SURVIVING SOCIAL EXCLUSION: ZIMBABWEAN MIGRANTS IN

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA

by

CHIPO HUNGWE

submitted in accordance with the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY

in the subject

SOCIOLOGY

at the

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

SUPERVISOR: PROF D GELDERBLOM

JUNE 2013
DECLARATION

I Chipo Hungwe declare that Surviving Social Exclusion: Zimbabwean Migrants in

Johannesburg, South Africa is my own work and that all the sources and texts used have
been properly acknowledged in my list of sources.

______________

Signed at Gweru this 6th day of June 2013.

C. Hungwe

i
ABSTRACT

The thesis analyses forms and levels of social exclusion of Zimbabwean migrants in the
South African labour market and society. The research reveals that migrants face social
exclusion through unruly practices of public officials and institutional bias. At community
and individual level migrants are devalued and stigmatised by the local South Africans and
other Zimbabwean migrants. To some extent Zimbabwean migrants participate in their own
exclusion as they are divided along regional and ethnic lines.

The thesis proposes an analytical framework for understanding the social exclusion of
Zimbabwean migrants emphasising on how devaluation of migrant identity narrows the
existing structure of opportunity, leading to various coping mechanisms some of which are
deviant. The thesis proposes a moral and pragmatic view in understanding the social
exclusion of migrants from a cosmopolitan perspective where migrants are citizens of a
global world.

Using a qualitative methodology the research provides an in-depth analysis of the life
histories of fifty eight (58) ‘documented’ and ‘undocumented’ Zimbabwean men and women
in Kempton Park and Tembisa. The research was carried out in 2012.

Migrants respond to social exclusion by using social capital in the form of family/kinship,
ethnic and church networks. Zimbabweans mainly rely on bonding rather than bridging social
capital. To a greater extent, migrant networks help them to ‘get by’ and simply survive. The
few that have managed to ‘get ahead’, have made use of networks with South African
residents and other individuals outside their migrant network systems. These have facilitated
acquisition of fake identity documents, jobs and other necessities. Family networks are
beginning to repel migrants because of the economic pressures they face leading to the
weakening of ties among Zimbabwean migrant family members.

KEY WORDS: Asylum; Church; Devaluation; Discrimination; Family, Friends; Migrants;

Permit; Social Capital; Social Exclusion; Social Networks; Xenophobia; Zimbabweans.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people who participated and helped in this piece of work in various ways.
Special mention goes to the following:

• My Supervisor, Prof D. Gelderblom, for the meticulous guidance and constructive

criticism.

• My husband, Godfrey Tabona Ncube, for listening to and critiquing some of my

ideas.

• Ms Hazel Ngoshi, for editing this document.

• Family members in Johannesburg, for accommodating me, showing me around and

making my stay comfortable.

• The Zimbabwean migrants in Kempton Park and Tembisa who participated in the
study showed me what it means to live in a ‘foreign country’. They offered me their
valued support, time and sometimes, material resources.

• The MSU Librarian, Nyarai Chibanda, for the E-resources and her close friendship.

• The MSU Research and Postgraduate Office, for funding my journeys to

Johannesburg and postgraduate seminars.

• The HRM department members, for agreeing to teach my modules during my absence
on fieldwork.

• My personal librarian at UNISA, Talana Erasmus, for assistance with library access.

• Prof. M. Rabe, for advice regarding my methodology and her swift communication of
departmental decisions and requirements, and

• The Sociology department at UNISA, for the opportunity to study.

Most importantly I thank my God the Almighty, Yahweh! For your mercies that are new
Every day! Ebenezer!

iii
DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to all the migrants of the world struggling to be integrated, gain
acceptance and lead dignified lives free from social exclusion wherever they are! I quote one
of my research participants who said: “It’s not the foreigner that is a problem, it’s the
mindsets”.

iv
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Asylum seeker’s permit - it is given temporarily to foreigners who have applied for asylum
on the basis of political persecution. This is provided for in the Refugees Act number 130 of
1998.

Chibaro - term used by Van Onselen (1978) to describe how Africans in Northern and
Southern Rhodesia disliked forced labour by the Rhodesia Native Labour Bureau where they
were bonded on long term contracts for low wages and poor working conditions in Rhodesian
mines.

Chimurenga - Zimbabwean liberation struggle against colonial domination.

Dabulapu – a method used by undocumented migrants to cross the border illegally, going via
forests in the company of impisi.

Documented migrant - this is a migrant who has legal stay by virtue of having the necessary
documents such as passport and permit.

Gukurahundi - brutal mass killings of Ndebele speakers believed to be supporters of Joshua

Nkomo (leader of ZAPU) by a North Korean trained fifth brigade special unit of the
Zimbabwe army. It happened in the Midlands and Matabeleland Provinces of Zimbabwe. It
started in 1983 and ended in 1987 with the signing of the Unity Accord between ZANU and
ZAPU.

Impisi - Zimbabwean men who help undocumented migrants to cross the Limpopo River for
a fee. They are hired by the malayitsha.

Immigrant - refers to migrants in a foreign country. This term is used interchangeably with
the term migrant regardless of whether the migrant is documented or not.

Kota – this is a sandwich comprising two pieces of bread, cheese, sausage, polony and any
sauces.

Labour migrant - also referred to as the economic migrant whose main goal is to find
employment in the receiving country.

v
Magumaguma - these are Zimbabwean men who ‘patrol’ the forests and border areas and
mainly loot goods, clothes and money from potential migrants who use the dabulapu method
to cross the border to South Africa. They sometimes kill and rape (especially female)
potential migrants.

Malayitsha - Zimbabwean cross-border taxi operators who ply the cross-border (Zimbabwe-
South Africa) routes. They transport undocumented migrants for a fee. In rural areas the price
for transportation can be one or two cattle.

Naturalisation - a process of acquiring citizenship in South Africa by virtue of having parents

or relatives that are citizens in South Africa.

Operation Murambatsvina/ Restore Order - the systematic destruction of buildings and

structures defined as illegal that took place in 2008 in towns and cities of Zimbabwe. It left
most urban residents poor, homeless and unemployed.

Spaza - a small usually unlicensed shop that sells food and other small household items in
townships/ high density areas.

Stokvel - revolving clubs where members meet fortnightly or every month-end to pay
subscriptions that are invested and later shared by members. Stokvels are a form of social
security for the poor.

Undocumented migrant - a migrant who is defined as illegal by virtue of not having all the
required documents needed to stay and work in South Africa such as a passport, visa or
permit. Such an individual is also referred to as an irregular or clandestine migrant.

Vapostori - members of the Independent African Apostolic Church.

vi
ACRONYMS

AFM - Apostolic Faith Mission

ANC - African National Congress

BSAC - British South Africa Company

BBBEE - Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment

CCMA - Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

DHA - Department of Home Affairs

ESAP - Economic Structural Adjustment Programme

FMSP – Forced Migration Studies Programme

HRW – Human Rights Watch

JPM - Jesus Promotion Ministries

MDC - Movement for Democratic Change

NGO - Non-Governmental Organisation

PASSOP – People Against Suffering and Oppression

RNLB - Rhodesia Native Labour Bureau

SADC - Southern African Development Community

SAMP – Southern African Migration Project

SARS - South African Revenue Services

SAQA - South African Qualifications Authority

SDA - Seventh Day Adventist

UDI - Unilateral Declaration of Independence

WNLA - Witwatersrand Native Labour Association

vii
ZAOGA FIF - Zimbabwe Assemblies of God Africa Forward in Faith

ZANLA - Zimbabwe National Liberation Army

ZANU (PF) - Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front)

ZAPU - Zimbabwe African People’s Union

ZCTU - Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions

ZDP - Zimbabwe Documentation Project

ZIPRA - Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army

ZPS - Zimbabwe Prison Services

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................................................i

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................................ ii

KEY WORDS .................................................................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ iii

DEDICATION.................................................................................................................................................................. iv

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................................. v

ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................................................... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Background of the study .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Problem statement and study objectives................................................................................................... 8

1.4. Rationale of the study .................................................................................................................................... 12

1.5. Thesis overview ................................................................................................................................................. 15

1.6. Chapter summary ............................................................................................................................................ 16

CHAPTER TWO: UNDERSTANDING MIGRATION REGIONALLY AND GLOBALLY .... 17

2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

2.2. A historical perspective of Southern African migration to South Africa since the early
1900s............................................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.3. Regional migration to South Africa from the late 1990s to the present ................................... 25

2.4. The policy of the Zimbabwean government towards emigrants ................................................. 30

2.5. The international and the South African legal framework for the protection of migrants
.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

2.6. The migration state ......................................................................................................................................... 39

2.7. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................... 50

CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUALISING SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN SOUTH AFRICA ..... 51

ix
 3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 51

3.2. Defining social exclusion ............................................................................................................................... 52

3.3. A critique of the concept of social exclusion ......................................................................................... 63

3.4. Coping mechanisms for dealing with social exclusion ..................................................................... 65

3.5. A proposed framework for analysing migrant social exclusion in the South African
context ........................................................................................................................................................................... 71

3.6. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................... 77

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 79

4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 79

4.2. Research approach .......................................................................................................................................... 80

4.3. Delimitations/ scope of the study ............................................................................................................... 84

4.4. Negotiating entry: the insider/outsider debate .................................................................................... 86

4.5. Data collection techniques ............................................................................................................................ 90

4.6. Sources of data .................................................................................................................................................. 93

4.7. Sampling methods ........................................................................................................................................... 94

4.8. Method of analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 96

4.9. Validity issues .................................................................................................................................................... 98

4.10. Ethical issues.................................................................................................................................................. 101

4.11. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 103

CHAPTER FIVE: PROFILES OF ZIMBABWEAN MIGRANTS IN TEMBISA AND

KEMPTON PARK ..................................................................................................................................................... 104

5.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 104

5.2. The current distribution of Zimbabwean migrants in Tembisa and Kempton Park ....... 105

5.3. Age, gender and ethnicity characteristics............................................................................................ 106

5.4. Level of education of migrants ................................................................................................................. 107

5.5. Last place of residence in Zimbabwe .................................................................................................... 109

5.6. Length of stay of migrants in Tembisa and Kempton Park ........................................................ 112

5.7. Step migration ................................................................................................................................................. 113

5.8. Migrant families in Johannesburg.......................................................................................................... 114

5.9. How did they come? ...................................................................................................................................... 116

x
 5.10. Reasons for coming to Johannesburg ................................................................................................. 125

5.11. Living and sleeping arrangements of migrants .............................................................................. 133

5.12. Communication and remittances back home .................................................................................. 136

5.13. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 141

CHAPTER SIX: PARTICIPATION OF ZIMBABWEAN MIGRANTS IN THE LABOUR

MARKET ....................................................................................................................................................................... 143

6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 143

6.2. Getting a job: ‘ukumaketha’...................................................................................................................... 144

6.3. The current employment status of Zimbabwean migrants .......................................................... 145

6.4. Employer preference .................................................................................................................................... 147

6.5. Zimbabwean dominated employment sectors ................................................................................... 154

6.6. Employee rights .............................................................................................................................................. 157

6.7. Benefits available at work .......................................................................................................................... 161

6.8. Racial discrimination and xenophobia at work ................................................................................ 162

6.9. A discussion of self employed migrant entrepreneurs ................................................................... 164

6.10. The unemployed ........................................................................................................................................... 172

6.11. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 172

CHAPTER SEVEN: COPING MECHANISMS FOR GAINING SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE

AND ENSURING SURVIVAL ............................................................................................................................. 174

7.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 174

7.2. Friendships and marriages with local South Africans and fellow migrants......................... 175

7.3. Church membership ..................................................................................................................................... 178

7.4. Crime and deviance ...................................................................................................................................... 181

7.5. Languages, dressing and style of walking as disguise tactics ...................................................... 189

7.6. Downplaying xenophobia at work .......................................................................................................... 193

7.7. Revolving clubs, book clubs and professional organisations....................................................... 194

7.8. Keeping to yourself as a coping mechanism ....................................................................................... 195

7.9. Living within your means or sometimes borrowing? ..................................................................... 196

7.10. Zimbabwean migrants and local house-owners ............................................................................. 196

7.11. Evaluation of the present and the future........................................................................................... 200

xi
 7.12. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 204

CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL NETWORKS AND AGENTS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION ....... 205

8.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 205

8.2. Social networks and Zimbabwean migration to Johannesburg................................................. 206

8.3. Jealousies and tribalism .............................................................................................................................. 214

8.4. Agents of social exclusion ........................................................................................................................... 220

8.5. Social class and social exclusion .............................................................................................................. 237

8.6. Effects of social exclusion ........................................................................................................................... 238

8.7. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................... 241

CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY

IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 242

9.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 242

9.2. The contribution of this study to social exclusion and social capital literature .................. 244

9.3 Major research conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 246

9.4. Policy implications and recommendations .......................................................................................... 248

9.5. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................... 252

LIST OF SOURCES .................................................................................................................................................. 253

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................................. 284

10.1. Research questions ...................................................................................................................................... 284

10.2. Consent form ................................................................................................................................................. 287

xii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE 1: FOREIGN BLACK WORKERS LEGALLY EMPLOYED IN SOUTH AFRICA ...................................................... 22

TABLE 2: SEX RATIO OF WHITE POPULATION IN SOUTHERN RHODESIA IN THE EARLY 1900S .................................. 25
TABLE 3: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ................................................. 82
TABLE 4: CURRENT PLACE OF RESIDENCE ............................................................................................................. 85
TABLE 5: AGE OF PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................................................... 106
TABLE 6: LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................. 108
TABLE 7: LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................... 109
FIGURE 1: MAP OF ZIMBABWE ............................................................................................................................ 111
TABLE 8: LENGTH OF STAY IN JOBURG * ETHNICITY CROSS-TABULATION ........................................................... 112
TABLE 9: LEGALITY OF FIRST ENTRY ................................................................................................................... 119
TABLE 10: REASON FOR COMING TO SOUTH AFRICA ............................................................................................. 127
TABLE 11: SECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT IN ZIMBABWE ............................................................................................ 129
TABLE 12: EARNINGS PER MONTH ........................................................................................................................ 146
TABLE 13: CURRENT JOB OF PARTICIPANT ........................................................................................................... 155
TABLE 14: WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST JOB? .............................................................................................................. 156
TABLE 15: BENEFITS AVAILABLE AT WORK ......................................................................................................... 161
TABLE 16: WHICH CHURCH DO YOU GO TO? ......................................................................................................... 179
TABLE 17: IS THE CURRENT STAY LEGAL? ........................................................................................................... 183
TABLE 18: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ARRESTED? ..................................................................................................... 187
TABLE 19: DO YOU SPEAK ANY LOCAL LANGUAGE? ............................................................................................ 190
TABLE 20: NUMBER OF CHILDREN ........................................................................................................................ 233

xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

This chapter outlines the socio-economic context that Zimbabwean migrants face daily in
South Africa. It also justifies the reasons for understanding the social exclusion of migrants
citing some of the negative consequences such as: lack of access to proper employment,
hospital care and protection by the police. The study explores coping mechanisms of
Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa. It starts from the premise that Zimbabweans are
largely excluded from the South African society and labour market. The coping mechanisms
are therefore necessitated by the different forms of social exclusion they suffer. It also
analyses their level of participation in both the formal and informal sectors of the South
African economy. The study incorporates both ‘documented’ and legal Zimbabwean migrants
and ‘undocumented’ or illegal Zimbabwean migrants. It analyses how variables such as
immigration status, gender, age, sector of employment, area of residence, period of residence
in South Africa, level of networking, and ethnic background affect the extent of inclusion into
and exclusion from the South African labour market and society. The study explores all the
dimensions of social exclusion of Zimbabwean migrants in Johannesburg.

The main task of this research is to analyse the survival tactics of Zimbabweans in the South
African labour market and society given:

• the potentially changing official policy towards Zimbabweans (Polzer 2009).

• the high rate of poverty and unemployment among South Africans themselves
(Adepoju 2008, StatsSa 2011).
• the tendency of locals to blame foreigners for job ‘snatching’ (Danso and McDonald
2000; Harris 2001; Posel 2003; Mosala 2008; Kalitanyi and Visser 2010).
• the high level of crime and violence in South Africa (Harris 2001).
• the high level of xenophobia and general frustration among most South Africans in
South Africa (Human Rights Watch 1998; Mattes, Taylor, McDonald, Poore and Richmond

1
1999; McDonald, Mashike & Golden 1999; Danso and McDonald 2000; Harris 2001; Crush,
Williams & Perberdy 2005; Adepoju 2006; Crush and Tawodzera 2011). This xenophobia is
expressed to all migrants regardless of whether they are documented/regular/legal or
undocumented/irregular/illegal.
• that Zimbabweans are estimated to be the largest group of foreigners in South Africa
(Harris 2001; Muzondidya 2008; Polzer 2009).
• the active participation of certain government departments and local government
authorities in deciding who gets excluded from or included into the South African
community. This is supported by the reluctance to assist migrants by certain government
personnel (Harris 2001; Palmary 2002; Solidarity Peace Trust 2004; Human Rights Watch
(HRW) 2006; De Guchteneire, Pecoud and Cholewinski 2009; Vigneswaran, Araia, Hoag
and Tshabalala 2010).
• that migrants are exposed to potential human rights violations. They generally exist in
a ‘fragile situation’ and migration is associated with the violations of migrants’ physical
integrity and dignity (HRW 1998; HRW 2006; Betts and Kaytaz 2009; De Guchteneire,
Pecoud and Cholewinski 2009:3; Vigneswaran et al 2010).

This study is very important in that it is being carried out at a time when the South African
economy and society and indeed the global economy is going through a lot of challenges
(increase in unemployment, poverty, deindustrialisation, increase in the number of
undocumented foreign migrants, demand for skilled labour and the increasing participation of
South African leaders in Zimbabwean politics).

My main question is: how do Zimbabweans cope with social exclusion?

Literature reveals that most Zimbabweans think of themselves as temporary circular migrants
who come into South Africa for employment and income generating opportunities but they
end up staying for longer periods, sometimes permanently (McDonald, Mashike and Golden
1999; Dodson 2000; Posel 2003; Makina 2010; Matshaka 2010). Some Zimbabweans can be
regarded as trans-migrants who want to establish homes both in Zimbabwe and South Africa
as they spend their lives moving across the borders of these two countries though much of the
time is spent in South Africa (Maphosa 2010; 2011). There could also be another section of
Zimbabweans that wants to settle permanently in South Africa. If citizenship is defined in
terms of place of birth, then migrants are naturally considered outsiders, so the questions that

2
need to be asked are: How are they included? What resources are used by these outsiders to
be included or integrated? Do these resources remain the same over time? Do these resources
change by social class or by gender? As they stay in South Africa, do they have an
opportunity to lead dignified existences and participate fully both economically and socially
as members of the community? How do they navigate in a largely exclusionary environment?

1.2. Background of the study

Although South Africa gained democratic rule in 1994 its policy towards regional
international migrants changed little, above and beyond an offer of amnesty to migrants from
SADC countries. Foreigners, particularly from Mozambique, continued to participate in the
labour market via contract labour. There were no formal ways of including other foreigners in
the labour market such as Zimbabweans who were not part of contract labour. This was
despite the fact that the numbers of Zimbabweans were fast increasing especially after 2000.
There were assertions by the media that Zimbabweans were the largest cohort of migrants in
South Africa especially in the Limpopo and Gauteng Provinces (Danso and McDonald 2000).
The growing numbers and cases of abuse and discrimination (especially on South African
farms) of Zimbabweans necessitated the negotiations between the Zimbabwean and South
African governments leading to the Zimbabwe Documentation Project (ZDP) carried out by
the Department of Home Affairs in 2010.

The Department of Home Affairs (2010-2011) report highlighted that the main reason for the
regularization process (ZDP) which started in September 2010, was to avert the pressure
exerted on the asylum seeker management process. This was because most Zimbabwean
immigrants were applying for asylum in South Africa and the system could not cope with the
huge numbers. By the end of December 2010 the DHA had received 275 762 applications
from Zimbabweans who wished to regularise and legalise their stay in South Africa. These
mainly applied for the following types of permits: business, study and work permits. In this
process some Zimbabweans who already had asylum papers surrendered them in favour of
having any of the three aforementioned types of permits. By the end of January 2011, 42779
applications had been approved while about 22817 were awaiting assessment (DHA 2011).
The approved applications constitute 15,5% of the total applications. By the same time, (end

3
of January 2011) 49255 asylum permits were surrendered by Zimbabweans. The number of
the surrendered documents far exceeds those whose applications were approved. The
consequences of this discrepancy have created new problems of legality. These are discussed
in Chapter Eight.

1.2.1. An overview of the consequences of Zimbabwean migration to South Africa

The following subsections will discuss the main effects of the presence of Zimbabwean
foreigners in South Africa from both the standpoints of the locals and the migrants. From the
perspective of locals, the major consequences (which have largely been negative) relate to an
increase in the competition for jobs on the labour market and competition for public services
such as health, education and housing. From the migrants’ perspective the consequences of
migration are both positive and negative. The positive aspects have to do with the prospect of
leading a better life and being able to look after family members in Zimbabwe through
remittances. The negative effects concern the heightened visibility, surveillance,
discrimination, xenophobia and ill-treatment. All these negative consequences necessitate the
need to conceal one’s identity in order to avoid discrimination and social exclusion.

