995, 1998), Aradau (2004), Hansen (2011) and Ihlamur-Öner (2019) theorize desecuritization in the context of migration, the understanding of
desecuritization in this paper is guided by these scholars. Further, I argue that the role of societal structures and historically embedded meanings cannot be fully understood by the above-mentioned authors’ theorization of desecuritization. I therefore propose that, when applying desecuritization theory empirically, the concept can be extended by drawing on theories of social imaginaries. Thus, for the purpose of this research, desecuritization is operationalized into three dimensions, which are derived from Huysmans (1995, 1998), Aradau (2004), Hansen (2011) and Ihlamur-Öner (2019) and extended by the concept of social imaginaries as understood by Taylor (2002) and O’Reilly (2014). Clustering the different aspects of how desecuritization can be empirically applied in the context of migration, I operationalize three highly interlinked dimensions of desecuritization, namely (1) shaping social imaginaries, (2) integration and (3) restructuring social dynamics. In the following section, the different dimension of desecuritization as applied in this research are outlined briefly, drawing from the theorization of desecuritization and social imaginaries to explicate the derivation of these dimensions. Subsequently, existing literature on civil society’s role in a security context is discussed in short.
2.3 Shaping Social Imaginaries
To better grasp what it means to challenge securitizing narratives, I draw on the concept of social imaginaries as understood by Taylor (2002) and O’Reilly (2014). Taylor (2002)
defines social imaginaries as constructs that “enables, through making sense, the practice of a society” (p. 91). More specifically, this entails “the ways in which people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their
fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations” (Taylor, 2002, p. 106), implying that social imaginaries deeply affect people’s interactions with and notions of each other within a society. O’Reilly (2014) extends this by arguing that social imaginaries further influence how structure and agency relate within a given context and how this influences actors and their behavior. Thus, social imaginaries are inherently constructed ideas about the practice of society, creating a collective understanding of a given context (O’Reilly, 2014; Taylor, 2002).
In the context of securitization and migration, social imaginaries of ‘the other’ and of an existential threat underpin securitizing measures as well as individual’s actions towards an imagined ‘other’ (Buzan et al., 1998; Ceyhan and Tsoukala, 2002). In turn, Huysman (1998) and Ihlamur-Öner (2019) argue that desecuritization must understand these social constructs in order to deconstruct and reshape those towards inclusivity and diversity, thereby forming social settings which reject exclusionary dichotomies and instead assert a shared
understanding of equality and solidarity. Huysmans (1995) further emphasizes the
storytelling, deconstructivist component of desecuritization, which is an integral part of the (re-)production of social dynamics, going hand in hand with the concept of social
imaginaries. I therefore derive that social imaginaries can be meaningfully included as a dimension of desecuritization. Hence, this research seeks to assess how desecuritizing actors in the field shape, and are shaped, by social imaginaries.
2.4 Integration
This section will discuss the dimension of integration as derived from desecuritization. Huysmans (1998) and Aradau (2004) both argue for the integration of unheard voices as a part of desecuritization. Huysmans (1998) speaks of renegotiating who belongs and can therefore participate in a society, which further suggests that integration of ‘the other’ into local society is part of the desecuritization process. Similarly, Aradau’s (2004) argument for emancipation in the context of security emphasizes a rights-based approach and the
restoration of democratic principles, stressing the importance of integrating securitized subjects into the society so that they can themselves “argue that universal principles can apply to them” (p. 19). Thus, in this research, I include ‘Integration’ as a dimension of desecuritization, seeking to assess how integration is ‘spoken’ and ‘enacted’ by desecuritizing actors in the field.
2.5 Restructuring Social Dynamics
Regarding the restructuring of social dynamics, Huysmans (1998) states that “in order to bring out the ethico-political dimensions of desecuritising migration, […] an interpretation of how security practices organise the way people relate to themselves and to others and how they institutionalise and rationalise a particular government of these relations” (p. 573) needs to be integrated. Similarly, Hansen’s (2011) performative aspect of desecuritization
describes how society needs to incorporate desecuritization in everyday practices, changing how people relate to each other in a society. Aradau (2004) argues that desecuritization “create[s] a different relation from the one of enmity, a relation which is not rooted in the exclusionary logic of security” (p. 13). Ihlamur-Öner (2019) confirms that desecuritization has to restructure social dynamics in terms of equality and diversity.
