PLEASE NOTE: Readers wanting to reproduce and
reference
this article should contact epoliticsSA for
permission
Back to POLICY DEVELOPMENT or HOME
This issue of epoliticsSA has a special focus on the Ministry of Home Affairs, responsible for immigration and refugees. Recent events have shown the need for better policy and a better understanding of the issues in Home Affairs and epoliticsSA provides just that. The POLITICS BRIEFING provides some background and context to the workings of the Ministry and the Department and speculates on the reasons for the slow delivery on a comprehensive immigration policy. The ISSUE BRIEFING highlights the role of the media in guarding against Xenophobia. The POLICY BRIEFING focuses on the legislative measures emanating from the Department since 1994. Finally, the WHO'S WHO contains short biographies of the key personalities in 'Home Affairs': Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Deputy Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, Director-General Billy Masetlha, parliamentary home affairs committee chairperson Aubrey Mokoena, chief director of migration Patrick Matlou and Buthelezi's advisor Mario Ambrosini.
POLITICAL BRIEFING:
South Africa needs new immigrant and refugee policy as well as legislation. However, the policy process has been painfully slow. Six years after South Africa's first democratic election, immigration enforcement is still predominantly applied based on the Aliens Control Act of 1991 (albeit amended in 1995). This Act has been variously described as "outdated" and an "archaic piece of legislation", and considered as one of the last remnants of the apartheid era.
The steps that have been taken to draft new immigration policy and legislation, while perhaps showing some signs of progress, has more recently been characterised by increasing confusion and controversy. It is becoming apparent that there is emerging tension between the Minister, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who, as the political head of the Ministry of Home Affairs, is required to provide the leadership required to develop new policy and legislation, and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs. The committee, headed by ANC MP, Aubrey Mokoena, is responsible for providing political oversight of the work of the Ministry and, therefore, of the minister himself.
Buthelezi has been criticised for his lack of involvement in, and supervision of, the goings-on in the Department; the most recent case in point being when an appeal against a judgement of the Cape High Court was lodged without the Minister's knowledge.
Controversies involving the Department of Home Affairs and the Minister's leadership (or lack thereof) have been widely reported in the press on several occasions.
Allegations of corruption, bribery and abuse of office have been rife, culminating in accusations against previous Director-General, Albert Mokoena, which eventually resulted in him being suspended and ultimately dismissed. Under the leadership of acting Director-General Khulu Mbatha, the public reputation of the department showed no signs of improvement as it lurched from crisis to crisis, most noted for the number of court cases it contested and lost, and increasing pressure put on Buthelezi to intervene and take charge.
President Mbeki appointed the current Director-General, Billy Masetlha in December 1999. Buthelezi publicly opposed the Masetlha appointment, but subsequently announced that they had resolved their differences. It also provoked a reaction from Buthelezi's party, the Inkatha Freedom Party, to the effect that the Minister "did not need two spies in his department" with apparent reference to Masetlha and Deputy-Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, who are both ANC members with a background in Intelligence.
However, the tension runs deeper than the Minister's alleged lack of involvement in the day to day affairs, the tarnished reputation of the department; or what amounts to an uneasy "truce" between the minister and the director-general of his department. It is also reflected in policy-making process, adding to the slowness of, and confusion and controversy that surround the process.
For example, the White Paper on International Migration (a government policy statement) was published in March 1999 as 'amended and approved' by Parliament, to the surprise of senior departmental officials. This implied, contrary to the reality, that government had solicited public comment and input on the policy. However, in June 1999 the ministry invited comment on the white paper, with a deadline of 30 November. In November 1999, the white paper was tabled in the parliamentary committee without any discussion. The committee then resolved to have public hearings on the policy.
Meanwhile, Buthelezi announced in February 2000 that he had appointed a departmental committee to prepare a draft Immigration Bill. Officials appeared surprised that such a committee had been appointed. Buthelezi also announced that he had a copy of the draft and that he would initiate a process of workshops and hearings where stakeholders can make inputs into the draft. A conference of stakeholders would then be held where all inputs and recommendations would be discussed, before a final draft was submitted to Parliament and cabinet for their consideration. Buthelezi expected the process to be completed by June 2000.
There are therefore two parallel, as well as conflicting, processes on the cards. On the one hand, that proposed by the Minister which effectively accepts the white paper as government policy and wants to move on to the next step of considering draft legislation, with the aim of submitting it to parliament and cabinet as early as June this year. On the other hand, the process proposed by Mokoena that implies that the white paper is not official policy since it has not been considered by the portfolio committee, and that part of this consideration (before submitting final recommendations to the National Assembly), should be a series of public hearings.
