The impact of securitisation on South Africa’s migration protocols during the Zuma administration (2009-2017)

Abstract

The post-apartheid government was widely praised for its liberal constitution which was based on the principles of human dignity, equality, and freedom. These principles are in line with those of foundational international agreements on human rights such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights of 1966.The Zuma administration’s national interests focused on national security, local employment, and prosperity for South African citizens at the exclusion of migrants. In South Africa, human rights for migrants were initially protected through the Constitution 108 of 1996, the Refugee Act 130 of 1998 and the Immigration Act 13 of 2002. Despite these Acts and the explicit human rights assurances afforded to everyone living in the South African Constitution, the Zuma Administration (2009-2017) moved away from the principles and assurances of human dignity in its migration policies and legislation. Through a deliberate securitisation process and as a result of newly enacted immigration legislation, notably the promulgation of the Immigration Amendment Act 13 of 2011 and the Refugee Amendment Act 11 of 2017, the human rights of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants were adversely affected. The securitisation of migration protocols under the Zuma administration peaked with the introduction of the 2017 White Paper on International Migration and the promulgation of the Border management Authority Act 2 of 2020 aimed at militarising border controls to detain and deport migrants as efficiently as possible. The origins for the securitisation of migration protocols during the Zuma administration emanated from a societal perception that the high number of migrants coming to South Africa during the first decade of democracy came through illegal entry and/or stayed beyond their visas to remain in South Africa. Moreover, the presence of migrants in the South African labour market and informal businesses increased competition for resources and opportunities among people within South Africa. In South Africa, the securitisation of migration has resulted in stricter migration control and an increase in the number of illegal foreigners being detained for deportation. The detention of irregular migrants was often justified with reference to security concerns disguised as the fight against global terrorism. These societal pressures evoked anti-foreigner sentiments culminating in xenophobic violence in 2008, 2012, 2015 and 2016 resulting in the deaths of migrants and locals, and damage to property. In conclusion, governmental sentiments towards migrants deteriorated in South Africa during the Zuma administration which led to the securitisation of migration protocols. This situation can only be rectified by returning South Africa’s migration protocols in line with constitutionally obligated human rights for all people living in South Africa.