The arguments indicate that it is the restructuring of the social dynamics and the thereby defined relationships between people governed by securitization, that lie at the core of desecuritization. Based on these understandings of incorporating desecuritization into social dynamics, I have defined ‘Restructuring social dynamics’ as the third dimension of desecuritization. This research aims to assess how desecuritizing actors in the field impact how prevalent social dynamics can be broken up in order to build positive relationships between two opposing parties based on equality and solidarity.
2.6 CSOs and Security
The following sections briefly explains this research’s understanding of CSOs and their functions and roles in connection to human rights. Subsequently, CSOs role in the context of security will be discussed, considering relevant studies in this field related to South Africa. This is important to understand the approach of this research.
2.6.1. Civil society organizations.
In recent literature, CSOs are defined as distinct from the state and the economic sphere while still remaining in close interaction with the political sphere (Ghaus-Pasha, 2004; Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). They are furthermore composed of different voluntary actors connected by shared interests and goals, who agree on the same values, operate in the public sphere and develop and act autonomously (Ghaus-Pasha, 2004; Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). In the last decades, CSOs have gained importance in driving change, their influence ranging from the local to the global level (Ghaus-Pasha, 2004). CSOs thereby take on various roles: providing services the state fails to deliver, overseeing government actions and developing effective measure to improve the effectiveness of various actors and sectors (Ghaus-Pasha, 2004; Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). Moreover, CSOs play an ever more important role in the
politicization of human rights and emancipation of minorities, as well as peacebuilding and conflict resolution in a security environment (Georgi, 2016; Marchetti & Tocci, 2011; Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). As the focus of this research is on the role of CSOs in the
security context, more specifically, on the impact of CSOs’ initiatives on desecuritization, the literature on the research-specific context will be more closely examined in the following section.
2.6.2 CSOs role in the security context.
There is an ongoing debate on the nexus of CSOs and peacebuilding and (de)securitization in a conflict environment, especially in the context of human rights articulation and advocacy (Georgi, 2016; Marchetti & Tocci, 2011; Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). The topic became a focal point of research with the increase of conflicts at the end of the 20th century, which led
to a wide variety of CSOs to become engaged in peacebuilding (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). Scholars aimed to explore their specific role in an environment of securitization and conflict (Marchetti & Tocci, 2011). Marchetti & Tocci (2011) draw from Buzan et al. (1998), arguing that “[c]ontrary to peaceful contexts, in conflict situations the existential nature of politics and the securitizations that follow generate different societal incentives to mobilize” (p. 47). Therefore, the “nature as well as [the] functions [of civil society] are fundamentally shaped by the specific context in question” (p. 49). This makes contextualization of the role of civil society crucial. Case studies have led scholars to assess the possible role of CSOs in the security context as both increasing securitizing as well as desecuritizing (Marchetti & Tocci, 2011). In some contexts, CSOs act mainly as a service provider, offering immediate remedy in emergency situations (Marchetti & Tocci, 2011). In these cases, the initiatives often remain non-securitizing (Marchetti & Tocci, 2011).
Although very little recent literature exists on CSOs’ role in the governance of migration and xenophobia in South Africa, three relevant studies addressing this specific issue need to be mentioned. Firstly, Peberdy & Jara (2011) examine CSO responses to the 2008 xenophobic violence in Cape Town, identifying profound weaknesses in the sector such as dependency on funding fueling competition between CSOs and a lack of connection of CSOs with affected migrants as they operate outside these communities. Moreover, the authors argue that CSOs themselves seem to distinguish between local citizens and migrants, as they do not integrate migrants as part of their own organizational structures (Peberdy & Jara, 2011). Pugh (2014) assesses the impact of advocacy initiatives in countering
xenophobia in South Africa, stating that CSOs agency to address issues of xenophobia is highly restrained by overarching institutions and the power dynamics within South African society. Lastly, Misago (2016) has examined civil society as well as government reactions to South Africa’s xenophobic violence post-2008, concluding that these programs are largely based on false hypotheses and do not address deep-rooted xenophobic structures. This makes them “ineffective at best, and counter-productive at worst” (p. 443).