Logically, the process proposed by Mokoena puts any discussion of the draft Immigration Bill on hold, until parliament has had the opportunity to discuss and approve the white paper.
It appears that by publishing the draft bill and announcing his intentions to pursue a process around it, Buthelezi has potentially denied parliament the opportunity to consider the white paper, thus exercising its role of providing political oversight. There has even been speculation as to whether the white paper in its current form was amended and approved by cabinet, as is stated on the version published in the Government Gazette. Furthermore, the process proposed by the Minister does not make logical sense - it is common cause that the intention is to put the stated policy of government into law.
If the draft bill is subject to amendment based on comments and inputs received it is very likely that it will differ substantially from the policies contained in the white paper (if it does not do so already). Unless the white paper is also subsequently amended (which means it has to be referred back to parliament and cabinet for approval), we will have a situation in which written policy contradicts legislation (for better or for worse).
Neither the process proposed by the Minister, nor that agreed to by the Portfolio Committee is being implemented and it is unclear when, and indeed if, either one is going to happen. What is clear, however, is that a political dynamic has been created which puts Buthelezi at a distinct disadvantage, even if only from a party-political perspective. Other than himself, the most senior people connected with the affairs of the department and the ministry are from the ANC, viz. the Deputy Minister, the Director-General and the chairperson of the parliamentary portfolio committee. Incidentally, given the ANC's parliamentary majority, the greatest number of members on the portfolio committee are from the ANC.
From a process and policy-making point of view, if the principle of parliamentary oversight is upheld, the odds are in favour of the portfolio committee. The committee not only has the prerogative to determine the next step in the process, but can also substantially rewrite the contents of both the white paper and the bill.
What the two processes have in common, is the commitment (or at least the intention) to provide stakeholders, which by definition must include citizens and non-citizens, with an opportunity to make an input into what our immigration policy and legislation will look like. If this process is taken seriously, the likelihood of it being completed during this parliamentary year (never mind by June) is being somewhat optimistic.
ISSUE BRIEFING:
ISSUE BRIEFING: Writing Xenophobia: Immigration and the press in post-apartheid South Africa
The mass media have become one of the most important institutions in modern society, playing a role not only in our learning and education, but also in how we see opportunities for change and improvements in our lives. For these reasons the media are seen as a powerful vehicle for social transformation and development and have drawn increasing attention towards themselves in contemporary society. The print media (i.e. newspapers) are particularly important in this respect, given that the press has traditionally been a provider of information on daily events and for many people is the only source of information about events which are not experienced directly.
The Southern African Migration Project, of which Idasa is a partner, recently conducted a study into the print media's coverage of cross-border migration in South Africa, and how it may affect public opinion on the topic. The SAMP study also looked at how immigration legislation is evaluated by the media.
The study represents the first comprehensive survey of its kind ever undertaken in South Africa, and draws on a collection of over 1200 English-language newspaper clippings about migration from all South African newspapers between 1994 and 1998. Of the 1200 clippings in the SAMP database, 132 were randomly selected and used for the purpose of conducting the study.
The SAMP study found that most articles in the sample (33%) were overtly anti-immigration; 29% were pro-immigration (or at least sympathetic) and 38% of the articles were classified as neutral (i.e. neither overtly pro- or anti-immigration). This suggests that there is relatively balanced coverage of immigration issues.
However, the large number of neural articles are problematic since they reflect the tendency of journalists and editors to merely catalogue statistics on migration-related event without any attempts to verify or analyse such statistics. This apparent neutrality does not necessarily constitute a lack of bias, since by simply repeating statistics and other official information, such reports in fact feed into the perceptions, myths and stereotypes associated with migrants.
The SAMP study also revealed that the overwhelming majority of articles (70%) were not analytical )purportedly simply reporting the "facts") and that 30% attempted some analysis. Of the 30%, only 13% were considered to be "very analytical". There is also a clear correlation between the level of analysis and the attitude towards immigration of articles.
A large proportion of the articles also reproduce racial and national stereotypes about migrants from other African countries, depicting, for example Mozambicans as car thieves and Nigerians as drug smugglers. This criminalisation of migrants from other parts of Africa is made worse by the more subtle use of terms like "illegal" and "alien", despite the fact that these terms have been roundly criticised as contributing to misconceptions of an otherwise law-abiding group of people.