1.2.1.1. Competition for jobs, xenophobic attacks and ill-treatment of Zimbabweans

This thesis argues that in South Africa xenophobia is largely a rational response of the lower
social classes to the perceived threats posed by foreigners to the economic security of locals,
and a reaction to their fear of depletion of public benefits and services by foreigners. The
resultant stiff competition for jobs partly accounts for the high levels of xenophobia. The
public rhetoric of politicians and government officials also fuels xenophobic sentiments
because of their use of foreigners as scapegoats for difficulties faced in the economy. The
political discourse of these officials portrays foreigners as threats in all the spheres of society
(see section 2.6. for further discussion of this issue).

In general black migrants from other parts of Africa are negatively evaluated as the
makwerekwere who come to steal women, jobs and other economic opportunities from local

4
South Africans and on top of that congest hospitals by having many babies (Danso &
McDonald 2000; Harris 2001, Harris 2002; Zinyama 2002; Landau and Wa Kabwe-Segatti
2009; Neocosmos 2008; Matshaka 2010; Crush and Tawodzera 2011. Foreigners have been
targets of anger, violence and crime by local South Africans because they are perceived to be
too many, thus siphoning the resources and partly reversing the gains of democratic majority
rule (in terms of access to public services). This perception is actively and sometimes subtly
encouraged by South African politicians (such as Maggie Maunye and Mangosuthu
Buthelezi), the police and the media (Danso and McDonald 2000; Crush and Williams 2001;
Mawadza and Crush 2010; Hungwe 2012a). Thus local South Africans seemed to act with
impunity towards foreigners who are considered as a threat (Monson and Misago 2009).
Violence against foreigners in South Africa was documented as early as 1994. These
foreigners include Angolans, Congolese, Ugandans, Nigerians and Somalis (Morris 1998;
Crush 2000; Harris 2002; Palmary 2002; Tevera and Zinyama 2002; the Democracy and
Governance Programme Human Sciences Research Council (DGPHSRC 2008). In 2008
these xenophobic attitudes led to mass attacks and killings of foreigners resulting in 62 deaths
and the displacement of between 80 000 and 200 000 people (Landau and Wa Kabwe-Segatti
2009; Bloch 2010). It should however be noted that xenophobia is not peculiar to South
Africa. Most countries in the West that have become receiving countries also experience
xenophobia. Regionally Botswana has high levels of xenophobia against Zimbabweans
(Kiwanuka and Monson 2009). However, it is in South Africa where these xenophobic
sentiments have been acted upon leading to numerous deaths of foreigners in May 2008. In
2008 there were cases where during the xenophobic attacks, the police joined mobs looting
goods and harassing foreigners (Monson and Misago 2009).

As the numbers of Zimbabweans increased and the crisis in Zimbabwe deepened, so did the
adjectives describing Zimbabweans change from being just “illegal aliens” to “hordes”,
“infestations” “makwerekwere”, “floods” “Zim Tsunami” and “barbarians” (Mattes, Taylor,
McDonald, Poore and Richmond 1999, Solidarity Peace Trust 2004; Mawadza and Crush
2010, Scheen 2011). This made the situation of most Zimbabweans in South Africa desperate
as they became the target of scorn and blame for most economic hardships, particularly
unemployment of local South Africans. Up to now, Zimbabweans still face xenophobia on a
daily basis (Harris 2002; Dumba and Chirisa 2010; Crush and Tawodzera 2011).
Zimbabweans have had problems accessing accommodation, health and educational facilities.
Because most are desperate for money and need to save as much as possible in order to remit

5
meaningful amounts of money back home, Zimbabweans live in shacks or in areas that are
characterised by overcrowding, lack of clean water and lack of electricity (Dumba and
Chirisa 2010). The other reason for being confined in such areas is lack of documentation
leaving such areas as the only reasonable option for one to continue staying in South Africa
as these are easy to access.

Xenophobic attitudes abound in government officials such as the police, immigration

officers, health workers and education officials (Veary 2008; Crush, Williams and Nicholson
2009; Landau and Wa Kabwe-Segatti 2009; Lefko-Everett 2010; Crush and Tawodzera
2011). In hospitals such discrimination has been termed “medical xenophobia” by Crush and
Tawodzera (2011). This medical xenophobia is characterised by insults, non recognition of
foreign identity books, delays in treatment and sometimes outright denial of treatment. This
means that even when migrants have rights to certain services like basic health and education
it may be difficult to enjoy these rights as access is impeded by service providers.

In the labour market South African employers have also capitalised on the precarious
existence of the Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa by either offering them unattractive
salaries or in some cases not paying them at all (and giving them food instead), thus
exploiting them fully (HRW 1998; HRW 2006; Bloch 2008). In some cases employers (such
as farmers) hand the 'undocumented workers’ over to the police for deportation without
paying them (Bloch 2008; HRW 2006; Dumba and Chirisa 2010; Rutherford 2010). Beyond
the farms, Zimbabweans increase competition for jobs in an economy that already suffers
high unemployment rates of between twenty five (25%) and forty percent (40%), (Kingdon
and Knight 2006; Mosala 2008; Statistics South Africa 2010; South Africa, Department of
Labour 2011).

The xenophobic and exaggerated media reportage of the numbers of illegal (undocumented)
Zimbabweans in South Africa is largely unscientific and unfounded. It is a result of
sensationalisation on the part of the media (Danso and McDonald 2000; Crush and Williams
2001). There have been rumours of undocumented Zimbabweans in South Africa being
between 1,5 or 3 million. These figures are nothing but sheer figments of imaginations of
individuals such as journalists, politicians and police officers who have their own selfish
agendas to pursue, at the same time justifying their existence and roles. Included in this
category are Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) who continue using such estimates
(for example the Solidarity Peace Trust and PASSOP June 2012 report which asserted that

6
there are 1,4 million Zimbabwean refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa).These much
exaggerated estimates had been refuted by the DHA (2011). In his media release on the 6th of
January 2011, the Director General Mkuseli Apleni stated that:

“Colleagues we are on record as saying that this number of 1,5-2 million illegal
Zimbabwean nationals in South Africa is not our number. We have been saying
throughout this process, that we do not know where this number comes from. It is not
a scientific number. We do not know how this figure is arrived at because illegal
Zimbabweans have not been entering the country through official ports of entry. So
when people talked of this number we challenged them asking for proof. We have
until today not received this documented proof from any quarter”.

The current exact numbers of Zimbabweans (both legal and illegal) in South Africa are
unknown and may remain so for the foreseeable future. However, the attempt to document
Zimbabweans through the ZDP is the first major effort to systematically know and trace
Zimbabweans in South Africa. Apart from this exercise, there have been no attempts by the
South African government to integrate Zimbabweans into the South African society. The
DHA has continued with its policy of deportation of illegal/ undocumented migrants while at
the same time considering asylum applications. However, the department faces challenges in
implementing these. What is clear is that the DHA faces major challenges of inadequate
infrastructure for detecting, arresting and deporting undocumented migrants (Motsitsi, DHA
Limpopo Province 2012). This creates lacunae for all sorts of negotiations between the
undocumented migrants and the police and immigration officers, who must, to some extent,
use their ingenuity to implement immigration laws. Thus, the bulk of these
illegal/undocumented migrants do not get deported but continue staying in the country
through bribing government officials. Some scholars have argued that the situation
encourages corruption among these bureaucrats, thus eventually weakening the power of the
South African state in policing migration (Vigneswaran et al 2010; Vigneswaran 2012).

1.2.1.2. Remittances from Zimbabweans in South Africa

While remittances have the potential to uplift the living standards and quality of life of those
that receive them (Taylor 1999; Kothari 2002; Davis 2007), in Zimbabwe these remittances

7
have mainly been accessed via informal channels (Pendleton et al 2006; Chikanda 2011;
Makina 2010; World Bank 2011; Makina 2012). Informal channels are facilitated by a high
level of trust that exists between migrants and the conveyers of these remittances such as taxi
and bus drivers. The other reasons for the use of informal channels include lack of bank
accounts and adequate formal channels, high transaction costs and fear of apprehension and
deportation by undocumented migrants (Adepoju 2006: 43). In his 2007 study of
Zimbabwean migrants in Johannesburg, Makina (2010) discovered that 60% of respondents
had no bank accounts.

However, the use of informal channels could slowly be changing because of increased access
to formal money transfer facilities such as Western Union and mukuru.com (a private
company which operates in Botswana and South Africa and sends money to recipients’ bank
accounts on behalf of remitters). A study of Zimbabwean migrants in Botswana by
Mutsindikwa (2012) revealed a preference for formal money transfer facilities rather than
informal methods of remittance.

It must be noted that the use of informal channels has the following problems: it limits the
amount of remittances, it does not benefit both the sending and receiving governments and it
exposes migrants to risks of muggings by criminals who know that foreigners keep their
money at home. Landau and Wa Kabwe-Segatti (2009) reiterate that foreigners are ‘seen as
moving Automated Teller Machines [ATM]’ because they usually carry money on their
bodies. It also increases their chances of harassment and requests for bribes by the police,
thus threatening their security (HRW 2006). In line with international requirements for
fighting money laundering and terrorism, the banking system in South Africa does not allow
undocumented migrants to remit money through banks, as it requires a bank account, valid
passport and work permit (Ncube and Hougaard 2010). While these requirements are rational,
they nonetheless lead to the exclusion of undocumented migrants. Exclusion from opening a
bank account not only affects remittances but also opportunities to borrow and other life
chances that come with having a bank account.

1.3. Problem statement and study objectives

The research analyses the coping mechanisms of Zimbabweans in the South African labour
market and society and the extent of their social exclusion and inclusion. It investigates the

8
possibility that the majority of Zimbabwean migrants are caught in a vicious cycle of poverty
and exclusion in South Africa such that some may not be able to remit meaningful earnings to
their families back in Zimbabwe (Mosala 2008; Worby 2010). Thus, their situation does not
benefit their country of origin while at the same time they lead disadvantageous lifestyles in
South Africa. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss these issues showing how most migrants earn meagre
wages resulting in small amounts of money being remitted. Migration may not necessarily
make the migrants better off as individuals may find themselves faced with difficult
circumstances in a strange area (Kothari 2002; McGregor 2010; Worby 2010). Migrants may
find themselves in lower level jobs that do not match their qualifications and thus pay less
(Ellis 2008; Mosala 2008; IOM 2009; Gordon 2010; Makina 2010 McGregor 2010).
Eventually such jobs lead to loss of skills and ‘brain waste’ as a result of underutilisation of
skills (Castles and Miller 2009). Family breakdowns, divorce, increase in HIV/AIDS
statistics are just some of the effects of the migration of Zimbabweans to South Africa. Some
migrants are involved in harmful anti-social behaviours such as prostitution, heavy drinking,
crime and corruption due to frustration and discrimination (Muzondidya 2008; Landau and
Wa Kabwe-Segatti 2009; Gordon 2010; Worby 2010). Such behaviours are detrimental to
their health and the South African community in general as they become difficult to
eradicate. Studies already reveal how legality is being negotiated between desperate migrants
and corrupt government officials (Vigneswaran et al 2010; Lefko-Everett 2010). Such
behaviours weaken the legal system of the country creating loopholes in the bureaucratic
system of the government. These ‘negotiations’ may also expose migrants to exploitation,
rape and harassment.

In terms of gender, studies have revealed that women may be more excluded than men due to
the unfavourable terms of inclusion in the labour market, such as working in export
processing zones where they are trapped in marginalised and insecure lowly paid jobs, (Carr
and Chen 2004:132). Among the domestic workers in South Africa, Perberdy and Dinat
(2005) discovered that migrant domestic workers lived isolated solitary lives because of the
nature of their jobs which required that they live at the residence of their employer while
separated from their friends and family. These observations should, however, not relegate to
obscurity the professional female migrants who also face social exclusion to the extent that
they end up performing menial jobs due to difficulties in registration in their appropriate
professions, for example, Zimbabwean nurses in South Africa (IOM 2009). However,
McGregor (2010) revealed that regardless of gender, Zimbabwean migrants in the United

9
Kingdom, particularly those in care work, were trapped in low status shameful jobs. It is
therefore prudent to understand how Zimbabwean men and women are faring in South
Africa, especially considering that women may face further problems of exclusion
specifically because of the existence of certain gender norms. The combination of gender
inequality, race and being foreign can create multiple disadvantages for women (Kabeer [sa]).

In 2006 Adepoju established that 60% of Zimbabwean doctors had moved to Botswana and
South Africa. According to Polzer, Kiwanuka and Takabvirwa (2010) twenty two (22)
percent of Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa are skilled graduates. This statistic
corroborates Makina (2010) whose 2007 study revealed that 22% of Zimbabwean migrants
had a university or postgraduate degree. Therefore, Zimbabwe is experiencing a brain drain.
This is a negative development in the sense that South African employers recruit the brightest
and the best of the Zimbabwean population, thus draining Zimbabwe of its most enthusiastic
and able citizens. The scarce and expensive human resources of Zimbabwe are transferred to
South Africa which benefits from their abilities. The sending country bears the costs of
raising and educating the emigrants in their unproductive years with limited benefits from its
investment and the skills that those persons could contribute to the country. However,
Zimbabwean migrants tend to be a mixture of the educated and skilled and the uneducated
and unskilled. An analysis of how these different groups fare is necessary to understanding
the dynamics of social exclusion and inclusion in the South African labour market.

Because of processes of exclusion from the formal labour market, some human resources
may not be fully utilised, to the detriment of both the sending and receiving countries. The
South African government may not be benefiting from the investments of migrants since they
may have little or no access to banking facilities and limited employment opportunities.
Demands for SAQA certified documents (which can take up to four months to process and
require a fee of R500) can limit chances of employment and further education. Zimbabweans
may also face limited access to health care facilities thus leading to poor health (Landau and
Wa Kabwe-Segatti 2009; Crush and Tawodzera 2011).

Studies on migrant networks have highlighted tensions, frustrations and inability to help
kinfolk by members of these networks. In some cases, tensions have been so severe leading
to the severing of ties between newcomers and old established migrants (Menjivar 1995;
Worby 2010). In other cases, rather than helping members settle in a new country migrant
networks have worked differently by redirecting aspiring migrants elsewhere, providing them

10
with the necessary information (Collyer 2005; Korinek, Entwisle and Jampaklay 2005). The
change in the functions of migrant networks is facilitated by the “structure of opportunity” in
the receiving country (Menjivar 1995; Kloosterman and Rath 2001; Nauck 2001; Van
Nieuwenhuyze 2009). I define the structure of opportunity as conditions in the receiving
country enabling or disabling migrants from helping themselves and their co-ethnic members.
Such a study is particularly relevant in South Africa especially considering the widely
acknowledged high level of xenophobia. There is a need to understand the “structure of
opportunity” created in such an environment.

Therefore, in light of the foregoing discussion, the major question that this research seeks to
answer is: What are the coping mechanisms used by Zimbabwean migrants to be included in
the labour market in South Africa?

1.3.1. Specific objectives

1. to identify the various groups or categories of Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa-

those with network support, those without contacts, those unable to find jobs and thus need
help , those with stable jobs, those accessing social security funds etc. The research will trace
how, when and why they came to South Africa, especially to Johannesburg.

2. to explore the extent to which Zimbabweans are excluded from some types of jobs
(and associated rights which depend upon a person's employment status) and confined to
others. The research will identify the factors that determine inclusion/ exclusion of
Zimbabweans from the labour market from their own perspective.

3. to examine the economic, cultural and social processes and mechanisms of inclusion
of certain sections of Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa. The research aims to reveal the
institutions and actors identified by Zimbabweans as mostly responsible for their
inclusion/exclusion in and from the labour market and South African community.

11
4. to establish the effects of exclusion from the labour market exploring the alternative
ways of living available to Zimbabwean migrants. The research will reveal how
Zimbabweans respond to exclusion from the labour market. It establishes the role of social
networks in facilitating participation in the social and economic sphere.

5. to examine the gender dimensions of all these forms of inclusion and exclusion of
Zimbabwean migrants. The research also establishes how gender affects participation in
social networks as a mechanism for dealing with social exclusion.

1.4. Rationale of the study

This study is justified in various ways; first conceptually, by its attempt to give a theoretically
based explanation of Zimbabwean migration to South Africa and its effects on the
Zimbabweans’ inclusion into and exclusion from the South African labour market.
Notwithstanding the various leading scholars’ arguments on Zimbabwean migration (such as
Block; Crush; Landau; Maphosa; Makina; Polzer; Rutherford; Tevera; Zinyama), these
arguments have not been strongly supported by theory. While they present anecdotes of
Zimbabwean migrants’ experiences in South Africa, these are not interpreted and discussed
within a clear theoretical framework. Therefore, while there is now a plethora of publications
on Zimbabwean migration, this development has not been backed by a strong theoretical
explanation. This research intends to close that gap by discussing Zimbabwean experiences
within the context of the concepts of social exclusion and social capital. This study also goes
beyond mere narration of the horrors most Zimbabweans suffer in South Africa but explores
how they invent ways of coping with the largely exclusionary South African environment.
This research is mainly concerned with how migrants fare within the receiving country, thus
the interest in social exclusion and the functions of social capital in surviving this exclusion.
This interest in the condition of migrants in their destination country is necessitated by the
shift in the academic focus towards issues of migrant rights, integration, assimilation, social
exclusion and transnational communities. Therefore, the question to ask is no longer about
why people migrate, but how they settle in their destination countries. Considering the
attention being given to individual rights, migration studies have shifted to include the effects
of legality or illegality of migrants in their host countries.

12
Secondly, this study is justified by its attempt to reveal how institutions and actors such as
government departments and employers engage in processes and practices that exclude
foreigners from participating fully in the South African labour market. The study reveals the
effects of exclusion from the formal labour market. It also shows how exclusion in one area
may lead to exclusion in another area, thus exposing migrants to multiple deprivations and
closing off avenues for leading a better existence. It explains how Zimbabwean migrants
respond to these processes of exclusion showing their agency in dealing with constraining
forces. It also highlights the extent, processes and terms of inclusion, of Zimbabwean
migrants into the South African labour market showing the characteristics of those that are
included in and excluded from participating. The study reveals the alternative and informal
ways of survival of Zimbabweans who are excluded from participating in the formal labour
market.

Thirdly, the xenophobic attacks on Zimbabwean and other foreign nationals in May 2008 by
South Africans reveal that there is discontent among South African nationals on the inclusion
of these foreigners in the nation and in the labour market. These attacks might be more than
just social ills but could reflect on the structural economic factors of the country. The foreign
nationals increase competition for jobs and reduce the chances of some South African
nationals getting jobs (Mosala 2008). According to Mosala (2008) this is especially true for
most Zimbabweans whose fluency in English is an added advantage in the labour market.
There are fears that this eventually compromises the bargaining power of South African trade
unions, which must contend with Zimbabwean migrants who can settle for lower salaries and
wages. The reaction of South African locals must also be analysed in light of the increasing
levels of unemployment, poverty, demand for skilled labour and the drive towards flexibility
and casualisation of labour in the South African labour market. It must also be analysed from
the point of who benefits from immigrant labour. While capitalist employers stand to benefit,
poor, low skilled and unskilled workers stand to lose from increased immigration. These
strongly resist Zimbabwean migration and express their resistance through xenophobia.

The fourth justification is that so much still needs to be known and discovered concerning
Zimbabwean migrants. Polzer’s (2008) study revealed that Zimbabweans experience
discrimination and exclusion from public services to which they have a moral right. While in

13
a strict legal sense, undocumented migrants have no legal rights to public services, which are
restricted to citizens; morally and pragmatically they have such rights (if one considers
international human rights conventions and declarations by the United Nations and the
International Labour Organisation and also, if one considers the fact that these migrants are
mostly young, healthy and employed, which means that they would not really be a drain on
these public services). On the other hand documented migrants have legal rights to these
public services. This line of argument on moral, pragmatic and legal grounds is further
expanded in the subsection 2.2 (which deals with the international legal framework for the
protection of migrants) and in Chapter Three (where I justify using the concept of social
exclusion in this research).

Polzer’s study also revealed that some Zimbabweans were better able to deal with exclusion
than others because of their level of networking. However, Polzer (2008: 19) recommended
further research to understand whether “some ethnic or regional groups have stronger
networks than others and whether such networks lead to greater dispersion or concentration
of new arrivals in the parts of the country”. This research, therefore, addresses this aspect in
detail, showing the extent to which networks assist migrants deal with social exclusion. It
also uncovers the perceived (by Zimbabwean migrants) role of individual South African
citizens in the exclusion and inclusion of Zimbabwean migrants, through their participation in
transporting, accommodating, protecting, identifying, going to church with and working with
Zimbabweans. This research analyses the veracity of Polzer’s (2008: 19) claim that
Zimbabweans could themselves be participating in their own exclusion through their “general
transfer of conflict and distrust”, especially between the Shona and Ndebele. This analysis is
done through exposing sources of exclusion within the Zimbabwean ethnic networks
themselves, revealing how they unwittingly lead to exclusion of their members through
encapsulation.