Existing literature has not yet analyzed CSOs initiatives in the migration sector in South Africa through the lens of desecuritization. This lens, I argue, opens a more holistic perspective on the provision of space for African migrants in South African society. Integrating theory on social imaginaries and examining initiatives in relation to the three dimensions of desecuritization outlined above, this research aims to assess how CSOs can not only counter xenophobia, but also change the social constructions of African migrants and the security-based state measures connected to this, thus contributing to the desecuritization of African migrants in South Africa.
2.7 Operationalization
The operationalization is guided by the theoretical framework which defines desecuritization as the main concept guiding this research and is further broken up into three dimension (see sections 2.3-2.5). These, as well as the subsequent variables, are informed by the theorization of desecuritization as argued by Huysmans (1998, 1995), Aradau (2004), Hansen (2011) and Ihlamur-Öner (2019) as well es the empirical context in which the fieldwork has been conducted. Moreover, the operationalization of social imaginaries is further informed by Taylor (2002) and O’Reilly (2014). The initial operationalization which was drafted before the field work was reviewed in the field due to feasibility and access (see Appendix A).
2.8 Conceptual Scheme
This study focusses on the concept of desecuritization and its three dimensions as outlined above. The key actors in the field are CSOs, locals and African migrants. The conceptual scheme (see Figure 1) shows how actors and dimensions are interlinked and related to each other. CSOs occupy the space between locals and African migrants, often acting as the intersection from which desecuritizing initiatives can depart. The initiatives are evaluated in relation to the three dimensions summarized in the conceptual model as ‘shaping social imaginaries’, ‘integration’ and ‘restructuring social dynamics’. Desecuritization of African migrants is the ideal outcome when all dimensions are applied.
Figure 1. Conceptual Scheme.
3. Research Methodology
This chapter firstly outlines the research design which guided this study, as well as the research methods applied. Subsequently ethical dilemmas that were faced during the field work and the positionality of the researcher are discussed. Lastly, the quality of the research is considered.
3.1 Epistemology and Ontology
This research takes an interpretivist and constructivist stance, which means it aims at “the understanding of human behavior” (Bryman, 2012, p. 28) assuming that studying the social world requires a more nuanced and compassionate approach to the subject matter (Bryman, 2012). Moreover, a constructivist ontological stance perceives reality to be a social construct built by the social actors involved, thus it is everchanging and inherently subjective (Bryman, 2012). Constructivism, thus, also considers the role of the researcher and his/her construction and interpretation of the social world which influence the study (Bryman, 2012).
3.2 Research Design
Departing from the epistemological and ontological approach to this research, a qualitative research design with elements of a collective case study design is applied. A collective case study design is particularly useful when studying multiple cases “that are linked together, either through a common issue or other similarities” (Goddard, 2010, p. 165). Each case is studied individually, and in-depth, and particular attention is paid to “their common
characteristics” in order to gain “a better understanding of the […] collection of categorically bounded cases” (Goddard, 2010, p. 165). However, collective cases studies usually study more than two cases (Goddard, 2010) which does not apply to this research due to time, budget, access and feasibility.
The particular relation between this research and the theory cannot be specified to one approach, linking to Bryman (2012), who notes that “inductive and deductive strategies […] are not as clear-cut as they are sometimes presented” and that they are “sometimes better thought as tendencies rather than as a hard-and-fast distinction” (p. 27). The approach to this research primarily applies deductive elements as it uses (de)securitization theory as its framework and, based on these existing theories, departs from the assumption that a
securitization of African migrants has taken place in South Africa and that CSOs in the migration sector seek to desecuritize African migrants. However, some inductive elements are also included as the theory applied has been amended according to the findings in the field. These are, however, used to revise existing theory rather than to develop new concepts or a new theory on its own.
