By Khamati Shilabukha

In the past few years, there have been efforts to re-position Africa in the globalising world to take care of relationships among its states and the rest of the world.

The association of African states was restructured from the Organisation of African Unity, to the African Union. Many would argue that this is merely a change in name and not in the character of the organisation.

Proponents of the “new” outfit argue that it is meant to generate a new awareness of who we are. Many also hold the view that Africans are too divided to evolve into a meaningful regional identity.

This argument stems from the myriad conflict situations in the continent. The conflicts are both intra-national and international, with the former more prevalent.

Intra-national conflicts are often the result of internal (political/economic) power squabbles. Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC, Rwanda, Madagascar, Central Africa Republic, Algeria, Ivory Coast and Kenya are some examples of countries that have experienced such conflicts. They have all received adequate media coverage. But the other genre of conflict has not received the same kind of coverage, yet it is crucial in the pursuit of a global and modern Africa.

This conflict derives from all forms of discrimination including racism and xenophobia. It is vicious and has gone on for some time. These forms of discrimination are serious, and efforts have been made to put them on the global agenda.

The most appropriate example is the current attacks on foreigners in South Africa. The question that begs answers is, why at this time in Africa? All sectors of a society have an obligation to contribute to the resolution of this conflict. We need to examine the extent to which as leaders, scholars and policy makers, we can intervene in this scourge called xenophobia.

It is argued that xenophobia is a result of poor intercultural communication. Members of one culture do not understand, appreciate and accommodate those from another culture. They lack adequate information to deal with such people with the least stress and threat.

But acquiring such information does not come easy and the poor management of communication often leads to strife. This could be the case in South Africa. One major source of information that allows us a wide world view and a more holistic perception and appreciation of others is the mass media. But the mass media, as inanimate objects, cannot do anything. It is those who use and manipulate them that can make the difference.

Xenophobia is a global problem. Although the phenomenon is ubiquitous in contemporary societies, its targets vary across countries and nations. It is such that even those who have been a subject of hate also develop hatred for others. But how does this hatred come about? Anthropologists and other social scientists posit that a population composed mainly of foreigners is an environment in which xenophobia can easily thrive.

They distinguish three theoretical approaches to the rise and diffusion of hatred. The first relates to socio-economic status of individuals, the second pertains to their cultural identity and the third the general attributes of society.

Source of hatred

The first approach derives from the “power theory” – a paradigm that views the relationship between groups as a function of their competitive positions. This concept suggests that a threat of one particular group to another is a source of hatred. When people feel insecure in the face of threat, they portray resentment and hate. But here, the intensity of hate need not necessarily depend on real competition on the job market but on the perception of threat. This is sufficient ground to induce animosity. Much of this is absent in the South African situation.

The cultural symbolic approach holds that animosity towards the other is not a consequence of economic competition between rival groups. It is a product of early political and value socialisation. The main issue here is the fear of loss of social status and identity.

Thus, cultural differences among people could be responsible for conflicts and hatred. In this approach, it can be explained that people would prefer to be surrounded by their own kind rather than be exposed to “strangers”. Defining a group of people as “un-belonging” to the national “we” deprives them of the right to belong. Much of this is also absent in South Africa.

The third approach, termed phenomenology, attributes xenophobia not to economic strains or cultural divergence but to general attributes of society. When society experiences deep crises, which occur intermittently, anomic tensions encroach upon social postures.

This leads to a crisis of collective identity “so that the calm self-certainty which might enable unproblematic relations with the minorities gets lost”. Under this approach, xenophobia is interpreted as a way of reassuring the national self and its boundaries, as an attempt at making sense of the world in times of crisis. This could be happening to indigenous South Africans.

To start with, the impeding fallout between President Thabo Mbeki and Africa National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma could be disillusioning to many ordinary citizens of African descent.

Many of them subscribe to ANC with a passion yet they find themselves on the sidelines when major party decisions are being made. At the same time, they have not benefited from the economic prosperity of their country.

Many South Africans still live in squalid conditions and the dream of land reform has turned into a pipe dream. These issues run so deep in their collective psyche that they need reassurance of economic and social survival. But they are directing their anger at the wrong enemy.

Many of the low class Zimbabweans, Malawians, Zambians and nationals of other countries are escaping economic hardship and political violence which South Africa has refused to acknowledge as a problem, especially in Zimbabwe.