The change of official policy towards relaxation of South African laws on illegal
Zimbabwean immigrants resulted in 275 762 Zimbabweans seeking proper documentation in
order to live and work legally in South Africa. Such a move has both social and economic
effects which need to be studied. This is against the background that recent migration studies
reveal (Massey 2003; Levitt 2006; Maphosa 2010) how migrants who originally intended to
migrate for shorter periods end up staying for longer. These same individuals want to identify
with both their home and destination countries as transmigrants. This means that

14
Zimbabwean migrants could be in South Africa for the long haul. Therefore, a study on how
they are integrated or excluded is pertinent.

1.5. Thesis overview

The thesis is divided into nine (9) chapters. The first chapter is the introduction which sets the
background, outlining the rationale and objectives of the study. Chapter Two is the literature
review that serves to give an overview of the historical development of Zimbabwean
migration over a hundred years from the colonial era to date. The chapter also gives an
understanding of migration, firstly globally and secondly, regionally with specific emphasis
on how citizens of southern African countries have always been drawn towards South Africa.

Chapter Three provides a conceptual framework of the study, showing how the concepts of
social exclusion and social capital are employed to understand the situation of Zimbabweans
in South Africa. An in-depth analysis and history of the two concepts is given as well as their
critiques. In the same chapter, I propose that the social exclusion of Zimbabweans can only
be understood by taking a cosmopolitan approach, acknowledging that Zimbabweans are
global citizens in South Africa. While the concept of social exclusion (in European studies)
mainly referred to certain groups of nationals, the concept can be extended to analyse the
situation of non-nationals (migrants) whose mobility has been necessitated and facilitated by
processes of globalisation. At the end of Chapter Three, I propose a framework for studying
Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa within the context of social exclusion and social
capital. This proposed framework contains ten (10) propositions which are used to analyse
the lives of Zimbabwean migrants. The framework is applied to the empirical material in
Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight.

The research methodology is contained in Chapter Four. The research follows a qualitative
approach on the basis that qualitative research enables the researcher to construct meanings
and interpret the behaviours of Zimbabwean migrants in Tembisa and Kempton Park. The
research adopts an inductive form of reasoning. The main aim of the research is to present a
thick description and in - depth understanding of the migrants’ lives. From this perspective,

15
the truth can be known only by immersing oneself for a longer period in the culture of the
participants under study.

Chapter Five outlines and interprets migrants’ demographic profiles, analysing their
trajectories and how they settle. It articulates and gives a description of who the Zimbabwean
migrants are in Tembisa and Kempton Park. It shows why they came, their current living
arrangements, how they fare and what they think about their present and future in South
Africa.

Chapter Six discusses their participation in the labour market and the typical sectors that
employ Zimbabweans. Chapter Seven identifies the various coping mechanisms employed by
migrants to gain social acceptance and ensure survival.

The main agents of social exclusion identified by migrants are discussed in Chapter Eight.
The chapter also analyses the major forms of social capital and how these either ease or
worsen social exclusion. The chapter highlights how migrant ties are being severed and
explains migrants’ engagement in deviant behaviour as rooted in the social exclusion they
suffer.

The conclusion and recommendations are offered in Chapter Nine which also shows how the
study contributes to the broader literature on social exclusion. It also buttresses the need for
closer cooperation between Zimbabwe and South Africa and advocates for a change in the
attitudes of local South Africans. Further research is needed to understand the functioning of
transport networks of malayitsha and how these facilitate undocumented migration.

1.6. Chapter summary

This chapter sets the roadmap by outlining the research questions, objectives and the
justification of the study. The chapter lays the necessary background for the study outlining
the research methodology and stating clearly why the situation of Zimbabweans in South
Africa needs to be studied. It details how the thesis is structured in the chapters to follow.
Studying social exclusion is necessary given the xenophobic and discriminatory attitudes that
local South Africans have towards foreigners vis-a-vis the potential desire by Zimbabweans
to stay for longer periods in South Africa and also the reality of globalisation processes (that
South Africa has no control over) which encourage migration.

16
CHAPTER TWO: UNDERSTANDING MIGRATION REGIONALLY AND
GLOBALLY

2.1. Introduction

This chapter discusses how regional (SADC) migration has been unfolding and moving
towards South Africa since the late 1880s, lured by the mining and farming employment
prospects. It traces the migration of Zimbabweans to South Africa over the past 100 years.
The discussion also focuses on the policy response of both the South African and
Zimbabwean governments to this migration leading up to the regularisation process that took
place in 2010 and whose consequences some migrants are still dealing with. The chapter also
traces the development of the migration state, appreciating the global complexities and
contradictions surrounding migration management and migration policy formulation. There
are varying contestations and interested parties when it comes to dealing with migrants.
Populations of host countries generally prefer stricter and tighter controls while transnational
communities would require that the rights of migrants be observed. The capitalist employers
stand to benefit from the cheaper labour offered by migrants.

In this chapter, South Africa is regarded as a migration state that struggles to reconcile the
interests of the local citizens, capitalists and the migrants. The challenges of globalisation,
(including international laws governing migrants and de-industrialisation) are also discussed.
The chapter highlights that there was an increase in regional migrants which was facilitated
by the policies of the post apartheid government. This increase made the situation of poor
unskilled South African more vulnerable because they were already going through economic
changes again brought in by the new government. Locals therefore responded negatively to
increasing numbers of migrants most of whom were Zimbabweans fleeing an economic crisis
in their country. This lays a background for understanding social exclusion as an outcome of
competition for scarce resources.

17
2.2. A historical perspective of Southern African migration to South Africa
since the early 1900s

This section outlines the growth of migration in South Africa and the southern African region
starting from the early 1900s. It is argued that at the height of the mineral production in South
Africa in the early 1900s, migrants came as far afield as central Africa encompassing
countries such as Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malawi and Zimbabwe.
Migration is an everyday experience in southern Africa such that Crush, Williams and
Peberdy (2005) have described southern Africa as a region on the move. Of particular note is
the fact that over time African migration has shifted to incorporate women, children, the
young and the old, the educated and uneducated. While the migration of women was largely
ignored by literature, there is now a growing realisation of the unbalanced nature of migration
studies which mainly concentrated on male labour migrants. Recent studies have been
incorporating and focusing on women migrants not as partners of their male counterparts but
as migrants in their own right.

2.2.1. Regional migration to South African farms and mines in the early 1900s

2.2.1.1. Introduction

African migration in southern Africa during the colonial era was mainly facilitated by the
need to satisfy colonial obligations such as taxation and also the need to acquire new goods
introduced by the colonial regime. In many ways, African migration was largely shaped by
colonial forms of control and practices (Castles and Miller 2009). Mafukidze (2006) also
notes that after colonisation there were intra country and international migration in southern
Africa. Intra-country or internal migration was as a result of various laws passed by the
colonial state which saw the movements of people either from areas designated for
‘development’ or the movement of people into ‘reserves’ or Tribal Trust Lands’ in the case of
Zimbabwe and Bantustans in the case of South Africa. International migration was not only a

18
response to the labour demands of the colonial states but also a result of wars (liberation
struggles and civil wars) especially in the 1970s and 1980s. This was especially true for
Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa.

Migration in the early 1900s tended to be male dominated and circulatory. During the
colonial era the capitalist production that developed required labour in huge amounts such
that the local labour provided by South Africans was inadequate. White mine owners and
farm owners first experimented with a host of methods for getting extra migrant labour.
Feinstein (2005) argues that whites first used slavery to obtain labour in 1658. When slavery
was abolished in 1834 they turned to indentured labour of the Khoikhoi women and children
captured through special raids. Some children were said to have been traded for food, land
and other goods by the Khoikhoi. These children were known as the inboekselinge (Feinstein
2005: 54). With the development of the sugar industry in the late 1800s there was use of
indentured labour of Indians who worked on 5 year contracts. Chinese labour was also
brought into the Witwatersrand in 1904 and in 1906 there were about 50 000 Chinese
working in the mines. Indentured labour mainly returned to their country of origin at the end
of their contracts, though a few (Indian) remained in South Africa as ‘free labour’ (Feinstein
2005:55). However, the increasing demand for labour in the mines and farms led to the use of
prison labour, pass laws and taxation as strategies to expropriate labour from Africans. A hut
tax of 7 shillings was introduced in Natal in 1849 while 10 shillings were charged for the
same tax in the Cape (Feinstein 2005).

Feinstein further elaborates that Africans were induced and encouraged to develop new wants
such as European goods, clothes, liquor, guns and ploughs. He states that Africans were
“steadily drawn into a cash nexus, their self contained subsistence economy was broken down
and their traditional crafts...were destroyed. When they wanted cash to satisfy these newly
inculcated needs they had little alternative but to enter the market to sell their labour”
(Feinstein 2005:59). The needs of the growing mining industry could not be satisfied by local
labour that came haphazardly. There was need to find an organised way of satisfying labour
demands.

That led to the formation of a Native Labour Department in 1893 in-order to access labour
from Mozambique. This subsequently led to the setting up of the Rand Native Labour
Association in 1896 (Prothero 1974). This association was succeeded by the Witwatersrand

19
Native Labour Association (WNLA) in 1900. According to Prothero (1974) WNLA was
originally planned to recruit for all industries though it subsequently limited its activities to
the gold mines.

2.2.2.1. The activities of WNLA

The discovery of gold led to labour demands that could not be met internally, thus labour had
to be imported. The use of Chinese and Indian indentured labour did not do much to ease
these labour demands. In 1893 the Native labour department was set up to recruit labour both
in Transvaal and Mozambique (Prothero 1974). In 1896 the Rand Native Labour Association
was set up to organise the supply of labour and curb competition between individual
employers. This organisation was later succeeded by the Witwatersrand Native Labour
Association (WNLA). The legal mandate of WNLA was to recruit labourers from
Mozambique on the basis of bilateral agreements made with Portuguese authorities in 1901,
1904, 1909 and 1913. In 1928 a new labour agreement called the Mozambique Convention
was signed permitting an increase in the number of labourers that were recruited ranging
from 85000 to 100000 per year (ibid 1974:385). Bilateral agreements were negotiated with
neighbouring countries such as Lesotho, Mozambique, Angola, Botswana, Namibia and
Swaziland in order to provide labour.

In the 1930s WNLA recruited labour from Angola, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia,
Botswana, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Lesotho and Namibia. Thus central Africa witnessed a
great move down south in search of better economic opportunities. This was facilitated by a
variety of bilateral agreements and conventions with the above mentioned countries. In
Zimbabwe (then Southern Rhodesia) WNLA had an agreement with the Rhodesia Native
Labour Bureau (RNLB) in 1901 where the terms were such that WNLA would not recruit in
Rhodesia, Ngamiland or Zambezia in return for exclusive recruiting rights in Portuguese East
Africa and also supplying 12 ½ percent of the workers recruited there to Rhodesia (Van
Onselen 1980:85). This agreement never materialised in reality because South Africa did not
send any worker to Rhodesia as it claimed that migrants were not interested in working for
lower wages. In 1936 the Johannesburg Agreement was signed by Southern Rhodesia,

20
Nyasaland, and Northern Rhodesia with the aim of securing South Africa’s co-operation in
controlling clandestine migration from north of the Limpopo. It allowed recruitment of labour
by WNLA in Nyasaland and Barotseland on an experimental basis until it was established to
the satisfaction of the three governments that there was no objection on health grounds to the
continued employment of Africans from north of 22 degrees latitude on the rand (Mutisi
[sa]).

WNLA contracts usually ranged from 12-24 months whereupon the labourer was repatriated
although he could return under a new contract as many times as possible (Prothero 1974).
Labour was mainly transported by rail through the South African Railways, where WNLA
paid the rail tickets for migrants in advance (Ellsworth 1985). The labour supply from
Mozambique became the largest such that by 1952 30% of the migrant labour-force was from
Mozambique (Prothero 1974).

The table below shows the regional impact of South Africa in the 1970s as it employed
foreigners from Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. Analysis of this table reflects how Lesotho and Mozambique were the biggest
labour suppliers between 1975 and 1986. These labourers mainly worked in gold mines. This
was a result of the labour agreements made between South Africa and these countries. The
table also shows how Zimbabwean migration increased during the civil war of Gukurahundi
from 1982.

21
TABLE 1: FOREIGN BLACK WORKERS LEGALLY EMPLOYED IN SOUTH
AFRICA

Country of 1975 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

origin

Angola 623 804 69 120 68 48 44 22

Botswana 3016 29528 29169 26262 25963 26439 27814 28244

Lesotho 152188 136395 150422 140719 145791 136443 139827 138193

Malawi 39308 31772 30602 27558 29612 29268 30144 31411

Mozambique 150738 60490 59391 59323 61218 60407 68665 73186

Swaziland 16390 11981 13418 13659 16773 16823 22255 21914

Zambia 914 914 727 787 743 1274 833 2421

Zimbabwe 8897 20540 16965 11332 7742 7492 7428 7304

Other 8512 3102 995 2512 71105 71072 73998 75430

Total 414586 295026 301758 282272 358012 351260 271008 378125

Source: Leistner and Esterhuysen (cited in Mlambo 2010: 69).

During the late 1980s, however, there was a decline in the number of legal foreign workers as
they were laid off from the mines. This marked a rise in undocumented or clandestine
migration as regional workers still sought a better life in South African mines.

2.2.3. Zimbabwean migration between the 1880s and 1980

In the 1800s Zimbabwe was both a sending and receiving country of migration. However, it
was largely a receiving country (Mlambo 2010). It mainly received migrants displaced by the
Mfecane wars from Nguniland in the 1820s and 1830s. These streams of migration led to the
establishment of the Ndebele kingdom in South-western Zimbabwe and the Gaza kingdom in

22
present day Mozambique. They displaced and incorporated defeated local groups in the
process of their settlement such that the Ndebele state included the local Rozvi groups while
the Gaza state also included sections of the Manyika and Ndau people in Zimbabwe. So when
Europeans came and established borders they divided ethnic groups and communities
creating artificial boundaries.

In the 1880s Zimbabwe also received migrants in the form of European explorers,
missionaries and traders, eventually leading to the colonisation of the country in 1890. Thus,
migration between the late 1880s and early 1900s was largely a result of this colonisation,
while black migration into Zimbabwe was also partly a response to the establishment of these
colonies and partly a continuation of normal routines. Zimbabwe received migrants from
South Africa (white), Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi. However, Zimbabweans also
migrated; first internally to work on white farms and mines and later, they moved to South
Africa in search of better economic opportunities. This early migration, especially into the
mines, was largely male.

Zimbabweans started off generally reluctant to work on colonial farms and mines, such that
these had to rely on foreign African labour. However, when Zimbabweans eventually
engaged with the colonial farms and mines they were so put off by the deplorable conditions
of labour that they terminated their contracts early. Locals also preferred seasonal
engagement rather than long term engagement. While both Southern Rhodesia and South
Africa had mines and farms, workers preferred South African mines because of higher wages
and better working conditions (Van Onselen 1978). Prospectors from the British South Africa
Company (BSAC) and other European countries came to Southern Rhodesia in search of the
‘second rand’. The hope for a second rand was not fulfilled as it was discovered that there
were smaller mineral deposits dotted around the country. The Rhodesian mining activities
took place on a smaller scale. Van Onselen (1978: 3) highlights that “the average output of a
large Rhodesian mine was only one tenth of that of a Witwatersrand mine”. The Rhodesian
mines were also noted to generally offer lower wages, poor food rations and poor living and
working conditions. Most of the deaths on Rhodesian mines were caused by diseases such as
scurvy and pneumonia. Van Onselen (1980:51) comments that in the early 1900s “the
greatest killers of all Rhodesian mines were diseases which could be directly attributed to the
inadequate diet and poor standards of accommodation for workers”. These were some of the
reasons why workers moved from Rhodesian mines to South Africans mines.

23
The workers that migrated down south were not only from Southern Rhodesia but also from
Zambia (Northern Rhodesia), Malawi (Nyasaland) and Mozambique who had worked in
Rhodesian mines. Some of these workers came through recruitment by the Rhodesian Native
Labour Bureau (RNLB) while others voluntarily came to Rhodesia in order to fulfil economic
and social obligations of their communities. These workers deserted Rhodesian farms and
mines, migrating to South Africa where there were better wages. Foreign miners also
deserted Rhodesian mines as an expression of their hatred of chibaro or forced labour which
was characterised by long contracts for the poorest wages and conditions of labour.
Commenting on the motivation for migration from Rhodesia to South Africa Van Onselen
(1978:11) elaborates that:

“....the objective of the migrant worker was to get as far south as possible. His ability
to sell labour in the highest market was directly proportional to the amount of savings
(in the form of food and cash) which he could muster at the outset of the journey. The
more money and food he commanded the further south he could travel. The further
south, the larger the wage packet he was likely to receive”.

In the 1930s and 40s Zimbabwean out-migration was minimal as in-migration continued to
dominate. There was an increase in white migration and an encouragement of female
migration in order to fully establish the colony. The 1960s witnessed out-migration which
was in response to the liberation struggle that started in 1966. This migration was largely
white. This continued up to the early 1980s. The table below depicts these trends.

24
TABLE 2: SEX RATIO OF WHITE POPULATION IN SOUTHERN RHODESIA IN
THE EARLY 1900S

Year Sex ratio (male: female)

1901 2,78

1904 2,46

1911 1,94

1921 1,30

1926 1,26

1931 1,20

1936 1,16

1941 1,13

1946 1,16

1951 1,11

1956 1,07

Source: Rogers and Frantz (cited in Mlambo 2010: 59).

2.3. Regional migration to South Africa from the late 1990s to the present

The 1990s saw the post apartheid South African government signing bilateral agreements
with some neighbouring countries and also signing the SADC draft protocol on the
facilitation of movement of persons within the region. As a result, South Africa mainly
received migrants from Mozambique, Malawi, Lesotho and Zimbabwe. Some migrants
tended to be undocumented while others were asylum and refuge seekers from countries

25
within and outside the SADC region. By 1999 there were black migrants from up to 28
countries (McDonald et al 1999).

In the 1990s migrants continued to move to South Africa because of economic hardships
caused by structural adjustment programmes implemented during this period. At the same
time the South African gold mining industry was shrinking and laying off migrant workers
(Crush and Williams 2010). Therefore, while ‘legal’ employees were being laid off, there was
a rise in ‘illegal undocumented’ migrants entering South Africa. During the same period the
post apartheid government announced three major amnesties to foreigners:

(i) The miners’ amnesty announced in 1995. This allowed for migrant miners who had been
working on contract in South Africa since 1986 to apply for permanent residency.

(ii) Amnesty for SADC nationals. This was announced in July 1996 and was meant to benefit
SADC citizens who had stayed in South Africa for five years or more with the conditions that
they were involved in some economic activity, had no criminal record, had married a South
African spouse or had dependents born or residing in South Africa legally (Crush and
Williams 2001).

(iii) Amnesty offered to Mozambican refugees who wished to stay in South Africa
permanently. This took place between December 1999 and February 2000 and benefitted up
to 200 000 Mozambicans (Crush and Williams 2001).

After 2000, the Immigration Act of 2002 (as amended in 2004) encouraged the migration of
skilled and semi skilled workers to South Africa under the provisions of the corporate permit,
quota work permit and the general work permits. South Africa and Lesotho signed a bilateral
agreement (2004) that would facilitate cross border movement of migrants from Lesotho
(Crush and Williams 2010).

That same period also saw a rise in female cross border migration and studies began to note a
growing feminisation of migration (Adepoju 2006; Pendleton, Crush, Campbell, Green,
Simelane, Tevera and De Vletter 2006; Crush and Williams 2010). These women tended to
participate in the informal sector and stayed for shorter periods as compared to men who
stayed longer and mostly participated in the mining industry. The rise in immigrants to South
Africa was also as a result of the end of the apartheid era in 1994.

26
2.3.1. The causes and trends of Zimbabwean migration to South Africa between 1980 and
2009

Zimbabwean migration between 1980 and 2009 was caused by a combination of socio-
political and economic factors ranging from the Gukurahundi, to harsh economic reforms,
Operation Murambatsvina, the growing political intolerance and eventually the economic
crisis. The early 1980s saw a rise in black migration especially from Matabeleland due to the
purging by the Fifth Brigade. This purging of the Ndebele is called Gukurahundi and was
meant to consolidate Mugabe’s claim to power and silence all dissenting voices especially by
destroying the ZIPRA forces which were led by Joshua Nkomo. Unfortunately, the purging
took its toll on local non-military people who bore the brunt of these gruesome attacks. This
consequently resulted in massive killings in the Matabeleland and Midlands provinces thus
setting off migration streams to South Africa and other countries. Joshua Nkomo himself fled
to Britain and later came back to sign the Unity accord of 1987 which brought an end to these
killings (Nkomo 2001; Stiff 2002). After 1990 migrants came from all parts of Zimbabwe
pushed by the growing political intolerance and the economic crisis. These migrants were a
combination of skilled and unskilled workers.