3.3 Research Location
The main reason for choosing Cape Town and Durban as research locations was access. Having contacted several organizations in Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, responses were only received from CSOs in Cape Town. Nevertheless, Cape Town serves as an ideal research location for the topic of this study because of its high number of refugees and migrants and accumulation of numerous CSOs working in the migration sector (Human Science Research Council [HSRC], 2018; Peberdy & Jara, 2011). When arriving in the field, I was informed that Africa Unite, one of the organizations that participated in this research, also has an office in Durban. I was offered to conduct research at this office as well, an opportunity that meaningfully extended the scope of this research. However, research in Durban was only conducted for two days, mitigating my understanding of and insights to this location. Thus, the main research location of this study is Cape Town.
3.4 Units of Analysis
The units of analysis for this research are two CSOs, Africa Unite and the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town (Scalabrini Centre), with whom I worked during my time in the field. All participants of this research were in some way affiliated with one of the organizations, though most participants were employees and only few were beneficiaries. However, during the course of my research I found out that the line between employees and beneficiaries was
oftentimes blurred as several beneficiaries went on to becoming employees of the organizations and peer educators who were formerly beneficiaries continued working alongside the organizations, being closely tied to the official employees.
3.5 Sampling
My units of analysis are chosen through purposive and opportunistic sampling. Purposive sampling is described by Bryman (2012) as strategically selecting the units of analysis in order to fit the aim of the respective research and the relevant questions that it should answer. Opportunistic sampling, which is an approach of purposive sampling, is a strategy where an opportunity to gain relevant research access is taken without prior planning (Bryman, 2012). After designing my main research question, I contacted the organizations in the field that would best fit the research. Since getting a response prior to arriving in the field was very difficult, I had to make my choices based on the access that I was able to gain, severely limiting my options. Working with the organizations, a purposive sampling strategy was used again to select participants. After spending some time in the field and gaining a better
understanding of the organizations, the implementation of relevant initiatives and the beneficiaries through participant observation, I approached respondents and asked if they would be willing to participate in interviews.
In order to establish the appropriate sample size for this research, I used data saturation. This method helped me understand at what point I am was to stop the data collection based on the depth of the data (Burmeister & Aitken, 2012, as in Fusch & Ness, 2015). However, due to COVID-19, several planned interviews could ultimately not take place. Therefore, the sample size remained smaller than expected and full data saturation could not be achieved.
3.6 Data Collection Methods
In order to collect empirical data, I employed participant observation, took extensive field notes, conducted in-depth interviews with employees and beneficiaries and applied
participatory methods. These methods will be discussed in detail in the following sections.
3.6.1 Participant observation and field notes.
In order to gather “the purest form of data […] directly from naturally occurring situations, in which behaviour and response to it can be observed in situ” (Green & Thorogood, 2004, p. 132), I conducted participant observation in the field. The aim of this form of data collection is “to understand a phenomenon, rather than people’s account of it” (Green & Thorogood, 2004). In particular, was involved with two CSOs in Cape Town, one of which also has an office in Durban which I visited for two days. As a lot of informal conversations revealed important information, participants observation during my involvement with the
organizations was very valuable to this research. Whilst doing participant observation, my role as an observing participant and researcher was openly communicated in every situation (Green & Thorogood, 2004).
To keep record of my observations, I kept field note journal which I had on me at all times, taking “jotted notes” (Bryman, 2012, p. 450) whenever I was able to and it did not seem inappropriate. As soon as I arrived home, these were transferred into a digital document as “full field notes” (Bryman, 2012, p. 451). To these, I added all details that I could
remember.