SAMP: Writing Xenophobia Report
Given the complexity of the migration debate, one of the conclusions of the SAMP study is that the media have not been doing a good job in providing more balanced, critical and reflective coverage of the issues. At best, the press has been presenting a very limited perspective of cross-border dynamics, and in the process leaving the South African public in the dark as to the real complexities at play. At worse, the press has been contributing to xenophobic sentiments in the general public by weaving myths and fabrications around foreigners and immigration.
Four recommendations emerge from the SAMP study:
The full study is available at the SAMP website at http://www.queensu.ca/samp/
POLICY BRIEFING: Policy Review: Making New Immigration and Refugee Legislation
The first step was to amend the Aliens Control Act in 1995, thus making exemptions possible for people who were in the country as asylum seekers to be granted refugee status in terms of the Act and to remove the more overtly discriminatory provisions of the Act. The making of policy can be outlined as follows:
November 1996: Appointment of Green Paper Task Team on International Migration
May 1997: Publication of Draft Green Paper on International Migration for public comment. Green Paper recommends separation of immigration and refugee policy and legislation.
August 1997: Closing date for submissions and comment on Draft Green Paper. Department of Home Affairs receives 52 submissions from organizations and individuals.
September 1997: Public Conference on Draft Green Paper co-hosted by SAMP and Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, Cape Town.
March 1998: Appointment of Task Team of Department of Home Affairs officials and NGO representatives to prepare White Paper on Refugee Policy.
July 1998: Publication of Draft White Paper and Refugee Legislation on Refugees. Public submissions received until 20 July 1998.
August 1998: Revised White Paper on Refugees goes to Cabinet.
August 1998: Appointment of Task Team to prepare White Paper on Immigration
November 1998: New Refugees Bill becomes law. Department of Home Affairs drafts regulations to give effect to the Refugee Act and it is anticipated that it will come into operation on 17 April 2000. If implemented, it would ease the treatment that both refugees and asylum seekers are subjected to under the Aliens Control Act. It makes provision for the establishment of "reception centers" for asylum seekers when they arrive in South Africa. Largely hailed as a success by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other human rights oriented organizations, despite some reservations expressed.
March 1999: Draft White Paper on International Migration In the main, the Draft White Paper on International Migration argues for better enforcement procedures and capacity, which would in turn create a new investigative immigration "policing" unit, in keeping with the growing security concerns around home affairs. Contradicted by recommendations to ease administrative procedures around the issuing of permits and visas.
November 1999: Closing date for public comment on White Paper.
February 2000: Publication of Draft Immigration Bill
Caused a considerable amount of confusion, mainly due to the very premise on which it was founded (the Draft White Paper on International Migration) i.e. control oriented approach of the Aliens Control Act. It was drafted even before the consultation process of the White Paper was over. Just as when people were still expecting hearings on the White Paper, a Bill was released, even more confusing than the White Paper.
In both the Draft Immigration Bill and the Refugee Act, numerous reforms to the existing procedures under the Aliens Control Act are proposed. With regard to refugees, one of the major proposal under the Refugee Bill is that refugees, once granted such status, should be granted identity documents instead of Section 41 exemptions under the Aliens Control Act. Under this Section (41) of the Aliens Control Act, which deals with prohibited persons, refugees and asylum seekers are granted an exemption. This exemption comes in the form of a letter stating that the person to whom it is issues is a prohibited person, but is allowed to be in the country.
If the Refugee Act were implemented, abuses to refugees under the Aliens Control Act would ultimately be neutralized. However, more confusing is the proposal that reception centers be established. It is here were asylum seekers would remain pending the status determination procedure of their application. Until such time that they are recognized as genuine refugees, they will not be entitled to most of the social rights. This has been subject to heated debates within the ranks of those working with refugees and a policy on asylum.
On the other hand, as far as THE migration bill is concerned, there are still major draconian proposals stemming from the White Paper. As the POLITICS BRIEFING points out, there is confusion as to the legislative and policy process surrounding this bill.
There is no certainty as to when new policy will be in place. However, in his recent briefing of the portfolio committee, minister Buthelezi gave assurance that "the department will ensure that the draft immigration bill is completed to enable effective administration of migration issues and that the implementation of the Refugee Act is not delayed much longer."