2.3.1.1. Migration of Zimbabwean skilled professionals

The causes of brain drain particularly among professionals tend to be the same throughout the
various professions. The draft National Migration Management Diaspora Policy by the
government of Zimbabwe (2009) outlines the reasons for migration of skilled workers as
follows: “unfulfilled expectations relative to political freedoms, uncompetitive salaries, poor
working conditions, limited career development and opportunities, issues of governance and
social security and attendant benefits”. These same reasons were identified by Chikanda
(2005; 2011) regarding the flight of nurses and doctors from Zimbabwe. In the late nineties
Gaidzanwa (1997) had reported that among medical professionals the causes of migration
included poor working conditions (such as shortage of personal protective clothing and
equipment e.g. gloves), poor opportunities to specialise, poor pay, lack of adequate
supervision for junior doctors, poor technology and equipment, corruption in health services

27
and overworking of junior doctors. Other factors were: poor management, lack of incentives
(such as staff and housing loans and other fringe benefits), frustrating grievance handling
procedures, non-participation of employees in decision making on matters that concerned
them and lack of career prospects.

The propensity to migrate increased if the potential migrant had friends, relatives or
employment agents that give information and provide transport channels to the attractive
areas. Sibanda (2001:118) maintained that among the professionals who left the country in
the 1990s most had abundant information from friends and adverts as well as easily available
transport facilities. This was particularly true for medical and engineering professionals.

2.3.1.2. Migration of semi skilled and unskilled Zimbabweans

At the height of the crisis in Zimbabwe, Pendleton, Crush, Campbell, Green, Simelane,
Tevera and Vletter (2006) discovered that migration was no longer a rite of passage but a
livelihood strategy and a career. They also noted a growing feminisation of migration in
Zimbabwe where female migrants made up 44% of the Zimbabwean migrants in South
Africa. These were mainly involved in informal low skilled employment activities.

Generally unskilled low wage earners tended to migrate through informal, risky and irregular
means. Most of these migrants entered South Africa without the necessary documents and
through being smuggled by malayitsha, truck and bus drivers, etc. (Zinyama 2002; Solidarity
Peace Trust 2004; Araia 2009). Some, among these same migrants did not seek asylum
because of the prohibitive costs of doing so. Bloch (2008:06) argues that “the prohibitive
costs of seeking asylum including reaching the refugee reception office to make a claim,
translation costs and fees to file claims (though they are meant to be free) mean that some
who might try to seek asylum end up dropping out of the system and staying in South Africa
as undocumented migrants instead”.

28
2.3.2. Female migration

Migration literature was for a long time silent on gender issues since gender was not viewed
as an important variable in understanding migration studies (Mahler and Pessar 2006). While
gender does not mean female, researchers have noted the paucity of data regarding female
migrants. There has been a dearth of studies on female migrants despite the fact that women
have long participated in both internal and external migration (Schmidt 1988; 1990; Djamba
2003). Schmidt (1988; 1990) Barnes (1992) and Cockerton (2002) have shown that female
migration into urban areas could just be as old as the urban areas themselves. Dodson (2000)
states that even in migration research where gender was the primary focus, attention tended to
be given to women left behind by migrant labourers rather than female migration per se.
Although female migration was for a long time heavily resisted, this does not mean that
females did not migrate. Historically, females did migrate even if own account migration was
resisted by both colonial authorities and rural patriarchs who had varied reasons for resisting
it (Schmidt 1988; Barnes 1992).

However, when female migrants were acknowledged in literature there tended to be two polar
views. The first explains female migration as associational migration where women are seen
as accompanying men who are the primary migrants (Mahler & Pessar 2006; Donato,
Wagner and Patterson 2008). The tendency has been to view women as accompanying male
migrants thus being defined as ‘the family or partners’ (Djamba 2003).The other view is that
of female migrants as ‘own account’ migrants who are unattached and thus have the
economic motive of fending for their families since they are almost always viewed as heads
of households (for example see Muzvidziwa 2001; Lefko-Everett 2010). The problem of
viewing women from these two dimensions only is that females do not always fit neatly into
these categories. There are cases where married women who migrate to unite with their
spouses may have their own qualifications which they seek to use in the destination country
and therefore, to some extent, they have an economic motive. These are however, not
recognised in literature, neither are the problems they face in trying to access the labour
market. Whereas those who are said to have own account migration trajectories also have
marriage aspirations. In any case, as Thadani and Todaro (1979) note, marital status is quite a
fluid category. One may start the migration process as a married individual and end up
divorced while another may start off single and reach their destination married. The other

29
problem of separating female migrants into two main categories is the tendency to view own
account migration as essentially survivalist and characterised by a low level of skills of these
women. Unskilled women are said to dominate the informal sector (for example Dodson
2000; Muzvidziwa 2001). This can lead to a relegation to obscurity of skilled women who
migrate as professional nurses, teachers and other kinds of professionals (Pessar, 2008). Such
obscurity flies in the face of growing evidence that women migrants could be facing social
exclusion to the extent that they end up in non-skilled jobs and menial tasks which are below
their qualifications (ibid, 2008). This was exactly what the IOM (2009) occasional paper
revealed regarding female nurses in South Africa who had difficulties in registration to the
extent that they ended up in menial jobs. A related problem of viewing women migrants from
this perspective is to conclude that women’s stay in South Africa tends to be temporary,
shaped by their informal economic activities. This evaluation does not acknowledge female
migrants as long term residents of South Africa. Such a view is contrary to what is currently
obtaining where female migrants stay longer and participate in the formal labour market of
South Africa.

The rise in female migration after 1990 was fuelled by economic decline within the region
and particularly by the economic structural adjustment programmes which resulted in the
retrenchment of men from the formal sector. In the 1990s female migration from Zimbabwe
was very much recognised as females became cross border traders. This increased female
migration resulted in greater economic independence of women thus threatening the largely
patriarchal African societies (Dodson 2000; Muzvidziwa 2001). There were also female
migrants who migrated as skilled professionals in the fields of nursing and teaching while
others engaged in domestic and service work.

2.4. The policy of the Zimbabwean government towards emigrants

Governments are institutional agents that can affect how and when migrants are included.
Government policies determine how its citizens are received in other countries, where, for
example, having a concern for emigrants could result in certain bilateral agreements and
political negotiations. Its policies also affect the consequences of migration, such as
procedures for sending and receiving remittances (Massey 1999; Kothari 2002). Brand (2010)

30
discusses how a nation may choose to respond to emigration by creating different national
narratives “ranging from complete exclusion to a full embrace of the development of a
Diaspora” (2010:80). Variables that determine whether emigrants are embraced or ignored
include the volume of migration, the destination countries they choose, the extent to which
they represent a threat or challenge and the extent to which they represent a source of power
or point of reference for the ruling elite. Brand (2010:85) further argues that “if emigration
evolved as part of the colonial relationship, the bitter memory of this experience alone may
underpin a leadership’s disinclination to incorporate the emigrants in the national story”. This
is especially so for emigrants who went to the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada; who
were at first viewed as “sell-outs” by the leadership of Zimbabwe.

Zanamwe and Devillard (2010) stress that the capacity of the Zimbabwean government to
manage migration is hindered by its lack of a coherent, comprehensive, legal institutional and
policy framework for implementing migration practices in an integrated manner. The actual
number of migrants is not known, thus guesstimates and other crude measures are used to
estimate the number of Zimbabweans outside the country. This is because of problems in data
collection in national households, labour surveys and the border crossing points. However,
the government is collaborating with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in
order to enumerate and build a data base for Zimbabweans in the Diaspora (IOM Newsletter
1st quarter 2011). The problem of lack of data is not confined to migration management but
cuts across ministries, departments and sectors in the whole country as acknowledged by the
Zimbabwe country report of 2010 (GoZ 2010).

It was only in 2004 that Zimbabwe signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
South Africa concerning Zimbabweans working in the farms of the Limpopo province. In
2007 the government established a ‘home-link’ programme that was mainly meant to
facilitate remittances through formal channels and investment by Zimbabweans in the
Diaspora and participation in migration dialogue workshops.

In 2009 Zimbabwe again met with South Africa and signed another MOU allowing for free
movement between the two countries in line with the SADC protocol on facilitation of
movement whereupon Zimbabweans were eligible for three months temporary visas in South
Africa (Betts and Kaytaz 2009). In the same year, Zimbabwe drafted and adopted the
National Migration Management Diaspora Policy. The objective of the National Migration

31
Management Diaspora Policy is to combine measures aimed at the retention and return of
highly skilled nationals with the promotion strategies aimed at opening new channels for
legal migration of low and semi-skilled workers (Draft National Migration Management and
Diaspora Policy 2009; Zanamwe and Devillard 2010). Still in the same year the Zimbabwean
government launched the ‘human capital website’ in conjunction with the International
Organisation for Migration. This again mainly targets skilled workers and professionals by
advertising the opportunities existing in the country (Zanamwe and Devillard 2010).

Zimbabwe’s policies towards emigrants have changed from total non acknowledgement, to a
realisation of their positive impact through remittances. Recognition of migrants’ positive
contribution especially during the Zimbabwe crisis, led to the formation of the “home-link”
programme that was meant to encourage migrant investment in properties back home. There
are current efforts to lure back skilled migrants, for example, in the medical, teaching and
engineering profession. However, the process of re-engagement or re-appointment has been
viewed as cumbersome, difficult and elitist especially for teachers and doctors (Chikanda
2011; IOM 2011 Masengwe and Machingura 2012). The other problem which may make re-
engagement difficult, is the fact that the salaries of most civil servants, particularly teachers,
remain low, thus discouraging would-be returnees.

2.5. The international and the South African legal framework for the
protection of migrants

Globally migrants are protected by a host of international human rights conventions. These
include those enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are meant to
be enjoyed by everyone regardless of status, UN Conventions and International Labour
Organisation Conventions. There are also regional (SADC) and African (AU) initiatives
meant to protect migrants and refugees.

South Africa has acceded to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. It has also ratified the Protocol to Prevent,
Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing
the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the Protocol against

32
the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air and the Migration for Employment
Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97) and the Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions)
Convention, 1975 (No. 143) of the International Labour Organization (Bustamante 2011).

Since joining the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1994, South Africa has adhered to
the OAU Charter and to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and has acceded
to the 1969 Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of
Refugee Problems in Africa. South Africa is also a party to the SADC protocol on the
facilitation of movement of persons (article 14) which allows Zimbabweans to enter SADC
countries on a visa free visitor's permit of up to 90 days.

The following ILO and UN conventions govern the employment of migrants:

(a) the Migration and Employment Convention (revised) number 97 of 1949

(b) the Convention concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of
Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers Convention number 143 of 1975
(De Guchteneire et al 2009).

(c) the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members (ICRMW) of Their Families of 1990. The Convention offers a range of
employment and civil rights to all migrants and their families regardless of whether they are
documented or undocumented.

Unfortunately to date both South Africa and Zimbabwe are not signatories of these
conventions, (Bloch 2008; Crush, Williams and Nicholson 2009; Zanamwe and Devillard
2010; Crush and Tawodzera 2011). Until 2004 Zimbabwe and South Africa had no bilateral
agreements concerning migrants. The situation changed in 2004 when a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) regarding Zimbabweans working on commercial farms in the
Limpopo province of South Africa was signed. The MOU provided for the issuing of
emergency travel documents (ETDs) which were cheaper and faster to produce than passports
to Zimbabweans wishing to work on South African farms. It also provided the assurance that
South African farm owners would comply with labour standards and the provisions of the
2002 Immigration Act (HRW 2006). In 2010 the two governments agreed and worked

33
together in the documentation process of Zimbabweans that aimed to provide legal stay for
Zimbabweans that qualified for business, work and study permits.

Legislation regulating migration issues in South Africa includes the Refugees Act (1998)
amended in 2011, the Immigration Act (2002) amended in 2004, the Criminal Procedure Act
(Act No. 51 of 1977), the Defence Act (Act No. 42 of 2002) and the Child Care Act (1983)
for minors (Bustamante 2011). Apart from these instruments, the constitution of South Africa
guarantees certain fundamental rights (such as equality before the law, human dignity,
security etc.) of all individuals regardless of whether they are citizens or not, though certain
rights (such as voting, holding a political office etc) are reserved for South Africans (HRW
2006).

Zimbabweans can enter South Africa using any of the following avenues laid out in the
Immigration Act of 2002 (amended in 2004):

(a) visas

(b) transit visas

(c) visitor’s permits- where one needs to provide evidence of financial support and may not
exceed 3 months or 3 years (if it is a study permit).

(d) Business permits- where one wants to establish a business venture. However, there are
stringent conditions for this kind of permit as it requires a certification by a chartered
accountant that the applicant has up to R2,5 million cash value among other requirements
(Willand 2005).

(e) Relative’s permit- where one is a family member of a citizen or a permanent resident of
South Africa. An individual who uses this permit is not expected to look for work.

(f) Work permit- there are two main types of permits in this category as provided for in
section 19 of the Immigration Act of 2002. These are the quota work permit (for specified
professions) and the general work permit. However, in the case of the general work permit
the employer must prove that after advertising the post, they are unable to employ South
African citizens with the requisite skills and experience. The qualifications of the foreign
workers must be evaluated by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). The
employer is also expected to provide the salaries and benefits that prevail in the market to the
foreigner without discrimination. The foreign applicant must also ‘provide a valid air return

34
ticket covering the period of stay or a deposit to the value of the same return ticket’ (Willand
2005).

(g) Zimbabweans have also entered South Africa through the corporate permit as provided in
section 21. This permit is issued to an organisation that wishes to employ foreigners. It is the
duty of the employer to make sure that the foreigners employed comply with the Immigration
Act and also to notify the director general if they have reason to believe that the foreign
workers are breaching the conditions of engagement or when they are no longer needed.
Again the employer is expected to provide fair labour conditions. The Department of Labour
is expected to enforce these fair labour conditions. However, Bloch (2008:12), HRW (2006)
and Rutherford (2010) highlight that Zimbabwean farm workers have been discriminated
against as farmers ignore these provisions and there is lack of enforcement by the Department
of Labour.

(i) Most of the undocumented Zimbabweans have entered South Africa on the basis of
asylum seeking in the last ten years. The Immigration Act of 2002 as amended in 2004
provides for a 14 day asylum transit permit after which the individual applies for asylum as
outlined in sections 21 and 22 of the Refugees Act (130 of 1998). A person may be issued
with an asylum seekers’ permit pending the outcome of their application for asylum
according to section 22 of the Refugees’ Act. That permit allows the individual to
temporarily stay in South Africa pending the outcome of their application.

However, some of these Zimbabweans have been ‘smuggled’ into South Africa through a
variety of agents that include cross border transport operators, immigration officers, South
African Police officers and a host of illegal middle agents (Tevera and Zinyama 2002;
Solidarity Peace Trust 2004; Araia 2009; Vigneswaran et al 2010; Maphosa 2011). These
Zimbabweans are the ‘illegal’ foreigners who are defined as ‘undesirable’ and thus must be
deported as set out in section 32 of the 2002 Immigration Act.

Sections 34, 41, 42 and 49 provide for the arrest and deportation of undocumented migrants
either by the immigration officers or the police or both. Section 34 (1) specifically states that:

“without the need for a warrant, an immigration officer may arrest an illegal foreigner
or cause him to be arrested, and shall, irrespective of whether such foreigner is
arrested, deport him or her or cause him or her to be deported and may pending

35
 his/her deportation, detain him/her…..for not more than 30 days without a warrant of
court”

However, acquisition of the warrant of court may lead to detention for up to three months (90
days).

In terms of section 41 of the Immigration Act of 2002, immigration and police officers have
the power to request that individuals produce some form of identification on demand. The
Immigration Act (section 41 subsection 1) provides that “ …if on reasonable grounds such an
immigration officer or police officer is not satisfied that such as person is entitled to be in the
republic…..such immigration officer or police officer may take such person into custody
without a warrant ...”

Section 38 clearly articulates that no persons shall employ illegal foreigners while section 42
of the same Act also states that illegal foreigners must not be aided in terms of housing,
education and in business. According to section 49 of the Immigration Act of 2002, it is a
crime to help or employ illegal foreigners.

However, there are exemptions provided in the Immigration Act of 2002 where the minister
may decide to exempt certain individuals/ groups of individuals from being defined as
undocumented migrants provided there are ‘special circumstances’ surrounding those
individuals. Section 31 (2) (b) has that provision.

The Refugees Act (130 of 1998) sets out the procedures for applying for and the granting of
refugee status. Section 3 states that a person qualifies to apply for a refugee status if:

“that person owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted by reason of his race,
tribe, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social
group, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable or unwilling to avail
himself or herself of the protection of that country, or, not having a nationality and
being outside the country of his/her former habitual residence is unable or, owing to
such fear, unwilling to return to it (country of nationality)”.

36
The granting or rejection of refugee status is done by a trained refugee status determination
officer as provided in section 22 (3a) of the Refugees Act. Section 5 (d) of the same Act
states that an individual who is granted refugee status may cease to be one if he or she
‘voluntarily re-establishes’ himself or herself with his/her country. Most Zimbabwean
migrants (who left at the height of the political and economic crisis from 2000 onwards) were
compelled to move by economic necessity and thus could not be defined as refugees using
the above definition. However, a few were indeed victims of political oppression in
Zimbabwe.

Given the provisions of section 5 (d) most Zimbabweans did not want to apply for asylum
because it meant that they would not return to their country, which was rather unfavourable
since they had to remit money and material goods to their families. The South African
government officials’ perception that ‘there is no war’ in Zimbabwe often militated against
Zimbabwean migrants’ application for political asylum even though some of these applicants
were victims of certain political and humanitarian crises such as the purging of Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) supporters and ‘displacement’ through Operation
Murambatsvina/ Restore Order (Solidarity Peace Trust 2004; Human Rights Watch 2006:8;
Hammar 2008).

The precarious situation of Zimbabwean migrants is captured by Betts and Kaytaz (2009:4)
who highlight that Zimbabwean migrants neither fit in the legal definition of refugees nor are
voluntary economic migrants. They can be defined as “survival migrants”. Survival migrants
are defined as people fleeing an existential threat to which they have no domestic remedy.
This threat could be a result of livelihood collapse, environmental disaster or state failure.

However, section 35 (sub sections 1 and 2) of the Refugees Act allows for the designation by
the minister of a certain group of people as refugees following a ‘mass influx’ and their
accommodation in areas identified by the minister as areas for temporary reception and
accommodation of asylum seekers pending the regularisation of their status in the country.
The provisions of this section empowered the then Minister of Home Affairs in 2008 to
create receptions centres for Zimbabweans after the outbreak of cholera although
Zimbabweans were never really defined as refugees. Some Zimbabweans were granted
asylum status but following the congestion of the asylum system the South African

37
government then announced provisions for twelve-month special dispensation permits to
Zimbabweans in April 2009.

After the announcement concerning the special dispensation permits to Zimbabweans in

April 2009, Zimbabweans could apply for work or study permits in South Africa provided
they qualified to do so. In September 2010 the then DHA embarked on the ZDP to encourage
Zimbabweans to regularise and legalise their stay. According to the DHA (2010) in order to
get a work permit the applicant needed to satisfy the following conditions:

1. Have a valid passport

2. Prove that they were in South Africa prior to 31 December 2010
3. Stamped passport showing that they entered the country legally
4. Letter from the employer stating that they are employed by a registered company
5. Documents proving that the employer is a registered company
6. Affidavit from the police stating that the applicant is employed at the previously
mentioned company.

This is the current state of affairs regarding the legal framework of Zimbabwean migrants in
South Africa. There are obvious problems with such provisions thus facilitating the use of
various coping mechanisms to deal with the new socially exclusive institutional requirements.
These problems reflect elements of as institutional bias as discussed by Kabeer (2000) in
Chapter Three, where genuine unintentional institutional requirements disadvantage certain
sections of the population which fail to meet the criteria. For example, the conditions outlined
above do not cover those in informal employment or those employed by non registered
companies. This is with the full knowledge that even in the formal employment sector some
employers have been reluctant to write letters of proof that they employ Zimbabwean
migrants- a fact acknowledged by the Director General (South Africa, DHA 2011). This is
because the employers may not meet the provisions for employing foreigners through the
corporate permit and the general work permit.

38
2.6. The migration state

Migration scholars deem the current era as the ‘age of migration’, while the modern state is
viewed as a migration state (Massey 1999; Castles and Miller 2009; Skeldon 2010). This
research adopts the concept of the ‘migration state’ by Massey (1993) to show how modern
states differ from the ones that existed before the 1950s, much of the difference being
attributed to processes of globalisation, changes in international laws and changes in the
needs of capitalists. By using this term I want to emphasise the global nature of migration
issues and the rise to prominence of supra-national bodies, sometimes curtailing the power of
the modern nation state. I argue that the term migration state can be applied and used to
describe South Africa and understand migration processes in the country from this
perspective.

Tracing the history of migration globally, Massey (2003) delineates four historical periods
characterising migration. These are: the mercantile period (1500-1800s) characterised by
migration from Europe which stemmed from processes of colonisation and economic growth
under mercantile capitalism. The second stage is that influenced by the industrialisation of
Europe in the 19th century. This again was stimulated by economic growth in these countries
as Europeans immigrated to colonies as a result of the growth and spread of capitalism. The
third historical era is the ‘period of limited migration’. This roughly falls between 1910 and
1950s where because of the two world wars and the Great Depression there was limited
economic growth. The migration that was there tended to be that of refugees. The fourth
historical moment is the post-industrial migration. This, according to Massey (1993), was
characterised by immigration to rather than emigration from European countries. The
immigrants came from less developed countries that were in their earliest stages of
development. This started in the 1960s. This fourth historical era has deepened and
characterises current migration flows where “immigration is a natural consequence of broader
processes of social, political and economic integration across international borders” (Massey
1993:24). From Massey’s perspective (ibid) we are still in the fourth era where migration is a
consequence of complex social, economic and political factors. That this also applies to
Zimbabwean migration to South Africa is evidenced by the discussion of the historical trends
in section 2.2 and 2.3.