My involvement with the organizations differed slightly. At Africa Unite, I was fully immersed in the organization. I visited the office several days a week, I participated in initiatives or accompanied the initiators as an observer, I took on tasks in the office, I participated in meetings and I visited the office in Durban where I likewise participated in
meetings and observed the work routines of employees. On the other hand, my role at the Scalabrini Centre was more distant to the organization. Throughout my research, I worked closely with the organization’s director and the communications team to help out with a project that was closely linked to my research subject. Moreover, I participated in an introduction week where I met every head of program, getting to know them and hearing about their work before making an appointment for an interview. Although I was able to gain a lot of insight into the work and mission of the Scalabrini Centre, my relationships with the employees were not as personal and I was not able to participate in initiatives which involved the organizations’ beneficiaries.
3.6.2 In-depth interviews.
Further, I was interested in understanding the social realities of respondents and their way of perceiving CSO initiatives. For this, it was important to understand personal stories and perceptions of the people associated with the organizations. This data was collected by conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews, a strategy allowing for flexibility whilst also being able to guide respondents towards certain issues (Bryman, 2012). To ensure I collected accounts of all the different initiatives, I requested an interview with every ‘head of program’ of initiatives allegedly contributing to the desecuritization of African migrants. Additional interviews were determined by the access I was granted. In total, 24 interviews were conducted: 8 with employees of the Scalabrini Centre, 9 with employees/peer-educators of Africa Unite and 3 with beneficiaries of Africa Unite who participated in a skill-sharing workshop.
In semi-structured interviews, “the researcher has a list of questions or fairly specific topics to be covered […] but the interviewee has a great deal of leeway in how to reply” (Bryman, 2012, p. 471). This gave the respondent the opportunity to bring up topics which
felt important to them personally, enabling me to discover issues I had not been aware of before such as the importance of current events and internal issues within the organizations. An interview guide was prepared which followed fairly similar questions guided by the variables and indicators of the operationalization (at the time) and were slightly adapted to fit each person and the initiative they were involved with (see Appendices B, C, and D). During the interviews, I often added question based on issues mentioned by the respondent, thus giving a lot of room to the participant’s experiences, perceptions and interpretations.
3.6.3 Participatory method.
Additionally, this research applied elements of participatory research. “Participatory research methods are geared towards planning and conducting the research with those people whose life-world and meaningful actions are under study” (Bergold & Thomas, 2012, n.p.), aiming to contribute both to the research as well as to the learning-process of those involved
(Bergold & Thomas, 2012). To gain a better understanding of the impact a human rights peer education workshop facilitated by Africa Unite had on the participants, a participatory
method was employed at the end of the three-day workshop in March 2020. The participants were informed on the purpose of my research, my background as well as my role as an independent researcher working alongside Africa Unite. In total, 21 participants were involved, of whom 4 were African migrants. The participants were asked to note down the things they had learned during the workshop, categorized in “impact on my interactions with other”, “impact on my own behavior” and “impact on my mindset/something new I learned” (see Appendix E). After noting their thoughts on differently colored sticky notes, the
participants were then able to share their notes with the group if they wanted to and subsequently pin them on a board, categorized according to how big or small of an impact they thought this learning will have on their own lives (see Appendix E). This method also
initiated interesting conversations between the participants on their learning experiences. All results were documented.
3.7 Data Analysis
For the analysis of the data collected, I applied elements of qualitative content analysis, which is “a method for describing the meaning of qualitative data” (Schreier, 2014). Firstly, the recorded interviews were transcribed and coded, employing open coding as to break down the data into different sets of categories and identify important concepts derived from the reviewed operationalization (Bryman, 2012). Subsequently, selective coding was carried out. This is “the procedure of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further
refinement and development” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 116 as in Bryman, 2012, p. 569). This step was guided by the operationalization, grouping codes according to the main dimensions of the core concept ‘desecuritization’, all of which was done with the help of a software for qualitative data analysis (Atlas.ti). Some data was double coded, allowing me to discover relationships between different codes, establishing several sub-sections. Similar to a coding frame, these sections were organized in a coding tree (see Appendix F). The process was iterative, as it took me several rounds to go back and forth between the coding tree and the data to see which codes were redundant to answer the research questions. The
participatory method was organized and coded according to five reoccurring main themes shared by participants. These findings informed parts of Chapter 5 on social imaginaries and how CSOs can have an impact on the latter (see section 5.2.1, Figure 3).