WHO'S WHO
MINISTER MANGOSUTHU BUTHELEZI. Minister of Home Affairs. Buthelezi appears detached from the affairs of the ministry; he is evidently more involved in party political matters. For a full biography. see Issue Twelve.
LINDIWE SISULU. Deputy Minister of Home Affairs (since July 1996). She has been a Member of Parliament since 1994 where she served as chairperson of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence (1995-1996). Sisulu (b.1954) was detained for her political activities in 1976 and left South Africa to join the ANC in 1977. Studied history at the universities of Swaziland (BA, 1981) and York (MA, 1989) and worked in Swaziland as a journalist and a teacher. She also has training in military intelligence (1977-79). In 1990, she returned to South Africa as personal assistant to Jacob Zuma (then ANC head of intelligence) and worked her way up from administrator in the ANC's intelligence department in Johannesburg to a place on the management of the sub-council on intelligence of the Transitional Executive Council, the joint council that governed South Africa before the 1994 election. She has published on South African women and the liberation struggle.
MARIO AMBROSINI. Dual role as Advisor to Buthelezi as Minister of Home Affairs as well as the leader of the IFP. He is also advisor to the IFP-dominated provincial government of Kwazulu-Natal. His critics note that Ambrosini is more IFP official on the government payroll than an advisor on government business. Ambrosini, a dual United States and Italian citizen started out as a parliamentary researcher in Italy (1981-83), moved to the US to practice law and came to South Africa in 1990. In the US he had also worked as an associate for a firm specialising in 'project development in third world countries' (1984-85). Apart from Inkatha he has been involved in the politics of various other third world states as senior vice-president of the US-based Philadelphia Constitution Foundation (1987-93). These included in Nicaragua (on electoral law), Cuba ('shadow government'), Tibet ('government in exile') and the Seychelles (constitutional advisor to Sir James Mancham). He had also advised conservative Afrikaner groupings on single-medium-of-instruction schools in South Africa in the early 1990s.
BILLY MATSETLHA. Director-General of Home Affairs since December 1999. Initially his appointment was opposed by Buthelezi, who later consented after a meeting with President Thabo Mbeki. Masetlha (b.1954) was previously director-general of the South African Secret Service (the external intelligence) since its inception in June 1995 until his appointment in Home Affairs. A SRC member during the Soweto student uprising in 1976, he was arrested and spent three years in prison. He left South Africa in 1979 for an eleven-year political exile. He remained largely in Southern Africa working with ANC intelligence, but had short stints in Germany (as a student in military intelligence, 1980), United Kingdom (head of intelligence, 1988-1990). He returned to South Africa in 1990 as a Youth League representative. Throughout the formal constitutional negotiations between the ANC and the apartheid government (1990-94), he continued to work for ANC intelligence.
PATRICK MATLOU. Chief Director Migration in the Department of Home Affairs (since April 1988). Based in Pretoria, Matlou is responsible for 'Admissions and Aliens Control', he also oversees the work of staff working in the refugee and temporary residence section. Matlou (b.1958) was largely educated while in political exile, studying in Ghana (high school and Bachelors in Political Science, 1979) and the United Kingdom (MA in International Relations at Kent in 1980 and a PhD in Sociology at the University of Essex in 1992). His PhD thesis focused on 'Refugee Policy in Botswana from 1958-1989'. He then went to work as a university teacher in Liberia, and a field officer for UNHCR in Nairobi, Kenya. Before taking up his current post, Matlou was chief director of admissions and alien control (1997-98). In 1997 he was advisor and consultant to the Premier and Director-General of the Northern Cape province.
AUBREY MOKOENA. Chairperson of the parliamentary committee on Home Affairs. Mokoena (b.1948) was formerly chairperson of committees in the last Parliament (1994-99). A qualified teacher, Mokoena became politically conscious in the black consciousness led by Steve Biko in the early 1970s and remained a member of South African Students' Organisation throughout the1970s. Mokoena served as SRC president of the University of the North (popularly known as Turfloop) from 1971 and 1972. He was a national executive committee member of the United Democratic Front (1983-85). He was pivotal to many campaigns organised by the UDF - effectively the internal wing of the ANC inside South Africa in the 1980s. From 1983 to 1990 Mokoena was national co-ordinator of the Release Mandela Campaign. Mokoena is a director of companies.
Copyright © 2000 Idasa PIMS
epoliticsSA home page | Email the Editor
Back to POLICY DEVELOPMENT or HOME