39
The current era is deemed to be the ‘age of migration’, while the modern state is viewed as a
migration state (Massey 1999; Castles and Miller 2009; Skeldon 2010). South Africa can be
classified as a migration state if one considers some of the main characteristics of such a state
as outlined by Castles and Miller (2009). These authors maintain that the migration state is
characterised by the following general tendencies: (a) the globalisation of migration where
immigrant countries are receiving migrants from many source countries, (b) the growing
volumes of migration, (c) different groups of migrants - for example, refugees, labour
migrants, students and trafficked individuals, (d) the growing feminisation of migration, (e)
the politicisation of migration issues and (f) the growing number of receiving countries that
now serve as both immigrant and transit countries, for example, Spain, Italy and Greece.

In his argument concerning the ‘postmodern paradox’, Massey (1999:310) argues:

“While the global economy unleashes powerful forces that produce larger and more
diverse flows of migrants from the developing to developed countries, it
simultaneously creates conditions within developed countries that promote the
implementation of restrictive immigration policies. These countervailing forces
intersect at a time when artificial constraints to emigration from several populous
regions have been eliminated... and when developing countries increasingly find it in
their interests to promote international labour migration”.

This condition is also referred to by Hollifield (2004) as the “liberal paradox thesis”.
Hollifield (2004: 2010) posits that migration is both a cause and consequence of political and
economic change. Whereas the 20th century was dominated by what Hollifield (2004) refers
to as the garrison state, contemporary migration movements are threatening the security of
this state through the opening of national borders. Thus, the modern state has now
increasingly become a migration state. Hollifield (2004:901) asserts that migration,
particularly irregular migration, poses a security and sovereignty challenge. He further argues
that “states are trapped in a liberal paradox” - where in order to maintain competitive
advantage, governments must keep their economies and societies open to trade, investment
and migration. However, unlike goods, capital and services, the movement of people can
violate the principle of sovereignty which requires a degree of territorial closure. Thus, the
modern developed state, finds itself in a very uncomfortable situation where it must regulate
migration while allowing for some degree of ‘openness’. Moreover, Beck (2000) argues that

40
the world has entered a ‘second age of modernity’, where human rights precede international
law and where the power of the nation-state is increasingly being curtailed by supra-national
bodies. This is increasingly making it difficult for the nation state to regulate migration,
resulting in contestations regarding migration management policies.

In some cases, these contestations have resulted in the crafting of restrictive migration
policies which involve increasing deportations, surveillance and the harassment of migrants.
This has, however, not lessened the migration flows, especially those of irregular migrants
who have also crafted more and more dangerous and costly strategies of migration (Lyberaki,
Triandafyllindou, Petronoti and Gropas 2000; Donato, Wagner & Patterson 2008; Broeders
2009; McDowell and Wonders 2010; Lefko-Everett 2010; McGregor 2010; Bloch, Sigona
and Zetter 2011; Sigona 2012). While these repressive immigration laws may not be effective
in the long run, they serve the political purpose of ensuring the ‘visibility’ of the state through
law enforcement state agents. They also represent technologies of control by the state. Such a
move is popular with citizens and ensures their vote. These citizens’ voices have with time
become louder and louder as most citizens in Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Greece,
Russia, Botswana and South Africa are generally hostile to immigration and mildly
xenophobic (Massey 1999; Massey 2003; McDowell and Wonders 2010; Minter 2011).
However, it is not easy to deal with migrants.

2.6.1. Why it is not so easy to deal with migrants

The central argument is that migration policy is an often contradictory response to pressure
from a variety of interest groups. Castles (2004) highlights how the migration state struggles
to reconcile the interests of various stakeholders such that migration management policies
tend to be contradictory and contain hidden agendas. This is partly because migrants offer
cheap labour without social and welfare costs to the state and also because of the various
stakeholders involved in the process of migration. These various stakeholders such as the
sending country, the receiving country, citizens, migrant groups and international and
domestic agencies have different interests that affect the formulation of migration
management policies (Massey 1999). Castles (2004) further maintains that the modern
migration state contains a host of transnational communities which also have an influence on

41
migration management policies. The various factors shaping state migration management
policies render the whole process a complex exercise of compromises and contradictions
(Castles and Miller 2009; Polzer, Kiwanuka and Takabvirwa 2010).

2.6.1.1. The postwar settlement: the rise and fall of the welfare state

The rise in immigration and the interest in migration in Western countries can be understood
by evaluating the post World War Two settlement and the rise and fall of the welfare state.
These events ushered the ‘fourth era’ of migration leading to the migration state. After the
Second World War Western countries engaged in the reconstruction of their economies - a
process that was characterised by state regulation of the market and intensification of welfare
and social protection mechanisms. This became known as the ‘postwar settlement’. During
this time western economies went through the ‘golden age’ which lasted up to the late 1960s
and early 1970s. The ‘golden age’ was characterised by mass production and consumption,
high levels of economic growth and collaboration between the state and trade unions. The
‘postwar welfare state’ as it came to be known was characterised by a mixed economy which
comprised Keynesian welfare states and social democratic policies (Gelderblom, Martin and
Mendelsohn 2012:54-55). In Britain during this period there was compulsory and free
secondary education until the age of 15. There was the passing of the National Health Service
Act which made health care free at the point of access while social protection was increased
through the passing of the Family Allowance Act, National Insurance Act and National
Assistance Act (Dixon 2005). Between 1945 and 1970 there were generally strong trade
unions that co-operated closely with the state.

The welfare state started declining in the 1970s as Western countries’ profits and growth rates
began to fall. The full employment and high wages offered to workers had made trade unions
more powerful and militant while at the same time they enjoyed social protection through
various welfare schemes. The oil crisis and competition from Asian countries such as Japan
and China reduced profits ultimately leading countries to curtail welfare benefits and worker
power and increasing the deregulation of the economy and privatisation of state enterprises
(Dixon 2005; Gelderblom et al 2012). As governments loosened their hold over the economy

42
the interests of capitalists became important. Some of these interests involved increased
transnational activities. This necessarily involved immigration of cheap labour.

While South Africa’s history is different from the one narrated above concerning the postwar
settlement, the same argument can be made about the needs of capitalists the world over.
Capitalists favour a more open policy towards immigration to increase the labour supply,
reduce wages and keep labour markets flexible, whereas the interests of the poor require a
more restrictive policy (Massey 1999). This means there is a contradiction between the
interests of capitalists and the poor workers. These contradictions are exposed clearly in
Chapter Six which discusses the interests of employers in their preference for foreign (in this
case Zimbabwean) workers vis-a-vis the perceived reactions of local South African workers.

It is therefore essential to consider the responses of receiving societies, such as South Africa,
in terms of the unequal distribution of advantages and disadvantages flowing from migration.
Big capitalists/Multi national corporations’ ideas are related to their capitalist interests, while
the poor people’s interests are at risk because of massive migration. Massey (1999: 307)
explains that “unskilled native workers lose most when immigration expands”. This is
because most immigrant workers make the precarious position of local workers in the labour
market even more insecure as they have become actual or potential competitors for unskilled
and semi- skilled jobs and the few benefits of the welfare state.

2.6.1.2. The interests of transnational and migrant groups

In countries such as the USA, migrants can help determine the presidential vote. In the
recently ended 2012 presidential elections, a contest between Obama and Romney, migrants
helped sway the vote for Obama based on his promised relaxation of the migration
management policy and his instruction to stop the deportation of undocumented migrants just
before the vote. The sheer numbers of undocumented migrants in the USA make it difficult
for any policy maker to ignore them. In the USA migrants make up 50 million or 16,3% of
the population where 1 in 6 Americans now claims Latino heritage. Such numbers can easily
swing votes in any particular direction (Swong 2012).

43
2.6.1.3. Migration is a big business that is self perpetuating

Migration and migration management issues have taken centre stage in this new migration
state such that migration has become big business. The World Bank (2011:ix) estimates that
there are more than 215 million international migrants in the world while South- South
migration is higher than the migration from south to developed countries. This means that
most migrants tend to stay within the region rather than travel across regional boundaries.

Castles (2002; 2004) posits that migration is a booming industry that is self perpetuating.
This migration industry is facilitated by migrant networks (Massey 1987; 1990; 1993; 1999).
Castles and Miller (2009: 201) argue that the migration industry “embraces a broad spectrum
of people who earn their livelihood by organising migratory movements”. The migration
industry incorporates agencies in the place of origin that assist with job search, travel offers
by both legal and illegal transporters, as well as businesses and services at the destination
country (for example businesses selling goods such as clothing and food ‘from home’)
(Elrick 2008:2; McGregor 2010). Bankers, lawyers, labour recruiters, interpreters, housing
agents and brokers are among the many agents that have a direct stake in the industry and
they would like it to continue despite state efforts to restrict migration. Therefore, migration
(especially undocumented migration), may ensure continuation of the services of some of
these agents as it has become a lucrative business and also because the migration process
becomes one of cumulative causation (Donato, Wagner and Patterson 2008).

The theory of cumulative causation by Massey (1990) states that as more and more
individuals migrate and create network connections in the destination country, this lowers the
costs (psychic and monetary) and risks of migration, which induce additional migration and
ultimately create more network connections. These networks create social structures that
maintain and sustain migration. Massey (1990:17) argues: “networks bring about cumulative
causation of migration because every new migrant reduces the costs of migration for a set of
non- migrants, thereby inducing some of them to migrate, creating new network ties to the
destination area for another set of people, some of whom also are induced to migrate, creating
more network ties and so on”.

44
2.6.2. Challenges of the post apartheid South African labour economy

A deeper understanding of the South African economy could reveal why Zimbabweans are
socially excluded and account for their different forms of inclusion in the sectors where they
participate. In this section I argue that xenophobia is a rational response of the poor unskilled
locals who have to contend with competition for jobs from many foreigners who may
sometimes have better human capital than them, thus attracting employer preference. In some
cases, the foreigners become the preferred type of workers because of their vulnerability
(inability to exercise their labour rights) and the flexibility employers have in engaging and
discharging casual labour.

Upon attainment of majority rule in 1994, the South African government inherited a labour
market characterised by racial inequality, international economic isolation, economic policies
that favoured capital over labour, high rates of unemployment and underemployment and low
rates at which productive employment was being created in the economy (Standing, Sender
and Weeks 1996; Posel 2003; Burger and Woolard 2005). In 1996 Standing et al reported that
poverty and inequality in South Africa have 4 main dimensions - race, gender, age and
region. In 2006 Pillay, Tomlison and Du Toit highlighted that in the African and coloured
labour-force 38,7% were without employment while 56,5% were without formal
employment. In the same year Kingdon and Knight (2006) reported the unemployment rate to
be at 40 per cent. Leibbrandt, Woolard, McEwen and Koep (2009) noted that in 2008 whites
still earned 4.4 times more than Africans on average earnings. Blacks and women tended to
be concentrated in the 'secondary labour market areas' such as domestic work and they tended
to be less educated.

The new government embarked on a mission to address the socio-political economic

challenges generated by the apartheid regime. The efforts by the new government to redress
the apartheid-generated imbalances are what I am referring to as the post-apartheid
settlement. This settlement is discussed in the section below. Among the changes brought in
by the new government were new labour laws which created inflexibility on the part of
employers, making permanent labour costly and unattractive as compared to casual and part-
time labour.

45
2.6.2.1. The post apartheid settlement

The post-apartheid government inherited a deeply stratified society characterised by

discrimination, unemployment, lack of education and skills and poverty especially among
blacks. It then had the task of building reconciliation and integration while extending welfare,
public services and basic needs (such as education, housing, transport, electricity, health,
nutrition and water) to the hitherto marginalised black population. These goals were pursued
through the economic policies of the new democratic government.

The period 1994-1996 saw the introduction of two different macroeconomic policy
frameworks: the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) in 1994 and Growth,
Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) in 1996. The main aims of RDP included the
redistribution of resources, democratisation of institutions and meeting the basic needs of the
people through government initiatives (South Africa, White Paper 1994). The Growth,
Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) policy of 1996 mainly slanted towards less
government intervention and more neoliberal reforms to attract private investors. This policy
shift combined with the global economic crisis had negative outcomes for the poor as
government concentrated on economic discipline rather than further redistribution and
poverty relief (Terreblanche 1999). Consequently, such a move resulted in the massive loss
of unskilled jobs with competition for them becoming even fiercer.

Unfortunately, these same individuals had to contend with regional migrants who were
allowed by the new government to settle in the country through three main amnesties to
foreigners (amnesty to miners, SADC nationals and amnesty to Mozambican refugees. This
has been discussed in section 2.3). Part of the post apartheid settlement was the recognition of
regional nationals through these amnesties. These developments made the situation of poor
South Africans desperate as they could not enjoy the fruits of their new found freedom alone
because part of the ‘settlement’ with those offered amnesty were promises of permanent
residency and the resultant equal access (with locals) to services and resources in the country.
It is not surprising then that some locals saw migrants as adding to their economic problems.
This situation is exacerbated by politicians such as Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Maggie
Maunye who have taken advantage of the locals’ perceptions of vulnerability inciting them to
call for stricter border controls for fear of ‘losing RDP benefits’ (Hungwe 2012a). It is also in

46
the same context that many Zimbabwean immigrants entered South Africa pushed by
unfavourable socio-economic and political factors.

The effects of globalisation and the inclusion of South Africa in the world economy (in the
early 1990s) brought positive and negative outcomes for employers and workers. For the poor
unskilled workers, they have mainly been negative. The reactions of most local semi-skilled
and unskilled South Africans to the competition for jobs and services from foreigners have
been characterised by xenophobia. On the part of the big capitalist employers, the reaction is
that of exploitation of cheap immigrant labour.

2.6.2.2. New labour laws and the South African labour market

This section summarises the changes in labour laws highlighting what I consider to be the
most important pieces of legislation. It also shows the effects of these labour laws on the
attractiveness of permanent labour (largely local labour) versus casual and part-time labour
(largely dominated by migrants). The section ends by revealing the current situation of the
South African labour market showing how the employer demands have shifted towards a
preference for skilled labour and the increasing rates of discouraged workers. Some have
responded to the harsh economic situation by engaging in self-employment.

Burger and Woolard (2005:3) argue that the new government introduced labour laws that
were meant to cater for the previously excluded groups of workers. The following were
passed:

1. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997. This Act provides for the
improvement of labour market standards through the setting of minimum wages by the
Minister of Labour and the bargaining council. It extended the coverage of labour standards
to workers in sectors that were previously unprotected such as farm workers. The Basic
Conditions of Employment Amendment Act of 2002 was passed to further extend its
coverage, clarify, regulate and substitute definitions of certain terms such as a ‘day’ ‘benefit
fund’ and an ‘employee’. It sets the ordinary hours of work at 8 hours for employees who
work more than 5 days a week and not more than 9 hours for employees who work up to 5

47
days a week. The Act also provides for 21 annual leave days for each annual leave cycle
(section 20). These provisions are the most violated by employers of migrant workers.

2. The Labour Relations Act of 1996 promotes collective bargaining as a means of wage
determination as well as statutory councils and strengthening union rights.

3. The Employment Equity Act (55 of 1998) requires employers to reduce

'disproportionate' wage differentials between workers, including the implementation of firm
level employment equity plans that must be drawn up and reported on by all employers other
than small firms (Burger and Woolard 2005:3). Chapter two of the Act prohibits unfair
discrimination on the basis of race, gender, colour, pregnancy, language, culture etc. The Act
also seeks to achieve workplace equity by affirmative action of previously disadvantaged
groups (referred to as designated groups- including blacks, women and the disabled).

According to Leibbrandt, Woolard, McEwen and Koep (2009) the South African labour
market has often been viewed by employers as characterised by inflexibility and strict labour
legislation concerning hiring and firing of workers, adhering to bargaining council
agreements and labour laws covering permanent workers. This has made employers opt for
casual and part-time workers. There has indeed been an increase in casual and part-time work
between 1993 and 2008. This has made migrant labour more attractive as migrants provide
the bulk of casual, part-time labour.

The characteristics of the South African labour market according to Statistics South Africa
(2010) and South Africa, Department of Labour (2011) are as follows:

(a) the unemployment rate was 25%.

(b) the number of discouraged work seekers increased by 51,4% between 2009 and the
first quarter of 2010. The Quarterly Labour-Force Survey (Statistics South Africa 2010: 17)
defines a discouraged worker as a person “who was not employed during the reference
period, wanted to work, was available to work/ start a business but did not take active steps to
find work during the last four weeks (prior to the survey) provided that the main reason given
for not seeking work was any of the following: no jobs available in the area; unable to find
work requiring his/her skills, no hope of finding any kind of work”.

48
(c) a large percentage of the labour-force only had a primary education. More than two
million did not complete secondary education. Kingdon and Knight (2002) argue that due to
apartheid and prior discrimination in the education system, black children received inferior
education to white children. These could be the adults that are participating in the labour
market using their primary education.
(d) more and more people remain unemployed for periods longer than one year.
(e) the South African economy is in a transition towards demand for more skilled than
unskilled labour.
(f) employment opportunities that were created during the FIFA World Cup were those
mostly in the informal and construction sectors, they were mainly temporary and they ended
after the event (Statistics South Africa, 2010:17).
(g) the rate of unemployment was very high in the 15-34 age group.
(h) the whites and Indians/Asians generally had lower rates of unemployment than
blacks/Africans.
(i) generally the unemployment rate of men was lower (23,4%) than that of women
(27,3%).

Analysis of the South African labour market reveals that there is a high rate of unemployment
among blacks and there is competition for jobs in especially the semi-skilled and unskilled
areas while the skilled areas have a shortage of labour. There is also a rise in self employment
and entrepreneurship especially among migrants.

The developments in the post apartheid South African economy have rendered unskilled local
labour vulnerable and open to competition from foreign labour whose numbers have been
increasing. The challenges in the economy have created despair on the part of the poor who
face difficult access to public resources and jobs. Migrants have become easy targets and
scapegoats for the economic challenges that the poor face. This is linked to the main problem
of post apartheid South Africa’s failure to deliver economic progress and basic services to the
majority of poor black South Africans (Holdt, Langa, Molapo, Mogapi, Ngubeni, Dlamini
and Kirsten 2011). This problem has been compounded by the added burden of taking on
huge populations of economic migrants from neighbouring countries, thereby stretching the
limited economic resources even further.

49
2.7. Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to trace the global and regional contexts of migration, while
also discussing the forms of Zimbabwean migration to South Africa over the past hundred or
so years. Zimbabweans have not always been the largest group of migrants in South Africa.
This is because in the early 1900s Zimbabwe was largely a receiving rather than a sending
country. Political instability and economic crises have been responsible for the migration of
Zimbabweans to South Africa and other countries in the late 1900s. Zimbabweans seem to be
largely motivated by economic gains more than anything else in South Africa. The challenges
of the post apartheid South African economy have been discussed showing the precarious
position of poor, unskilled and semi-skilled local workers who have to contend with the
increasing casualisation of jobs and competition from migrant workers. These are the major
sources of xenophobic attitudes of some South Africans. This creates a context for
understanding why Zimbabweans and other foreigners are at risk of social exclusion in South
Africa, raising the need for various coping mechanisms.

50
CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUALISING SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN
SOUTH AFRICA

3.1. Introduction

In conceptualizing social exclusion of Zimbabweans the thesis raises five main arguments:
(a) social exclusion is about competition and distribution of scarce resources, (b) it is about
lack of social cohesion and bonds, (c) it is about disadvantaged participation, or inclusion on
unfavourable terms, of members belonging to devalued groups. Social exclusion is about
inequality and having a devalued identity, (d) the Zimbabwean identity is a devalued identity.
This explains why some migrants are motivated to quickly shed it off or conceal it and (e)
social exclusion is facilitated by activities of individuals and institutional processes. These
are agents of social exclusion.

Social exclusion can be negotiated to some extent. The process of negotiation represents the
migrants’ tactics for survival. These tactics depend much on an individual’s command of
social capital. Nevertheless, the type of social capital may also plunge an individual into
social exclusion especially where this social capital, in the form of social networks, functions
negatively to limit an individual’s horizon and creativity. Social capital in the form of strong
migrant ties may only help the individual to get along with those belonging to their group
rather than the larger society. To that extent therefore, social networks themselves may
function to exclude individuals belonging to them from the larger society thus reducing
chances of integration and increasing levels of encapsulation.

This chapter provides a broader understanding of the concept of social exclusion as it applies
to immigrants. While social exclusion is largely a European concept that was meant to
explain the marginalisation of citizens within certain national boundaries (such as the poor,
disabled, sexual minorities, divorced people), there are merits in extending this argument to
understanding migrants as citizens of a globalised world. In order to advance this argument, I
make use of the concepts of cosmopolitanism and transnationalism which explain the
consequences of globalisation. The International bodies such as the United Nations and the

51
International Labour Organisation (which were discussed in Chapter Two) have also come up
with legal instruments that define the rights of workers and human beings in a broader
perspective that transcends national boundaries. This sets the scene for the understanding of
social exclusion from a global perspective.