Further, triangulation, a method proposed by Bryman (2012) to verify or cross-check observations or information given by respondents, was employed to verify information collected on the situation of African migrants in South Africa as well as statements made by
respondents. For this research, this method was particularly important as respondents often described events, legislation or institutional structures which I cross-checked with documents and newspaper articles. Moreover, topics that often came up in informal conversations were added to the Interview guide1 (e.g. Refugee Amendment Act, Protest at Greenmarket Square)
and topics that arose in interviews were mentioned again by me in conversations with other participants.
3.8 Ethical Considerations
This section will reflect on the measures taken in the field and afterwards regarding ethics and academic integrity. Throughout the entire research, I did all I could to ensure that I paid attention to Bryman’s (2012) ethical principles: no “harm to participants”, no “lack of informed consent”, no “invasion of privacy” and no “deception” (p. 135). Interviews took place at a time and in a space that were convenient and felt safe to the participant. Usually, I ensured that no one else would be able to listen to the interviews, however, two interviews took place in a café due to limited options, and there were occasions when someone walked past during an interview because we were not in a closed-off space. To make sure that an interview in a public location did not make the participant feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I asked them for their consent about the place prior to the appointment. Participants were always informed on the content and purpose of my research as well as their voluntary participation and confidentiality of the data (see Appendices B, C and D).
Since I worked closely with both organizations, coming to their offices every other day, attending workshops, field visits, meetings and camps, trust was established quite easily.
1 Due to the very limited time in the field, this was only possible if the topics came up relatively early in the course
Participants knew about my research intentions and, prior to participation, had opportunities to ask questions and learn about intentions and objectives of my research. Participants I had not been in close, personal contact with before were introduced to me by the director of the organization, automatically establishing a relationship that was more trusting and at ease for both sides. When conducting interviews with beneficiaries of the organization, I was
introduced by a member of the organization as ‘a research intern working with the organization for the purpose of collecting data for her thesis project on the situation of refugees and migrants in South Africa, but I clearly communicated that I am an independent researcher.
One of the dilemmas I encountered was the association of my person with relative wealth and privilege when visiting poorer neighborhoods in Cape Town or when generally answering questions about my background. Several participants were of less privilege and/or were themselves migrants and at times it made me uncomfortable to be viewed as a
privileged student from Europe when knowing about their struggles or the circumstances under which they are living. Nevertheless, I always answered all questions truthfully as to not deceive anyone and this might have, in some cases, influenced the relationship I had with the participants.
Another dilemma I constantly struggled with was what Bryman (2012) calls “going native” (p. 445). Since I was a participating observer and closely worked with both
organizations, attended events, workshops and meetings, it was sometimes difficult for me to keep my distance and not adopt the social perspective of my target group. I constantly had to remind myself of my role as a researcher and of keeping an analytical perspective. I was also encountering this struggle in the process of data analysis and write-up. Since I needed to critically analyze my findings and for this, I needed to separate myself from the
Relating the research back to real-world impacts, I need to consider how the findings can affect participants (Graduate School of Social Sciences, 2019). To prevent negative impact on individual participants, all names are changed. Very sensitive content is further only mentioned in the thesis without being linked to a specific interview number and without explicitly naming any person or situation in which these issues were revealed. This is marked accordingly. As the organizations’ names are mentioned in the thesis, I was faced with the question if criticism articulated based on my findings would harm the reputation of any of the organizations. However, the findings should inform the organizations on shortfalls of their initiatives as well as recommendations which could enhance their social impact. The criticism is therefore articulated as constructively as possible.
To ensure the scientific integrity of this research, all methods used, and strategies employed are openly communicated in this thesis. All data that can be made publicly
available is added as appendices to this thesis. However, interview transcripts are kept private as to ensure the anonymity and safety of the research participants.