They should commit themselves to assisting them to the best of their capacity. And this applies to other countries with a chance to host other Africans in need of refuge and sanctuary.

Popularity: 30% [?]

In 1991, A prominent African leader stood up against injustice in a neighbouring land. “The cry for freedom, as well as the cry for justice, stops at no border,” he declared.

That leader was Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. He was speaking in Harare, opening the Commonwealth meeting that would decide to begin lifting the people-to-people sanctions that had been imposed against South Africa.

“As you stand on Zimbabwean soil,” President Mugabe said, “only a stone’s throw away from South Africa, the world expects us to spare no effort in helping to achieve an outcome there which will bring comfort to the oppressed people of South Africa.”

It is now well past time that South Africa returned the favour. Quiet diplomacy is dead. One of Africa’s brightest hopes has turned into the continent’s most dismal failures. In an era in which our continent is meant to be embarking on an African Renaissance, Zimbabwe is both an obstacle and an embarrassment.

President Thabo Mbeki’s policy of “quiet diplomacy” in Zimbabwe has finally been denounced as a disaster by world leaders. The criticism has extended beyond muted signs of displeasure to condemnation.

Senior ANC leaders have urged Mr Mbeki to alter his stance, while MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai has expressed a desire for South Africa to be replaced as mediator in the crisis.

It is worth examining what effects this policy, which has led Mr Mbeki to claim there is no electoral crisis in Zimbabwe, has had on the country.

Zimbabwe, once one of the healthiest economies in Africa, has been plunged into a crisis that worsens every day. Inflation stands at over 100,000 per cent, and is predicted to hit the 1.5 million per cent mark by the end of the year.

Its healthcare system has failed, with many children orphaned by an Aids crisis, which Mr Mbeki refuses to take seriously. Political violence, intimidation and corruption remain endemic. None of this has been ameliorated by South Africa’s diplomatic efforts.

This policy has resulted in strengthening Dr. Mugabe’s regime and other countries’ desire to effectively address the plight of the Zimbabwean people.

By indulging Mugabe’s insistence that the criticisms levelled against him are part of a neo-colonial plot, President Mbeki has granted the man a legitimacy that he would not otherwise have.

It is never quite clear to anyone precisely what quiet diplomacy is meant to accomplish. Is it supposed to bring about a fresh round of elections — free and fair this time round? Is it meant to bring about a transfer of power to the MDC or within a “reformed” Zanu-PF? Is it meant to bring about some kind of government of national unity?

South Africa’s treatment OF Zimbabwe’s opposition has been shameful. President Mbeki’s public embraces of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF cronies contrasts sharply with his studied avoidance of Mr Tsvangirai.

The ANC’s unswerving loyalty to its fellow liberation government has undermined any claim it might have wished to make as to the even-handedness of its approach. This, of course, reflects the ANC’s attitude towards political opposition more generally.

The tragedy has been that it is in the interest of all to stand firm in condemnation of the actions of the Zimbabwean government. It lacks the economic and military clout to seriously threaten its international critics.

There is everything to gain in pragmatic terms by supporting reform in a country that has demonstrated such economic potential, and a moral mandate to criticise Mugabe’s corrupt despotism.

A far better response would have been the more robust one. Standing up to the Zimbabwe government would have limited their ability to manoeuvre diplomatically and politically, making it harder for them to acquiesce in the current crisis.

Had South Africa been firmer from the outset in dealing with the regime and challenging its actions, it might have been able to limit the machinations of Zanu-PF and the generals now lining up to try and succeed Mugabe.

A tough stance that refused to indulge Mugabe’s delusions might not wake him up to reality, but his isolation would afford him less political protection than he currently has.

This is not to advocate a US-style hawkish diplomacy against Zimbabwe. That would be entirely inappropriate for the situation and the country, and would have a very dubious prospect of success.

Rather, to stand up to Zimbabwe would involve stronger words supported by resolute action, a refusal to indulge Mugabe’s fantasies, and joining the rest of the world in the sanctions they have placed on the regime.

The world currently awaits the results of this most contentious of Zimbabwean elections. A change of stance from President Mbeki might go miles in delivering a resolution. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

The South African government should tell Mugabe that the human rights abuses, police brutality, arbitrary arrests and beatings of opposition politicians have to stop. These actions should remind South Africans of the worst days of apartheid.

About The Author: Donald Mogeni —

Popularity: 31% [?]