At the end of the chapter, I suggest an analytical framework to study the forms of social
exclusion faced by Zimbabwean migrants. The framework discusses how institutions create
rules of participation and how these rules are exclusionary. It also argues that public officials
in government departments participate in social exclusion of migrants through their
differential treatment of them. These represent the state and may sometimes go beyond the
call of duty in the execution of their tasks either to the advantage or the detriment of the
migrants.

3.2. Defining social exclusion

3.2.1. The history of the concept

There is such a variety of definitions of and debates on social exclusion such that the term has
been viewed as vague and not worthy of use in any serious academic debate. Social exclusion
has become a concept discussed sometimes as an alternative for such concepts as poverty,
deprivation, marginalisation, isolation and multiple disadvantages. However, the merits of the
concept outweigh the confusion that surrounds it.

The term social exclusion gained currency in the late 1960s and early 1970s when most
European countries were dealing with the crisis of the welfare state, high unemployment and
slow economic growth. It is mostly associated with the French policy maker Rene Lenoir
who in 1974 discovered that a large number of people, almost a tenth of the population, were
not protected by social security (Atkinson 1998; Percy-Smith 2000; Saith 2001; Lelkes
2006). These were the ‘excluded’ ones. Daly and Silver (2008) contend that social exclusion
can be traced to French republicanism, social Catholicism and social democracy. They further
argue that “the influence of democratic and social catholic thought is to be seen in the

52
concept’s interest in respectively, redistributive state policies and the strength of familial
groups and social ties and obligations” (Daly and Silver 2008:541). In sociological studies,
social exclusion is mainly founded on the ideas of Emile Durkheim concerning social
solidarity and Max Weber concerning status groups and social closure (Silver 1994; Levitas,
Pantoras, Fahmy, Gordon, Lloyd and Patsios 2007).

The concept of social exclusion was adopted in the European Union in 1989 when the council
of ministers of the EU passed a resolution calling for action to combat social exclusion. A
research network, ‘the observatory’, was then set up to monitor national studies and policies
on social exclusion (Room 1999:166). It became very popular in European countries, such
that in Britain a social exclusion unit and a centre for analysis of social exclusion were
formed in 1997 (Atkinson 1998; Percy-Smith 2000).

The British policymakers came up with the Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) which
contains domains that can be used in social exclusion studies. These are:

Resources: material/economic resources, access to public and private services; social

resources.

Participation: economic participation; social participation; culture, education and skills.

Quality of life: health and wellbeing; living environment, crime, harm and criminalisation.

Levitas (2004) proceeded to classify the discourse of social exclusion into three categories:

(a) the redistributive discourse (RED) - this approach views social exclusion as a
consequence of poverty. According to this approach social exclusion can be ended
through raising benefit levels to reduce poverty.

(b) the social integration discourse (SID) - this approach views social exclusion as
resulting from nonparticipation in the labour-force. Therefore paid work is viewed as
the integrative force for all individuals of working age in society. The excluded are
those that cannot participate in the labour-market. This seems to be the discourse in

53
 the United Kingdom where social exclusion is mainly defined in terms of
unemployment. However, the problem with this approach is that it does not consider
how paid work may exacerbate exclusion through long asocial working hours that
may block other forms of social participation. Again it glosses over issues of poorly
paid jobs. It also devalues unpaid nonmarket jobs.

(c) The moral underclass discourse (MUD) - this approach emphasises moral and
cultural causes of poverty and the moral problems of households whose members are
viewed as moral hazards. From this perspective poverty and social exclusion are said
to be a result of attitudes, behaviours and culture of certain classes, neighbourhoods
and households. Atkinson and Divaudi (2000) noted that in Denmark the socially
excluded were those that displayed deviant modes of behaviour such as drug addicts,
criminals and the mentally ill thus the morally depraved individuals.

While there has been an adoption of analysis of social exclusion in various European
countries, there have also been various versions of social policies crafted in line with how
different countries understand and define this concept. For example, Atkinson and Divaudi
(2000) noted that in Denmark the socially excluded were those that displayed deviant modes
of behaviour such as drug addicts, criminals and the mentally ill, while in the United
Kingdom social exclusion was mainly defined in terms of unemployment.

Many groups may be said to be socially excluded in a society. In fact, Peace (2001) identifies
more than ten categories of the excluded. Such may include: women, those belonging to
certain religious and linguistic groups, the long term or recurrently unemployed, the low paid
and poor, the landless, child labourers, the mentally ill, the politically disenfranchised, those
needing, but ineligible for public assistance, the lonely, without friends or family; those on
public assistance, the handicapped, refugees and migrant labourers, those with criminal
records and substance abusers (Silver 1995: 85). Social exclusion is an important factor in
understanding the complex disadvantages and inequalities that a variety of groups, including
migrants and ethnic minorities face in modern society. In relation to migrants, the argument is
that if they are excluded and disadvantaged particularly in their participation in the labour
market, this may affect their children who may inherit their marginalisation. Social exclusion
is a process that is facilitated by certain agents such as the employers, banks, hospitals and
government departments. Atkinson (1998:14) argues that:

54
 “Exclusion implies an act with an agent or agents. People may exclude themselves in
that they drop out of the market economy or they may be excluded by the decisions of
banks who do not give credit, or insurance companies who will not provide cover….
In terms of failure to achieve the status of inclusion, we may be concerned not just
with the person’s situation, but also the extent to which he or she is responsible”.

While certain individuals may exercise their agency and voluntarily exclude themselves from
others (which is what Barry [1998] refers to as social isolation), Barry (1998) cautions that
what may be deemed as voluntary isolation may sometimes be a reaction to experiences of
discrimination and hostility. In such a situation while the act of withdrawal is voluntary the
context does not offer an individual much choice thus socially excluding them. Atkinson
(1998) and Kabeer (2000) further highlight that social exclusion entails discrimination and
unfavourable inclusion.

3.2.2. Understanding social exclusion as it applies to Zimbabwean migrants

I conceptualise social exclusion as being about lack/denial of access to opportunities

/advantages because of an individual’s identity. My starting point is identity where I argue
that who you are determines the resources that can be availed to you, such that ultimately
who you are ends up determining what you have or can have. That is why Zimbabweans
respond to stigmatisation and marginalisation by concealing their identity or lessening
Zimbabwean identity markers. Adopting South African identities determines what
Zimbabweans can have or what they can claim as theirs.

I further argue that belonging to a devalued group is not voluntary. In this case being
Zimbabwean is not voluntary although one can do something about it by adopting South
African citizenship and South African culture. This is where social connections become
important in providing the individual with the needed social and financial resources to change
or conceal identity. Social exclusion is actively promoted by individuals and institutions and
sometimes by networks of the excluded. So while social networks can lessen lack of
integration, if they do not span ethnic boundaries, they may not promote integration.
Therefore, whether or not one is documented may not really be as important as knowing that

55
one is still Zimbabwean. The problem is with being Zimbabwean (but in some cases it is with
being Shona or Ndebele in different circumstances - the exclusion of Zimbabweans by other
Zimbabweans).

3.2.2.1. The main perspectives informing this study

This thesis analyses three main perspectives of social exclusion. I adopt the third view as the
conceptual framework guiding the study. The first view is that of social exclusion as
relational - concerned with social bonds, attachment and social cohesion (Room 1999). The
second one is about social exclusion as an outcome of distributional injustice which leads to
adverse incorporation (Kabeer 2000; Sen 2000). This means that some individuals may not
have adequate access to resources and may thus participate in the economic sphere on
unfavourable terms. This perspective acknowledges that no individuals can be totally
excluded. There is an element of inclusion which involves ‘unfavourable terms of inclusion’
or ‘adverse incorporation’ in the labour market that tends to perpetuate social exclusion, (Sen
2000; Carr and Chen 2004). This idea is further developed by Kabeer ([sa]: 9) who highlights
that social exclusion does not entail a binary model of distinguishing ‘those who are in from
those who are out’. Social exclusion must be analysed from the perspective where the
socially excluded may participate on ‘disadvantaged terms’, participating in poor, dangerous,
very harsh working conditions.

The third view is that social exclusion incorporates both relational and distributional aspects.
This perspective is pursued by Levitas et al (2007: 9) who regard social exclusion as a
complex and multidimensional process:

“It involves the lack of or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the
inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the
majority of people in a society whether in economic, social, cultural or political
arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of
society as a whole”.

56
3.2.2.2. Social exclusion as an outcome of both relational and distributional aspects

I adopt the third view to social exclusion where I combine the arguments of Levitas et al
(2007) and Kabeer (2000) to define social exclusion of migrants as: lack of, denial of or
inadequate access to resources, goods and services and the inability to participate in the
common activities of the host community, facilitated by certain institutional rules, processes
and mechanisms as well as the activities of other individuals. From this perspective social
exclusion incorporates discrimination and stigmatisation of migrants because they have a
devalued identity as makwerekwere. This view is supported by a growing body of literature in
Greece which reveals the connection between racism and social exclusion of and
discrimination against Albanian migrants (see King and Mai 2004; Mai 2005;
Hatziprokopiou 2006; Lazaridis & Koumandraki 2007).

This argument on devaluation and stigmatisation is further developed by Reidpath, Chan,

Gifford and Allotey (2005). These authors link social devaluation and social exclusion to
competition for limited resources. They argue that the devaluation of certain groups causes
them to be defined as out-groups and become socially excluded. They further trace this social
devaluation to an individual’s failure to reciprocate a good deed. For example, the poor may
experience a decrease in their social value because of their inability to reciprocate good
deeds. They maintain that:

“It is the very limitation of social resources that creates the need for the development
of rules to govern their equitable allocation. Stigmatisation appears to be both a
powerful mechanism for controlling the flow of social resources and an enormous
hindrance to social justice” (Reidpath et al 2005:472).

This implies that in times of stiff competition for resources, we can expect more and more
individuals to be stigmatised as a way of limiting the few scarce resources to the people who
belong to the ‘in-group’. This is a deliberate measure of boundary maintenance that allows
insiders to monopolise these resources (Silver 1994). Drawing from this analysis Reidpath et
al (2005) came up with the following three groups of the individuals that are likely to be
excluded from society:

1. People who can, but will not reciprocate acts of kindness. With
reference to migrants, such people are those portrayed by the media as

57
 criminals, untrustworthy and elicit a strong moral response from citizens of the
host country. These are the undocumented migrants and ‘border jumpers’,
asylum seekers who try to gain entry into the country by unscrupulous means,
thus cheating the system. In South Africa, Crush and Tawodzera (2011) noted
that most South Africans believed that the majority of refugee claims are
bogus.

2. People who are unable to reciprocate acts of kindness. With regards to

migrants these would be the refugees or those granted asylum, who because of
certain regulations tied with their status, cannot participate fully in the
economy and thus remain poor and fail to reciprocate.

3. People who will leave a community before they have an opportunity to

reciprocate an act of kindness. This category would refer to all migrants in
general who by virtue of their migrant status tend to be impermanent. “This
makes the provision of social services and resources to be readily
characterised as a wasteful expenditure, because as impermanent members of
the community, they have diminished capacity to reciprocate in the future any
kindness offered now” (Reidpath et al 2005:473).

The above views by Reidpath et al (2005) reveal how social exclusion is about the
distribution of scarce resources and the devaluation of certain group who end up being
perceived as ‘outsiders’ of a community. Therefore social exclusion constrains both access to
resources, goods and service and participation in social life threatening social cohesion and
integration.

To further elaborate this notion is Kabeer’s (2000) argument that social exclusion arises from
two main forms of disadvantage: economic and cultural disadvantage. Consequently, the
disadvantages lead to injustice in society. Kabeer (2000:84) states that social exclusion
results in two forms of injustice: “economic - (that is, through exploitation, marginalisation
and deprivation of the poor) and cultural (through attempts by dominant groups to routinely
devalue, disparage and ‘invisibilise’ certain social groups)”. She further argues that in
between the economic and cultural forms of injustice are hybrid forms of injustices giving

58
rise to what Fraser (cited in Kabeer 2000:84) calls bivalent collectivities. These are social
groups for whom economic disadvantage is tied up with cultural disadvantage. She gives an
example of gender which creates cultural disadvantages for women. Gender is a bivalent
category that has a political economic dimension of structuring the distribution of labour,
property and other valued resources in society. Other examples are race, ethnicity and caste.
These categories are bivalent because there are already cultural valuations of certain races,
ethnicities (for example blacks in most European countries and the United States of America)
and gender (for example women). In this list I am adding migrant status or foreignness as a
bivalent category which leads to the devaluation of foreigners and thus causing their
exclusion in the economic and social spheres. This is especially important in a situation
where migrants are devalued as “makwerekwere”. Therefore the starting point is having a
devalued identity which leads to discrimination and disadvantaged participation in the social
and economic spheres eventually leading to social exclusion. Public and private institutions
and their officials can increase devaluation and social exclusion. These actors actively
participate in the creation and perpetuation of a devalued identity which results in further
social exclusion and the cycle continues.

3.2.3. Agents of social exclusion

The thesis analyses social exclusion as an active process that is facilitated by individuals,
private and public institutions. Kabeer (2000) argues that social exclusion is facilitated by
institutions. She states that institutions distribute symbolic and material resources and also
determine rules about membership and access. What is critical in Kabeer’s (2000) analysis is
the active nature of institutions in perpetuating social exclusion. She articulates the three
ways in which institutional practices maintain the social exclusion of devalued groups:

(a) institutional bias - where the procedures and predominant values of institutions
operate systematically and consistently to benefit certain persons and groups at the
expense of others. She further points out that “institutional bias may operate to
exclude those who might threaten the status quo without conscious decisions being
taken by those who represent the status quo or indeed any awareness on their part
(those who represent the status quo) that they are under threat” (ibid: 91). She gives

59
 an example of a job opening that is presented as gender neutral but whose demands
make it difficult for women to occupy because of their multiple and especially
reproductive roles, thus only making it attractive to males who could withstand its
demands because of their limited roles.

Basok’s (2004) study of Mexican migrants in Canada appropriately captures this

phenomenon. She highlights how Mexican migrants were excluded from attending church
services because of the language barrier. Although public English classes were available to
everyone, the migrants could not attend them because of long working hours and also
because for one to enrol in these classes one needed to pass a Tuberculosis test. However,
migrants again could not take the Tuberculosis test because their employers were not required
by law to take them to a physician for any reason other than illness or injury. The other
reason was the reluctance of these migrants to take time off to have the test as they could not
communicate with physicians. This became a vicious cycle that consequently excluded them
from participating in church and public English lessons and visiting the doctor.

In South African schools Crush and Tawodzera (2011) noted how school heads demanded
birth certificates and immunisation cards for registration. These were difficult to get for
Zimbabwean migrants because “apart from the general inefficiency of the home affairs
bureaucracy, parents need to obtain birth records from the institution where the child was
born. Migrants reported that some local hospitals refuse to provide them with birth records on
the grounds that they were “undocumented migrants” when they gave birth and their children
are therefore not entitled to identity documents (ibid: 13). Such practices by hospital officials
close off avenues for schooling for migrant children and accounts for the 43% of children of
irregular migrants who do not go to school (Crush and Tawodzera 2011:10).

(b) social closure- this is a deliberate strategy where social groups restrict access to
resources and opportunities to a privileged few on the basis of some criteria such as
race, language, social origin and educational qualifications. The discussion in Chapter
Six, Seven and Eight reveals how Zimbabwean migrants perceive elements of social
closure in accessing employment and public services.

60
 (c) unruly practices- this happens when there is a gap between the rules and their
implementation which occurs in practice in all institutional domains. Kabeer (2000)
states that one cannot assume that publicly provided goods and services will be
allocated strictly according to bureaucratic or administrative rules. Public officials
may have certain unofficial norms that may restrict people’s ability to gain access to
public goods to which they are officially entitled. Social exclusion becomes an issue
in public institutions and government departments such as health, education and home
affairs because these “are officially contracted to meet social needs and address social
exclusion within the community. Thus unruly practices as mechanisms of social
exclusion are much more likely to apply in the public sector precisely because the
official rules dictate otherwise” (Kabeer 2000:93).

For example, a study by Crush and Tawodzera (2011) revealed how school heads in
Johannesburg and Cape Town made claims that schools were ‘full’ when it came to recruiting
children of migrants. Landau ([2010: 62]) claims that police often engage in “extra legal
forms of harassment and immigration control”. Veary (2008) observed that government
clinics constantly referred non-citizen patients in need of anti-retroviral provision to private
hospitals and non-governmental clinics for medication and care. This resulted in the
formation of a dual healthcare facility serving different kinds of people: public hospital
serving locals while foreigners were directed to non-governmental organisations. This is
corroborated by Lefko-Everett’s (2010) claim that Zimbabwean women seeking medication
were told to ‘go back to Zimbabwe’. In all these cases the public health officials were
effectively abrogating their public duty to provide healthcare. This aspect is discussed in
detail in Chapter Eight which provides an in-depth analysis of the health and police
departments.

To conclude this section it is important to emphasise that the study of social exclusion of
migrants heightens our understanding of why they do not/ may not participate fully in the
activities of mainstream society. In their study of the Chinese in Britain Chau and Yu
(2001:107) reiterated that “the study of social exclusion can raise our awareness of the
conditions that hinder ethnic minority groups from enjoying the kind of life customary to
mainstream society”. Using the concept of social exclusion to study migrants aids our
understanding of how they are devalued and stigmatised in society, thus affecting their

61
participation in social life. This helps us understand how the stigmatisation of Zimbabweans
in particular and foreign migrants in general leads to their exclusion.

3.2.4. Towards a broader understanding of social exclusion of immigrants:

cosmopolitanism and transnationalism

The discussion of social exclusion must be broadened to understand the exclusion of

‘foreigners’ or non-nationals who ordinarily do not fit neatly within the definition of the
‘excluded’ within the boundaries of a nation since the very definition of a nation is exclusive.
The social exclusion of migrants must be understood from the perspective of the world as a
global society and migrants as citizens of the world. Attending to the social exclusion of
migrants is a way of acknowledging processes of globalisation and the resultant cosmopolitan
societies. Such a discussion is realistic as it acknowledges that in every nation state, there are
increasing numbers of people who are not nationals (defined as strangers) who work and
spend their lives there.

The major question therefore, is: how can these people be incorporated or integrated so that
they participate meaningfully in the social and economic life of countries in which they find
themselves? Migration is a feature of globalisation and global inequality. So with the
intensification of these two processes, we can expect an increase in migration. Since
immigration is inescapable, there is therefore a need to find ways of meaningful co-operation
and integration with migrants.

According to Beck (2000) we now live in cosmopolitan societies that are characterised by
some of the following features which relate to migration:

(a) high mobility - as “more and more people live in a kind of place polygamy (they are
married to many places in different worlds and cultures)” (Beck 2002),

(b) Dual citizenship,

(c) High activity in transnational initiatives and organisations - basically a transnational

way of life and,

62
 (d) Criminal activities and political intensities.

Beck (2000) further states that we now live in the ‘second age of modernity’ where
boundaries of nation-states are being blurred by the activities of supra-national bodies. In the
‘first age of modernity’ the boundaries of nation states were defined and strengthened. Social
exclusion happened among equals - or those belonging to the same nation. However, the
current processes of globalisation are leading to cosmopolitanisation within nations.
“Cosmopolitanisation means that ethnic identities within a nation become plural and relate in
a plural and loyal way to different nation-states” (Beck 2000:83). Beck (2000) argues that in
such societies, social exclusion happens to individuals defined as strangers/non-equals - by
virtues of not belonging to the nation. A solution to social exclusion of these ‘strangers’ is to
appeal to a social solidarity that stems from the recognition of universal human rights. In such
cases, social solidarity is the solidarity of strangers, rather than the solidarity of equals (ibid:
93). Therefore the participation of migrants in the social life of their host communities is on
the basis of universal and international human rights.

A broader scope of social exclusion that incorporates migrants is not only realistic but
necessary to encourage social cohesion in increasingly diverse cosmopolitan communities.
Understanding how migrants (whether documented or not) are excluded gives an insight into
issues of discrimination, social integration, cohesion, xenophobia, violence and even racism.
Social exclusion affects their quality of life (Sen 2000; Cholewinski 2005; Levitas et al 2007;
Kalitanyi and Visser 2010). Dealing with social exclusion of migrants will not only require
tolerance and strengthening of diverse social bonds, it also requires a reorientation and
sensitivity training on the part of bureaucrats who deal with migrants most of the time.

3.3. A critique of the concept of social exclusion

Social exclusion has been viewed as an elusive term that means different things to different
people (Atkinson and Davoudi 2000:428; Percy-Smith 2000; Peace 2001; Levitas 2004).
While in some cases it is viewed as the antithesis of social integration and cohesion; in other
cases it is linked to poverty and lack of participation in the labour market. It has been viewed

63
as having many dimensions such as the economic (income, goods and services), the social
(participation in decision-making for certain marginalised groups) and political (freedom of
expression, democratisation in general) (Bhalla & Lapeyre 1997: 18). Social exclusion has
been used to define ‘new forms of poverty’ and marginality in European countries,
particularly in the EU where it was felt to be a more acceptable and politically correct term
than poverty (Marsh & Mullins 1998; Percy Smith 2000; Peace 2001; Levitas et al 2007;
Daly [sa]).