3.9 Positionality
As is mentioned by Bryman (2012), the researcher’s perception of the social world influences how research is conducted, and findings interpreted. Thus, it is important to consider my own positionality within this research. I am aware that being female, White and having a
background in European education did not only impact the way people in the field saw me and reacted to my presence, but it also shaped the way I interpreted the South African context, the behavior of the research participants, all observations made as well as the findings. Being aware of this bias, I was striving to minimize it as much as possible by
positioning at all times. However, I am also aware that this bias can, ultimately, not be fully avoided and thus latently guided the outcome of this research.
3.10 Quality of Research
To evaluate the quality of this research, the quality criteria for qualitative research namely Trustworthiness and Authenticity, proposed by Guba & Lincoln (1985; as in Bryman, 2012) are being applied. Since this research relies solely on qualitative research methods, these criteria are considered to be the most fitting. The criteria are divided into several sub-criteria. Trustworthiness assesses (1) Credibility, (2) Transferability, (3) Dependability and (4) Confirmability (Bryman, 2012). Authenticity on the other hand assesses (1) Fairness, (2) Ontological authenticity, (3) Educative authenticity, (4) Catalytic authenticity and (5) Tactical authenticity (Bryman, 2012), however due to the nature of this research, only authenticity criteria (1), (2) and (5) are considered relevant (Bryman, 2012).
3.10.1 Trustworthiness.
1. Credibility.
My primary source for this research were the in-depth interviews with respondents associated with the CSOs. As this research is largely based on their personal opinions and experiences, the study is representative of their subjective realities. However, fact-based dimensions reaching beyond their personal experience were triangulated with information that was publicly available. Local news sources were closely followed as they gave the latest information on current developments concerning South Africa’s, and specifically Cape Town’s and Durban’s, African migrant communities, which I subsequently asked about in interviews and informal conversations. Informal conversations were also used to triangulate topics that came up in interviews. Being a participating observer in the field and closely
working with the organizations also allowed me to empirically verify several findings as I was present when some programs were carried out.
2. Transferability.
The transferability of this research is low as the findings are very context and time specific. South Africa has a unique history which has manifested itself in the socio-economic, political and even spatial realities of the country. Therefore, programs implemented by South African CSOs have to be very sensitive to these issues and adapt strategies that are not plausible in other contexts. Moreover, the interviews often touched on current events related to the topic of study during the time of my fieldwork, which also impacted the work of the organizations to some extent. Thus, in a different time, the findings would deviate slightly. Furthermore, the purposive sampling methods inhibit transferability. However, a thick description and contextualization of South Africa’s history, society and the migration sector are provided to the reader so that a judgment can be made on the transferability of this research.
3. Dependability.
To reach dependability, I kept records of important decisions made during the research process, transcripts of interviews, outcome of the participatory method, physical copies of news articles as well as all notes taken during the fieldwork. Decisions were made
deliberately and regularly shared with my supervisor for feedback. Interview guides were revised when experience showed that a question or terminology was not adequate.
4. Confirmability.
Throughout the entire research process, I made it a priority to stay objective. However, conversations and events during the time of my field work might have subconsciously
affected my personal bias to one or the other direction. Moreover, being very involved in the process of data collection and the work of the organizations, I sometimes expressed my own opinion during interviews. Nevertheless, this was intended more to give the interview a conversational component rather than influencing my respondents’ answers. Findings that I believe have been influenced by either the voicing of my own opinion or a leading question have not been taken into consideration during the data analysis process and outcomes of this study.
3.10.2 Authenticity.
1. Fairness.
To ensure fairness in the representation of viewpoints, I tried to conduct equal numbers of interviews with both organizations. Moreover, it was important to me to interview all heads of programs as well as the directors of both organizations. However, due to the access I was granted and the Covid-19 outbreak, a number of interviews could no longer take place which has had the effect that associates of Africa Unite are disproportionately represented in this research.
2. Ontological authenticity.
Contributing to the involved organizations’ better understanding of their work is an integral part of this research. To ensure this, a short report for each organization will be prepared, assessing the work they are doing and outlining my research findings. This output will be separate to my thesis and will help me to make a meaningful contribution to my field of study while at the same time being able to critically analyze my findings in my thesis.
