Wicked irony in politicians painting themselves saviours

THERE is something abhorrent and disturbingly ironic about the Gauteng legislature’s portfolio committee on health and social development trying to take the moral high ground in answering the tough humanitarian question of what to do with Zimbabwean refugees at the Central Methodist Church (CMC) in downtown Johannesburg.

Removing children from the site seems to be their hasty short-term solution. A longer- term solution is not clear but a recommended closure is not ruled out. What is ironic and abhorrent about all this is the shameless attempt by the politicians to rock up with moral platitudes at hand and, with the help of a bevy of broadcast journalists, send out a message of deep and genuine care about the refugees’ wellbeing. How convenient — as if the crisis happened overnight and they did not or could not have reasonably been aware of it. The truth is that the nature and causes of the unfolding humanitarian crisis in downtown Johannesburg are more complex.

Unsurprisingly, the most appropriate interventions are not so obvious either.

First, Bishop Paul Verryn, who runs the place, is doing what the state is not doing but should be doing — attempting to give practical meaning to the human rights of refugees. Instead of acknowledging that this worsening crisis is symptomatic of a tissue of policy failures on the government’s part, the portfolio committee is trying to get brownie points for wanting to remove the most vulnerable among the refugees, the children.

But what is needed is not the arrangement of a photo opportunity. This, to be sure, will gain the state some political mileage. After all, who in their right mind would want to see children living in such desperately unsafe conditions? Objectively speaking, the unpleasant conditions at the church are not even appropriate for confident, healthy adults capable of looking after themselves, let alone vulnerable children who are exposed to potential sexual abuse and other forms of human rights violations.

However, recognising the nature of a problem is only the first step towards solving it. The second step is to understand the causes of the problem. These are , at least, twofold.

On the one hand, refugees are by definition foreign nationals who have escaped their country of origin because they are threatened in some or other way. The political violence that has been perpetrated in Zimbabwe by President Robert Mugabe for many years now has, as is well known, morphed into an equally, if not worse, protracted economic and social crisis.

The situation in Zimbabwe, despite the Global Political Agreement between the main parties, has not changed materially. In the absence of a safe political environment and one that is socioeconomically attractive by minimal standards of decency in terms of international humanitarian law, there is little reason for refugees to return. It would be imprudent and we would be immoral to compel them to.

On the other hand, government responses fuelled by a mixture of systemic xenophobia and sheer incompetence have worsened the conditions under which refugees survive in spaces such as the rough streets of Johannesburg. The simple fact is that harassment by police (well documented) of refugees living on the streets have forced many of them to seek shelter inside places such as the CMC.

Rightly or wrongly, the CMC responded to the moral dilemma by housing the large numbers of needy people rather than pushing them back into the den of an uncaring, xenophobic police force and local city. And herein lies the deep hypocrisy, abhorrence and irony of the Johnny-come-lately attitude of the politicians: they failed to show responsible political leadership in dealing with the refugee crisis in the first place and now attempt to look like moral saints while people with no political or legal responsibility to care about refugees, such as Verryn, come across inadvertently as unthinking citizens worsening the plight of foreign nationals.

In reality, but for the actions of people such as Verryn and spaces such as the CMC — imperfect though they are — the refugee crisis would be even worse.

So, with two major causes identified — continuing political instability within Zimbabwe and continued ill-considered state responses to refugees within SA’s borders — what are the best possible interventions?

First, the government should acknowledge that it would worsen the plight of the refugees to have them pushed out on to the streets. Doing so is not a feasible short-term intervention.
A feasible short-term intervention would be to make the space more safe, sanitary and secure by assisting the CMC with more effective security and material aid to meet the needs of the refugees while a more long-term solution is sought.

This commitment to not immediately shut the facility or to push people out must include a commitment to remove only children from the site in accordance with a properly drawn- up plan that includes a mechanism for independent oversight.

Second, a more permanent solution should then be sought. This cannot not be done in haste if the solution sought is to be sustainable. It might therefore entail the same politicians hitting the pause button and setting up an investigative committee with relevant stakeholders, who could come up with fact-based recommendations.

Crucially, the habit in social justice work of superimposing solutions on vulnerable groups can be sidestepped by involving the refugees in such a consultative process. This will ensure that their needs are reflected in the solutions that are developed.

Verryn and the CMC have made mistakes. No doubt it is overly ambitious to offer so many people shelter, but this situation did not come about intentionally. It resulted in part from the fact that after the July 3 arrests of refugees on the streets, these vulnerable people naturally felt it safer to seek accommodation within the CMC.

Further, it is possible that the CMC could have been more vigilant and open about potential abuses that such an undesirable space might enable. But to conclude from these facts that a quick visit, some tough words and removal of children to an unknown place will solve the underlying drivers of the crisis is unforgivably short-sighted.

Instead, the church should be helped to improve conditions in the short term and the very same politicians can prove their sincerity beyond that by putting their energies into seeking longer-term solutions through trustworthy consultative processes involving all the stakeholders.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=88963