Social exclusion has been critiqued for taking people’s attention from issues of class conflict
(Silver 1994; Marsh &Mullins 1998; Colley and Hodkinson 2001; Levitas 2004; Daly [sa]).
Others argue that it is a concept better suited to explaining what is happening in European
developed countries rather than in African and Asian developing economies. For it to apply
to developing countries, according to Saith (2001:7), it must be redefined and operationalised
properly. For example, the concern for social security support needs to be defined in a way
different from European countries because in developing countries the poverty levels are so
high that almost half of the whole population would be eligible for social security support.
Saith (2001) also strongly believes that approaches to tackling social exclusion in developing
countries have always existed even though these approaches had different names such as such
as the basic needs, capabilities approach, entitlements, sustainable development, etc.
Therefore the debate on social exclusion in the developing world is not really something new
in so far as understanding poverty in developing countries is concerned (Saith 2001).

In this thesis I also argue that the concern for social security support may not really be a good
indicator of social exclusion since more than half the populations in developing countries do
not have adequate social security. More than half the population would then be defined as
socially excluded. If the literature of social exclusion is to be relevant to South Africa, the
concern must be on how certain groups are devaluated and stigmatised leading to their lack of
access to resources and social bonds. However, I agree with existing notions that social
exclusion is much more than just poverty, therefore existing frameworks of poverty may not
necessarily be able to tackle social exclusion.

64
3.4. Coping mechanisms for dealing with social exclusion

3.4.1. Introduction

In general, migrants are resourceful, knowing when and how to manoeuvre in their host
country. Migrants engage in a variety of ways for coping with exclusion such as: reliance on
kin and ethnic networks, creating friendships and fictive kin relations and fake
identities/identity books, denying their place of origin, marriages of convenience, applying
for political asylum permits, theft, prostitution and informal employment, using social
networks to access accommodation and employment, learning local languages and culture
(including dress styles and mannerisms) and having cosmopolitan identities (Muzvidziwa
2001, 2010; Mai 2005; Muzondidya 2008; Fangen 2010; Lefko- Everett 2010; McGregor
2010; Worby 2010). Selection of any of these coping mechanisms is dependent on the
migrant’s history, social status and settlement patterns (Muzondidya 2008: 5).

African migrants in South Africa appeal to discourses of Pan Africanism and reciprocity to
negotiate their stay in South Africa. Some argue that South Africans ought to return the help
they got during the apartheid era, while others (Zimbabweans) claim cultural and linguistic
ties between the Zulu in South Africa and Ndebele in Zimbabwe (McDonald, Mashike and
Golden 1999; Raftopolous 2009).

In dealing with social exclusion some authors invoke the use of two popular concepts: social
networks and social capital (Spoonley et al 2005; Spicer 2008; Fangen 2010). According to
Fangen (2010) inclusion in a social network may sometimes protect individuals against
racism. She regards social networks as some form of social capital that helps reduce social
exclusion.

Social exclusion entails relational issues such as social and political participation, social
integration and lack of power. Dealing with relational issues addresses the level of
detachment of an individual from society. This therefore focuses on the kinds of relationships
individuals have with one another. Room (1999:170) cites Perri 6 (1996) who distinguished
two kinds of social bonds individuals have: “those that link us to people in the same position
as ourselves - or family members, people in the local neighbourhood, our immediate

65
colleagues at work - and those that link us to people in very different positions from
ourselves, especially those people who are in contact with opportunities which they can bring
to our attention but of which we are unlikely to be able to avail to ourselves without their
help”. Perri 6 (cited in Room 1999) recommends that social policies should help
disadvantaged individuals make the second link thus providing them with ladders to move
out of their situation.

Such thinking is similar to Burt’s (2004) argument that individual group networks would be
strengthened if there are ‘network bridges’ between different groups of people. Relationships
between migrants and locals lessen detachment and stigmatisation. This view also lends
support to Granovetter’s (1973) argument that individuals need both intercommunity and
intra-community ties. Intercommunity ties help society and distract groups from pursuing
their narrow sectarian interests. Social links and networks are important to strengthen social
bonds.

The discussion of social exclusion is also necessarily linked to that of social capital as most
authors view involvement and participation in social networks (which are evidence of social
capital) as a mechanism or strategy for reducing social exclusion. Such is the case when
social exclusion is understood from a relational perspective where exclusion is caused by lack
of social bonds. This is, however, not to ignore the downside of the same networks that on
their own, can lead to encapsulation and exclusion of members belonging to them. Thus to
this end, social networks can either increase or decrease social exclusion depending on
whether the networks are closed off from other networks or whether they offer opportunities
for individuals to build weaker ties with individuals outside their main networks. These
weaker ties would then function as bridges to pass on information, resources etc. to members
of different network groups thus reducing the exclusion of certain groups.

3.4.2. Origins of the concept of social capital

The philosophical underpinnings of social capital can be traced back to arguments by

Durkheim (on mechanical and organic solidarity), Marx and Weber (on bounded solidarity,
Portes 1998; Wilson 2006). Social capital can also be traced back to the arguments of

66
Bourdieu (1985), Putnam (1995) and Coleman (2000). Woolcock and Narayan (2000) trace
social capital back to Hannifan (cited in Woolcock and Narayan 2000: 229) and Granovetter
(1973). Studies on social capital were later popularised by Burt (1992), Portes and
Sensenbrenner (1993), Portes (1998) and Lin (1999; 2000). The concept of social capital has
been utilised in studying development, poverty, education and also migration. Spicer
(2008:493) argues that there are three notions closely tied to social capital. These are social
bonds (connections within communities that are defined by ethnic, national or religious
identities); social bridges (connections between communities defined by ethnic, national or
religious identities) and social links (connections with institutions, agencies and services).
Putnam (2000 cited in Wilson 2006:349) distinguishes between ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’
forms of social capital where bonding refers to the connections between like minded people
and therefore reinforces homogeneity, while bridging capital refers to connections between
heterogeneous groups.

Hannifan (cited in Woolcock and Narayan 2000: 229) defined social capital as:

“those tangible substances (that) count for most in the daily lives of people; namely
goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among the individuals and
families who make up a social unit....if (an individual comes) into contact with his
neighbour, and they with other neighbours, there will be an accumulation of social
capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social
potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement in the living conditions in the
whole community”

Coleman (2000: 16) argues that: “social capital is defined by its function and it is not a single
entity but a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect
of social structure and they facilitate certain actions of actors - whether persons or corporate
actors - within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making
possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible”. Although
this definition has been criticised by Lin (2000) as tautological because it explains the cause
by its effect or function, I view it as important since it clarifies how social capital is capital -
that is, in terms of what it can do for people.

Bourdieu (cited in Daly and Silver 2008: 543) defines social capital as:

67
 “the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network
of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition
- in other words, membership in a group - that provides each of its members with a
backing of the collectively owned capital,....... a credential which entitles them to
credit, in the various senses of the word”

Another definition of social capital is given by Woolcock and Narayan (2000: 225) who refer
to it simply as the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively. Portes (1998: 6)
highlights that social capital is about the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of
membership in social networks or other social ties. According to Putnam (1995:665), social
capital is about “social connections, the attendant norms and trust”. Portes and Landolt
(2000:531) outline three ways that social capital has been defined: as a source of social
control, a source of family mediated benefits and a source of resources mediated by non-
family networks. From all these definitions, it is clear that social capital is about: connections
and networks between individuals, access to different forms of resources, relationships of
reciprocity and trust, rules of conduct developed among individuals belonging to a network
and improving people’s situations in life. The sources of social capital include families,
friends and voluntary associations.

Woolcock and Narayan (2000) argue that there are four main views to understanding social
capital. These are: the communitarian view, the networks view, the institutional and the
synergy view. The communitarian view equates social capital with local organisations such
as clubs, associations and civic groups. It states that social capital is inherently good and that
more is better (ibid: 229). The networks view emphasises the importance of intra-groups as
well as intergroup relations among groups and firms. Studies of such networks have dwelt on
strong and weak ties or bonding and bridging ties, (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1994; Portes
1998). The institutional view of social capital contends that the vitality of community
networks and civil society is largely the product of the political, legal and institutional
environment. This means that the formation of social capital is constrained by formal
institutions. This is the line of argument pursued by Ostrom (2000). Ostrom (2000:172)
argues that government institutions affect the level and type of social capital that individuals
can have in order to pursue developmental goals. From this perspective, institutions have a
role in aiding the development of trust among individuals interacting in groups and
associations. The synergy view combines arguments from the networks and institutional
perspectives. Its popular notions are those of complementarity and embeddedness (for

68
example; Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993; Kloosterman and Rath 2001; Korinek, Entwisle
and Jampaklay 2005).

3.4.3. The benefits of social capital

There are clear benefits of social capital in the form of social networks which help the
settlement of a new migrant in the receiving country. They lower the costs of migration and
offer psycho-social support to the new migrant. Migrant networks help with the acquisition of
information on the migration process itself, in the host country networks aid in providing
employment, accommodation, food, security and even capital for businesses (Menjivar 1995;
1997; Dolfin and Genicot 2010; McGregor 2010). They may also serve as conduits for
information which can ultimately lead to further migration (Collyer 2005; Korinek et al
2005).

Religious networks whether within the community or between communities have been
viewed as lessening social exclusion and emphasising Christian universalism, thus creating
alternative forms of belonging other than ethnic or kin groups (Levitt 2003; Glick Schiller,
Calgar & Goldbrandsen 2006). Aydin, Fischer and Frey (2010:742) discovered that socially
excluded persons reported significantly higher levels of religious behaviours than comparable
non- excluded individuals. This was said to be a result of the desire by all human beings to be
accepted and create stable and lasting connections with the social world.

3.4.4. The downside of social capital

A growing number of authors have claimed that social capital must not be romanticised as
being always advantageous and positive but that it needs to be viewed as a double edged
sword cutting both ways or having both a ‘sunny and dark side’. Social capital in the form of
social networks presents both benefits and blights (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993; Menjivar
1995, 1997; Hagan 1998; Portes 1998; Adler and Kwon 2000; Lin 2000; Ostrom 2000; Portes
and Landolt 2000; Woolcock and Narayan 2000; Burt 2004; Akcapar 2006, Wilson 2006;
Daly and Silver 2008; de Haas 2010).

69
Sometimes bonds to migrant networks and families may lead to co-ethnic exploitation,
especially for the extremely marginalised members of the group thus entrenching them in
never ending financial and emotional indebtedness (Hagan 1998; Portes and Landolt 2000).
Woolcock and Narayan (2000) highlight that while social networks may provide valuable
services such as childminding and emergency cash, they may also place considerable
noneconomic claims on members’ sense of obligation and commitment. They further argue
that:

“group loyalties may be so strong that they isolate members from information about
employment opportunities, foster a climate of ridicule toward efforts to study and
work hard or siphon off hard-won assets (say to support recent immigrants from the
home country)”.

Woolcock and Narayan (2000) cite a study by Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) which
revealed cases of prosperous Asian immigrants who anglicised their names in order to divest
themselves of communal obligations to subsequent cohorts. Another example is the
successful Balinese businessmen studied by Geertz (Portes and Landolt 2000:533) who “were
constantly assaulted by job and loan seeking kinsmen on the strength of community norms
enjoining mutual assistance. The result was to stunt the growth of business initiatives and
eventually bankrupt them”. Portes and Landolt (2000) highlight four negative consequences
of social capital: exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on group members, restrictions on
individual freedoms and downward levelling norms. Terms such as negative social capital
(Portes and Landolt 2000) and perverse social capital (Woolcock and Narayan 2000) reveal
the costs and dangers of social capital as it creates bondage rather than bridges for individuals
to use to get ahead. Powell and Smith-Doerr (Adler and Kwon 2000:106) succinctly state that
“the ties that bind may also turn into ties that blind”.

Granovetter (1973:376) refers to this as encapsulation, where the individual’s network is

composed of only those individuals directly known to the person. Strong intra-group ties
breed local cohesion and lead to overall societal fragmentation. Granovetter (1973) views
weak intergroup ties as more progressive because they lead to the manipulation of networks
from different groups. Weak ties act as bridges between different networks. Granovetter
(1973) argues that no strong tie can be a bridge. The strength of an interpersonal tie “is
determined by the combination of the amount of time, emotional intensity, the intimacy
(mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterise the tie” (ibid: 361). Strong

70
ties are characterised by high levels of emotional intensity, investment in time, intimacy and
reciprocal services, while weak ties are defined by the relatively low levels of emotional
involvement, time invested in the relationship and low reciprocity. A study by Spoonley,
Peace, Butcher and O’Neill (2005) in New Zealand revealed that the strong or dense social
relations existing within the migrant community built relational embeddedness and local
social capital for the migrant group and did not contribute to social cohesion in the wider
context.

Arguing from the same perspective, Burt (2004: 353) also contends that being confined to a
single network creates homogenous information which results in “holes in the information
flow within different groups”. He further argues that holes are “buffers which act like
insulators in an electric circuit”. Relations that span these structural holes create bridges that
get rid of redundant information which results from cohesive intra- group contacts. Such
relations are attractive for individuals who want to act as brokers between different groups
and networks. These individuals exercise their agency and benefit from access to different
ideas as their networks “bridge the structural holes and information gaps existing in different
groups” (Burt 2004: 353).

Social networks do not represent an endless seam of generosity. Their capacity to aid
members is also constrained by the structure of opportunity and challenges within the
receiving country. Newcomers may fail to get help if network members exist in an extreme
state of marginalisation resulting in the severing of ties and tense relations among co-ethnic
members, (Menjivar 1995, 1997; Nauck 2001; Collyer 2005; Worby 2010).

3.5. A proposed framework for analysing migrant social exclusion in the

South African context

I have come up with the following analytical framework comprising ten propositions listed
below to demonstrate my conceptualisation of how the concepts of social capital and social
exclusion interact in relation to Zimbabwean migrants in Johannesburg. These propositions
are placed within the current ‘bonding’ (helping individuals to get by) and ‘bridging’ (helping
individuals to get ahead) approaches to social capital which recognise the facilitative role of

71
social capital. At the same time the propositions acknowledge the Janus face of social
networks as forms of social capital. As argued earlier, I define social exclusion of migrants
as: lack of, denial or inadequate access to resources, goods and services and the inability to
participate in the common activities of the host community, facilitated by certain institutional
rules, processes, mechanisms and activities of other individuals. Discrimination and
stigmatisation are part of the social exclusion of migrants whose identities are devalued. I
argue that being legal in South Africa does not necessarily lessen social exclusion because
social exclusion is about belonging to a devalued social group. The legal status itself is a fluid
and contested category in the sense that one may have the necessary documentation to show
that one entered the country legally but that does not guarantee access to resources and
services.

It becomes a fluid status when the police or other government officials create further rules
and definitions of legality that are not necessarily contained in any government rulebook
(engaging in unruly practices). Thus, one may be legal but that does not stop the police from
harassing somebody (I allude to McDowell and Wonders’ [2010:56] argument about ‘border
performances’ [of searches and demands for identification] which may occur in locations
very far away from the actual geographic border). Neither does it stop local neighbours from
charging protection fees to migrants (see Monson and Misago 2009). This justifies the
assertion that most migrants exist in liminal legality as determined by these government
officials, locals and how migrants negotiate the demands of these parties. Having proper
documentation does not guarantee getting a job or if one already has a job it does not
guarantee that one will not be harassed or discriminated against on the job.

Propositions of the analytical framework:

1. Migrant characteristics determine the level of social exclusion and whether

they suffer covert or overt social exclusion. Low class and unskilled
migrants are likely to experience more social exclusion in accessing public
services such as health and transport than middle class and skilled
migrants who can afford using private services.

2. Getting the first job for all the migrants (whether skilled or unskilled) is
facilitated by family and friends networks (strong ties) rather than
agencies, although the individual eventually moves and makes a career

72
 change later on. Among skilled migrants subsequent jobs may be
facilitated by weak ties while low skilled migrants are likely to continue
using bonding social capital to get subsequent jobs.

The jobs of low skilled migrants help them to ‘get by’ rather than ‘get
ahead’ or improve their livelihoods. As Lancee (2012a: 668) argues,
“bonding social capital may help to find a job, however, it does not
necessarily help to find a better job”. This is due to the limitations of
bonding social capital and the fact that some of the migrants are unskilled
and undocumented. They get low status jobs in security, domestic service,
construction and the hospitality industry. They therefore do not remit
meaningfully to their families back in Zimbabwe.

Conversely the relatively skilled migrants are expected use more ‘weak
ties’ (for example agencies) to access jobs and opportunities (such as
registering their businesses). They are therefore ‘getting ahead’. These
migrants are fully documented; either possessing all the necessary
Zimbabwean documents or the relevant South African identity books.

3. Migrant networks may lead to social exclusion of their members. For

example, religious networks may lead to the exclusion of their members
when they emphasize their differences and uniqueness from everyone else
in society who is viewed as a ‘sinner’. Another way which religious
networks can lead to social exclusion is when they (networks) seem to be
little concerned with the legality of their members by not encouraging
them to attain legal migrant status. Members of such religious groups may
continue to lack access to necessary resources because they have no legal
right to them. Therefore social capital (in the form of social networks) is a
double edged sword. It is both a blessing and blight in that while migrant
networks offer protection, employment, housing etc. they also limit the
‘horizon’ of migrants in them. They limit their freedom of movement and
choice and can be to a large extent constraining.

73
4. Social exclusion could also be a function of institutional processes of the
receiving country (through unruly practices of government officials and
institutional bias). Government officials perpetuate social exclusion when
they engage in overzealous and extended application of the law or when
they define themselves as the ultimate law by redefining legality or
illegality. Police officers can demand bribes from both documented and
undocumented migrant groups.

Institutional bias through strict government laws concerning employment

of foreigners, employment equity and BBBEE policies reduce the structure
of opportunity for migrants, increasing their levels of social exclusion.
Therefore, government officials and institutions can perpetuate the
devalued migrant identity while at the same time their differential
treatment of migrants leads to social exclusion.

However, it must be acknowledged that the government’s response/ to

migration is not static, but directly influenced by the extent of in-
migration. If in-migration increases then the government response can be
negative and harsh. The government response affects migrants’ level of
inclusion or exclusion and their coping mechanisms. These coping
mechanisms feed onto the local residents’ reactions to migrants and the
extent to which the Zimbabwean identity is devalued.

5. Low skilled migrants are more likely to acquiesce to institutional processes

of exclusion than high skilled migrants who may object (these will report
covert social exclusion in the form of frustrated or blocked career
development and other personal aspirations). The acquiescence of the low
skilled migrants is reflected through adoption of fake South African
identity books and trivialising and downplaying discrimination.

Low skilled migrants are more likely to engage in the use of fake identities
and name changes because they have less to lose when they change or
switch identity. They are also more likely to downplay, tolerate, ignore or

74
 trivialise actions of South African locals that are overtly exclusive and
discriminatory. This is because of their already precarious financial state
and sometimes undocumented status; thus the awareness and definition of
the self as the ‘other’ who does not belong to the ‘nation’.

6. Low skilled women are less networked than men (both high skilled and
low skilled). Therefore it is expected that low skilled women will have
fewer bridging ties than men due to the different jobs and employment
environments that male and female migrants find themselves in. Since
most female migrants become domestic workers, they are less connected
than male migrants and are more likely to report social exclusion than
men.
However, while domestic workers are less networked into their ethnic
groups and more linked to their employers, they end up trusting their
employers more than their ethnic group members. These employers help
domestic workers move across the domestic sector by identifying their
friends who would like domestic services. They may sometimes help
sponsor one’s move from the domestic sector to better jobs such as
teaching or starting a small business.

7. Desperation leads to criminal activities especially where criminality is

combined with some form of ‘normal’ everyday menial jobs. Worby
(2010) agrees that hard times dehumanise people. This is expected to be
common among low skilled migrants who may engage in petty theft and
prostitution.

8. Participation in self employment is evidence of having made it for the

skilled and documented migrants who use bridging capital to solicit ideas
and start up capital. However, for the unskilled and undocumented
migrants, participation in self employment is a result of blocked
opportunities. The resultant business tends to be small and only employs
the owner.

75
9. As the economic pressure increases on the migrant families, it is expected
that they will start repelling new migrants. Tough competition in the
labour market and strict employment laws and government policies on
migrants lead to fewer jobs for migrants, consequently causing a rejection
of new migrants and the disintegration of migrant families. Thus the
opportunity structure directly affects the family network, where some
family members may be viewed as a cost and more demanding and thus
may be told openly to ‘go back home’.

Therefore there are many feedback mechanisms between continuing in-

migration, Zimbabwean migrant households and the macro economic and
political environment (which determine the opportunity structure). The
increasing repelling pressure of households is a factor of continuing in-
migration which shows that once a saturation level has been reached,
households become far less welcoming towards new migrants needing
help.