Preparing a report for each organization as a separate output of my research findings, I am hoping to enable my target group to have a better overview and more in-depth understanding of the work that they are doing.
4. Research Context
This chapter will introduce the research setting and outline important historical background as well as policy developments which are important for the topic of this research.
Subsequently, a brief overview of securitization of African migrants and xenophobia in South Africa. The chapter concludes by giving an overview of past and present CSO responses to the latter.
4.1 Research Setting
This research was conducted in South Africa, more specifically in Cape Town and, for a shorter period of time, in Durban, South Africa. Geographically, South Africa lies at the southern tip of the African continent (see Figure 2). Cape Town, the second biggest urban area in South Africa, is located in the province of the Western Cape, whereas Durban, the third biggest urban area in South Africa, is a coastal city in the province of KwaZulu-Natal (Statistics South Africa, 2020). The country has an estimate population of 56,5 million people as of June 2020 – 80,9% of which are Black, 8,8% Colored2, 7,8% White and 2,5%
Indian/Asian (Central Intelligence Agency, 2020). Moreover, South Africa has a very diverse society, with 11 languages officially recognized (South African Government, 2020). The country’s current president is Cyril Ramaphosa who belongs to the African National
2 ‘Colored’ is a term used in South Africa for a segment of people that have mixed racial heritage mainly developed
Congress (ANC) and has been in office since 2018. The ANC, the political party Nelson Mandela was a member of, has been the country’s ruling party since its transition to democracy in 1994. There are three capital cities in South Africa, of which Pretoria is administrative, Cape Town is legislative, and Bloemfontein is judicial (Central Intelligence Agency, 2020).
Figure 2. Map of South Africa.
(Note: Reprinted from: Encyclopedia Britannica. (2020). South Africa | History, Capital, Flag, Map, Population, & Facts [Image]. Retrieved 12 August 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/place/South-Africa)
4.2 Apartheid
South African society has been profoundly shaped by its history of segregation, called apartheid. Apartheid was a system of racial segregation which was implemented by the National Party (NP) in South Africa in 1948 and based on an ideology of White superiority (South African History Online, 2016). The Population Registration Act of 1950 determined the race of each person, according to which they were treated differently under the law (South African History Online, 2016). Segregation took place in all areas of life, ranging
from private homes and intimate relationships to public areas and educational institutions (South African History Online, 2016). Under this system, the development of the
ideologically inferior races proceeded highly unequally, the implications of which are still evident in South Africa today (South African History Online, 2016). The system ended in 1994, when South Africa held its first democratic elections which were won by the first democratic president of the country, Nelson Mandela.
4.3 South Africa’s Migration History and its Consequences
South Africa has historically, been a country of immigrants, from the arrival of White colonialists 1652 until the present day (Thompson, 2001). In the 19th century, the gold and
diamond rush drew people from all over the African continent as well as Europe, and
America to come to South Africa (Thompson, 2001). The boom of the South African mining sector was one of the main drivers for the racial divide and exploitation of Black Africans in the history of South Africa as it “split[…] the labor force between white workers, with skilled or supervisory roles, opportunities for advancement, high wages and relatively good living conditions and black workers, devoid of the means to exercise skilled or supervisory roles, poorly paid and subjected to harsh living conditions […]” (Thompson, 2001, p. 112).
Throughout apartheid, migration continued to play an essential role in South Africa’s economic development (Tati, 2008). The country drew cheap labour from its neighboring countries, granting short-term labour visas to African migrant workers especially for the mining industry and agriculture, which served as the building block for South Africa’s capital accumulation and prosperity (Tati, 2008). After the transition to democracy, South Africa experienced an influx of migrants from neighboring countries, sparking numerous debates on societal inclusion and exclusion (Klotz, 2016). Drawing from Chipkin (2007), Klotz (2016) argues that “removing race as the core feature of citizenship in the post-apartheid era opened