10. Among the malayitsha (migrant smugglers), as the risks of being caught
increase so do their fares charged to potential migrants thus reducing the
motivation to migrate. However, if family ties are strong and a job is
assured upon arrival, individuals will migrate no matter what costs,
provided the malayitsha agrees to be paid in instalments and accepts
credit. Malayitsha agree to such arrangements because they trust family
members in South Africa who will pay off the debt. The malayitsha may
agree to other kinds of negotiations if there is stiff competition among the
migrant smugglers themselves.

76
3.6. Conclusion

This chapter has explained the origins of the concept of social exclusion. It has outlined how
this concept can be used to analyse the lives of migrants in South Africa. The benefits of
studying social exclusion have been given while the possible weaknesses of the concept have
also been outlined. While the concept of social exclusion was previously confined to citizens
in a particular country, the concept can be used to analyse the situation of migrants in a host
country. This can be done by appreciating the cosmopolitan societies that characterise our
contemporary situation and the processes of globalisation which operate beyond the control
of nation states. It has been argued that the solution for social exclusion as identified in
existing literature (especially concerning relational issues) is participation in social networks
and possession of social capital. However, social capital has its own problems. For example,
while possession of it (social capital) creates certain opportunities, it may also close other
avenues, especially if migrant networks have stronger bonding rather than bridging ties.

It has also been argued in this chapter that the tendency to view social exclusion and
inclusion as opposites is flawed as an individual may both be excluded and included in
different contexts. There are varying degrees of social inclusion which is what leads to
adverse incorporation or what has been discussed as disadvantageous participation.
Unfavourable incorporation is inclusion but it is participation on disadvantaged terms which
is not ‘real’ social inclusion since it does not increase social cohesion and integration. Real
social inclusion must lead to an increase in social cohesion and integration.

The chapter ends by giving an analytical framework which can be used to study the social
exclusion of migrants. This framework has ten propositions which state the assumed
relationships between institutions, public officials, locals and the migrants themselves. These
propositions reflect how social capital and social exclusion are assumed to function in
relation to Zimbabwean migrants in Tembisa and Kempton Park. It is important to note that
the macro and meso level structures and the individuals themselves are not static. Policies can
change and people’s perceptions of themselves and their situation can change too.

This chapter also emphasises that the locals’ reaction to migrants is a function of many
factors including government policies, the perceived level of in-migration of foreigners and
the economic environment. As argued in Chapter Two, the response of locals is a reasonable

77
reaction to the increase in Zimbabwean in-migration throughout the Zimbabwean economic
crisis years. It can be reasonably assumed that locals will start complaining only once the
penetration of Zimbabweans into the local labour market reaches a certain threshold where
locals find it difficult to access jobs. The result is that there is a similarity between the
reaction of local Zimbabwean households (which reject newcomers) and the reaction of the
general South African population (who discriminate against migrants). Thus social exclusion
becomes an outcome of the behaviours of locals, institutions and structures and that of
Zimbabwean migrants themselves.

78
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. Introduction

As the focus of migration research has changed over time so have the research
methodologies. Early migration research mainly focused on migration as one way movement
from less developed to developed areas. There was a focus on economic models and migrant
statistics. Nowadays, migration has become more complex as people move from origin to
destination via transit countries repeating this process many times throughout their lives. The
focus of migration research has broadened to include transit countries: also acknowledging
that new migrants are often transnational. This has led to new research designs of
comparative cross cultural multi-sites research, incorporating origin, transit and destination
countries (Beauchemin and Gonzalez Ferrer 2011; Berriane and de Haas 2012). Attention has
also been paid to migrant agency and coping mechanisms in the transit and destination
countries (Akcapar 2006; Levitt 2006; Van Nieuwenhuyze 2009; Maphosa 2011; Castles
2012). These developments have led to a movement away from quantitative to qualitative
research designs and also experimentation with newer research methods (Berriane and de
Haas 2012). Castles (2012) advocates a mixed methods approach to tackle contemporary
migration research problems.

Migration research is mainly different from other forms of research in that the populations
involved are usually not fully known. The sampling frames are almost absent and if present
they may not be accurate. Adding to the complexity is the fact that traditional methods of
data gathering may seem inappropriate, offensive and insensitive. This means that the
research methods in such a study need to ensure sensitivity and sometimes creativity on the
part of the researcher in order to access research participants who may be unwilling to be
heard or known. This justifies recent calls by Berriene and de Haas (2012) for innovative
context-based research methods peculiar to the circumstances confronting migration
researchers, particularly in Africa. Studying social processes and people’s attitudes requires
use of in-depth qualitative research methods. This research therefore follows a qualitative

79
approach in order to analyse, understand and describe in detail how the lives of Zimbabwean
migrants are affected by social exclusion in Johannesburg.

The purpose of this chapter is to outline and justify the research approach, delimitations,
research methods, sampling methods and basically the research design. The merits of
qualitative research are explained in terms of getting in-depth understanding. It is equally
important to appreciate the weaknesses of qualitative research in terms of inability to offer
generalisations to the whole Zimbabwean migrant population or even the whole Zimbabwean
population in Johannesburg. This results from the use of a small sample size.

4.2. Research approach

The research approach is about the methodology or the underlying logic of the study. Castles
(2012) highlights that methodology and methods are different. “Methods are the specific
techniques used to collect and analyse data such as interviews, life-histories... (while)
methodology is about the underlying logic of the research”. It seeks to answer
epistemological questions such as: “What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? How
can we know something to be true?” (Castles 2012:18). Since the selection of a particular
methodology implies a particular type of logic, the type of reasoning used in this study is
inductive with an attempt to come up with explanations for the migrants’ perceptions
concerning their life in Johannesburg. The assumption of this approach is that there is no one
objective reality that is waiting to be discovered but that, participants make and interpret their
multiple realities as they interact in everyday life. Therefore the way to get closer to the truth
is to be attached to research participants and spend more time with them in order to gain an
empathetic understanding of their lives. This way of viewing reality stems from the
interpretive paradigm that relies much on the arguments by Max Weber on “verstehen” (or
empathetic understanding) and hermeneutics (or interpretation).

It must be acknowledged that the choice of any research approach or methodology shows the
researcher’s worldview, aims and assumptions about the world and phenomena under study.
Morgan and Smircich (1980:49) elaborate that “the case for any research method whether
qualitative or quantitative cannot be considered or presented in the abstract, because the
choice and adequacy of a method embodies a variety of assumptions regarding the nature of

80
knowledge and the methods through which that knowledge can be obtained, as well as a set
of root assumptions about the nature of phenomena to be investigated”. Therefore due to the
interpretive perspective that heavily underlies this research the researcher uses research
methods that aim to understand how migrants perceive social exclusion and frame their lives
in the context of this exclusion. The other aim is to describe fully the lives of Zimbabwean
migrants in part of Johannesburg. Denzin (2002) and Yin (2009) maintain that interpretive
research is best for answering the ‘how’ question. In this case the major ‘how’ question is:
How do Zimbabweans perceive their lives in South Africa given the largely exclusionary
socio-economic environment? The other one is: How do they survive in this environment?
This research uses a small sample of fifty eight (58) migrant men and women who were
studied in-depth. An in-depth study allows the researcher to understand the participants’
perspectives and their lives in detail. It allows the researcher to move away from superficial
explanations about phenomena to deeper meanings of events. This type of logic differs from
the deductive way of reasoning; where the main aim is to test already existing theories or
formulae in order to falsify them. It is also different in that the aim of the research is to
understand rather than to measure participants.

There are generally five qualitative approaches identified by qualitative researchers. These
are the: ethnographic, phenomenological, case study; grounded theory and narrative research
(Huberman and Miles 2002; Punch 2005; Creswell 2007). These various approaches tend to
study phenomena differently emphasising certain research methods. For example,
ethnographic research emphasizes participant observation and understanding culture, while
narrative research emphasises interviewing. However, the methods are not wholly exclusive
and may sometimes overlap (Punch 2005). This particular study is placed within the
framework of a case study where the aim is to understand Zimbabwean migrants as a case
that is holistic and bounded. This research can be defined as an intrinsic case study. An
intrinsic case study is defined by Stake (cited in Punch 2005:144) as a study undertaken to
gain a better understanding of a particular case or a single case. A case study is defined by
Yin (2009:18) as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in
depth and within its life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context are not clearly evident”.

81
4.2.1. Specific research methods and design

The research adopts a case study research design. This qualitative case study explores and
describes in detail the lives of Zimbabwean migrants in Tembisa and Kempton Park. One
crucial advantage of any in-depth research is the ability to ‘zoom in’, “that is getting closer
and closer until your descriptive task is manageable, then zoom out again to regain your
perspective” (Wolcott cited in Silverman 2000: 79). Be that as it may, qualitative research
and quantitative research are not mutually exclusive (Van Maanen 1979). While the
differences between quantitative and qualitative studies are often exaggerated and
oversimplified, these two approaches seem to be different to some extent in the following
ways:

TABLE 3: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE

RESEARCH

QUANTITATIVE STYLE QUALITATIVE STYLE

Measures objective facts Constructs social reality, cultural

meaning

Focuses on interactive processes, events

Focuses on variables
Authenticity is key
Reliability is key
Values are present and explicit
Value free
Situationally constrained
Independent of context
Few cases, subjects
Many cases, subjects
Thematic analysis
Statistical analysis
Researcher is involved
Researcher is detached

Source: Neuman (cited in Mikkelsen 2004:157).

82
The above table shows how qualitative research focuses on the construction of meanings
attached to people’s lives. Therefore a qualitative approach gives an insider’ or the ‘emic’
perspective. Qualitative methods are the most desirable in this context because they allow the
participant to freely express himself/herself. Most studies on migrants and socially excluded
people have mainly taken the qualitative approach (Sinclair 1999; Landolt 2001; Perberdy
and Dinat 2005; Tevera and Chikanda 2009; Chikanda 2011; Bloch and Schuster 2006;
Fisher 2007; Lazaridis and Koumandraki 2007; McGregor 2007; Cherti 2008; Spicer 2008;
Veary 2008; Lefko-Everett 2010; Bloch, Sigona and Zetter 2011; Maphosa 2011; Sigona
2012). Levitas et al (2007) recommended the qualitative study of social exclusion because of
its ability to explore individual experiences and offer deeper insights into the complex
interplay of factors responsible for the exclusion of various individuals. Iosifides (2003)
argues that in migration studies qualitative research methods are the best when one addresses
issues of “how” social processes, mechanisms and meanings are generated.

4.2.2 Previous studies on Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa

Zimbabwean migration research is dominated by research institutes and NGOs such as the
Southern African Migration Project (SAMP), Forced Migration Studies Programme, (FMSP),
Solidarity Peace Trust (SPT), People Against Suffering and Oppression (PASSOP) and
Human Rights Watch (HRW). These organisations have their own agendas for carrying out
research among Zimbabweans and the publications on the fate of Zimbabwean migrants in
South Africa have been growing thanks to these organisations. They commonly carry out
surveys of Zimbabweans in various parts of South Africa and produce reports that mainly
provide policy recommendations on Zimbabwean migration to South Africa. Because of such
organisations, there has been a growing body of literature on Zimbabwean migration streams
to South Africa and their participation in the South African labour market. This growing body
of literature needs to be criticised, since sometimes estimates, numbers and the conditions of
Zimbabwean migrants may be exaggerated. This is certainly not to relegate to obscurity the
great strides made by such organisations in increasing awareness and drawing attention to the
conditions of Zimbabweans in South Africa, particularly on issues of abuse and

83
discrimination. These organisations usually employ Zimbabwean researchers to study the
Zimbabwean migrants for obvious practical reasons such as easy acceptability and trust.

Previous research studies of Zimbabwean migrants by other Zimbabweans have made use of
covert/overt participant observation, informal group discussions, personal histories, ‘hanging
out’, ‘casual conversations’, and in-depth and key informant interviews, (for example,
Muzvidziwa 2001; Dumba and Chirisa 2010; Lefko-Everett 2010; Matshaka 2010; Crush and
Tawodzera 2011). In terms of sampling, snowballing seems to be the common method thus
sample sizes tend to be small (Dumba and Chirisa 2010; Crush and Tawodzera 2011) except
for Bloch (2008) who studied 500 migrants using snowballing. So far the research with the
biggest sample size is that by Makina (2007) which involved 4654 respondents. From these
studies, it is clear that research on Zimbabwean migrants has mainly been limited to central
Johannesburg areas such as Hillbrow and Yeoville and other parts of South Africa such as
Cape Town.

4.2.3. Identifying the gap

Although Tembisa and Kempton Park have a lot of Zimbabwean migrants, I have not come
across any published study of Zimbabweans in these areas. This research is well placed in
describing the lives of Zimbabweans in these areas that have not been studied before. To this
extent, therefore, this study is both refreshing and explorative as it shows how Zimbabweans
give meaning to their lives in Tembisa and Kempton Park.

4.3. Delimitations/ scope of the study

In terms of geographical area, the research is confined to Tembisa and Kempton Park in
Johannesburg and only includes Zimbabwean migrants. These two areas are located north of
Johannesburg on the East Rand. Kempton Park was traditionally a ‘white’ area established in
1903 while Tembisa is a township that was especially established in 1957 to accommodate
blacks who were removed from the ‘white’ areas of Kempton Park, Midrand and Germiston.
Some blacks were relocated to ease overcrowding in Alexandra (SAHA 2012). These blacks
were relocated in such a way that the Zulu, Pedi, Tswana and other ethnic groups stayed in

84
different sections. Up to now, there are sections known to be populated by these specific
ethnic groups. Members of these groups used to fight each other when they were found in
sections that they did not reside in. They were viewed as ‘foreigners’ (SAHA 2012). The
specific areas/ sections of Tembisa where research participants stayed were as follows:
Endayini, Umfayaneni, Umthambeka, Moedi, Phumlong, Oakmoar, Ndulwini and
Esangweni. In Kempton Park the research was limited to flats in the central business district
(CBD) and suburbs of Birchleigh and Edleen.

These migrants were studied between April and December 2012 in a non-continuous manner.
However, I spent two months (June and July) participating daily in the activities of migrants
in Tembisa and Kempton Park. The fifty eight (58) participants are a mixture of the
documented/legal and the undocumented or undocumented migrants. Thus, the term migrant
in this study, refers to both documented and undocumented Zimbabweans in South Africa.
The research includes the small entrepreneurs, the formally employed and unemployed. This
research excludes cross border traders and visitors who have been in South Africa for less
than six months. Theoretically, the research confines itself to theories of migration, social
exclusion and social capital.

The exact numbers of research participants and their current place of residence are reflected
in the table below.

TABLE 4: CURRENT PLACE OF RESIDENCE

Frequency Percent
Kempton
15 26
Park
Tembisa 43 74
Total 58 100

As shown in the above table, the majority (74%) of participants resided in Tembisa while a
quarter (26%) stayed in Kempton Park. While some conduct their businesses and work in
Tembisa, most Zimbabwean migrants staying in Tembisa work in Kempton Park (for
example in Isando and Croydon) while others work in Edenvale, Midrand, Centurion,
Fourways and business areas along the way to Pretoria and Johannesburg.

85
The selection of Johannesburg as an area of focus is premised on the fact that it is the largest
South African city and economic centre and the fact that 46% of about 3 million international
migrants are found in the Gauteng province (Veary 2008; Landau, Wa Kabwe-Segatti and
Misago 2011). The 2011 census estimates that the population of South Africa is 51,7 million
and Gauteng has the highest number of people (12 272 263). Of these individuals, 7,1% have
been specified as non citizens (Statistics South Africa 2012). These are, therefore, the foreign
migrants. This translates to about 871330, 7 migrants in Gauteng. Zimbabweans are included
in this figure. In 2001 Statistics South Africa (cited in Crush and Tevera 2010) had indicated
a total of 131 886 Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa, with 68,6 (52%) living in the
Gauteng province. Though these statistics may not be accurate, they give a rough indicator
that many Zimbabwean migrants are found in the Gauteng province, especially in
Johannesburg.

4.4. Negotiating entry: the insider/outsider debate

This research was carried out by a Zimbabwean female academic. I assumed that since I am
Zimbabwean I would be able to reflect on my own experiences as a foreigner in South Africa.
I thought that this would gain me easy entry into the community of Zimbabwean migrants
and thus become an insider. This was predicated on the assumption that, being Zimbabwean,
I would gain better acceptability among other Zimbabweans who can identify with me as
foreigners (Ndebele, Kalanga, and Shona) in South Africa. This was not as easy as I had
assumed because some migrants wanted to fully understand the purposes of the research and
how they stood to benefit from it. They also wanted to verify that I was not sent by the South
African government to spy on Zimbabweans in order to deport them (especially those who
were waiting for the approval of their permits and those that had not bothered to apply for the
work permits for various reasons). I had to answer fully all their questions and convince them
that this research was specifically for academic purposes. This I did by showing them my
ethical clearance letter from the Department of Sociology, UNISA, my UNISA student
identity card, my Midlands State University staff identity card and my passport. This was
mainly done for two interviewees who had doubts about my identity as a researcher.

86
However, even after showing them all these documents one proceeded to say that Nigerians
can make such documents and she had only agreed to participate in the study because she is
naturally inquisitive and that she trusted my key informant who introduced me to her.
However, with time this woman got used to my visits and started recommending her friends
to participate in the research. Sharing common national and ethnic characteristics may not be
enough grounds for accepting a researcher (Cherti 2008). Sometimes migrants trust your key
informants and agree to participate on that basis (Van Nieuwenhuyze 2009).

Even after clearing this hurdle, I still needed to show them how important this research was
to them. This was quite difficult. One woman who refused to participate in the study told me
point blank that: “You are doing the research so that you get more educated and earn more
money and what about me? How do I benefit from this research? Since you are saying it’s not
politically motivated then the government may never know how much we are suffering, so
what’s the point?”

This happened after I had interviewed her neighbour successfully and she (the neighbour) had
volunteered to introduce me to this woman. However, not all experiences were this difficult.
Some migrants were so welcoming and forthcoming that I felt ashamed that I had nothing to
offer in exchange for their valuable insights and information. This lends support to the
observations by Bourke, Butcher, Chisonga, Clarke, Davies and Thorn (2009:102) that it is
quite unsettling when one realises that the research is more beneficial to the researcher than
the researched. The comforting experiences were certainly with those individuals who took
the research as an opportunity to unburden and tell their stories to a listening ear without any
fear of being judged. Fortunately, that was the majority of the interviewees. This arose from
their perception that I was an independent researcher not affiliated to any political party and
not related to them in any way. They could create their narratives; justifying, explaining and
describing their migrant experiences and trajectories as they pleased.

Being an insider of the migrants’ groups demanded much more than just being Zimbabwean.
I needed to demonstrate that I was Shona or Ndebele and show knowledge of Zimbabwe by
relating to the areas where migrants claimed to come from. Some readily accepted me when I
showed that I knew the rural area where they come from. However, I could not gain total
acceptance due to issues of social class. Most participants passed comments about how good
and fit I looked (probably signalling to them that the economic situation in Zimbabwe had
improved) which I think made it difficult for them to continue justifying why they were still

87
in South Africa when things in Zimbabwe had seemingly improved. They went on to justify
this by arguing that it was because I was more educated than them and that even if they were
in Zimbabwe, they would still earn much less than me and therefore live disadvantageous
lifestyles. Some openly stated that Zimbabwe is good to the educated and skilled and harsh to
the uneducated and unskilled who could at least lead better lives in South Africa. These
individuals were interested in knowing how much I earned.

Researchers are never fully insiders because participants know that the researcher is there for
a purpose. I was never fully an insider because it was always known that I would leave some
day. Although I bought some clothes (jeans and T-shirts) from South African stores, I was
always teased for buying ‘cheap’ clothes (especially takkies) that identified me as a
Zimbabwean (in their eyes). Surprisingly though, I was never stopped by the police for
identity papers. In terms of language, I continued to speak Ndebele and Shona and although I
would drop in one or two Zulu words, I remained ‘Zimbabwean’.

However, the advantage of having this research done by a fellow Zimbabwean was that as a
foreigner (and thus insider to this Zimbabwean group) issues of translation and language
barriers did not bog down the research. This was much better than a situation where the
research would have been carried out by a native South African who would have had to
negotiate language barriers, trust and acceptability (and sometimes racial issues) which can
really slow down the research process. Iosifides (2003:442) states that “it is extremely
difficult and sometimes impossible for an outsider to see and understand fully the world we
live through the eyes of ‘others’”. This is the case with cross cultural research where the
researcher may impose his/her meanings and interpretations on the data. This observation
was also made by Van Nieuwenhuyze (2009) who had to negotiate racial, language and
gender barriers in her study of African Senegambian men in Amsterdam. Hatziprokopiou
(2006) also had a hard time trying to gain entry among Albanian migrants in Greece. They
regarded him with suspicion because he was a native Greek.

88
4.4.1. Trade offs

Zimbabwean migrants are busy people with tight working schedules (especially those in the
formal sector). It becomes difficult then to disturb their routines. Most interviews were done
after 6pm when they were back from work or during the weekends after church when
relaxing and preparing afternoon meals. However, the guilt of appropriating this limited free
time to oneself requires more than just saying that the research would benefit the researcher
academically. I found that I needed to be ‘useful’ to the research participants in one way or
the other even without them asking for such trade offs. Thus:

“Despite the good intentions of research methodology and scrutinising how research
may impinge on or contribute to participants, time and time again we find that in
order to contribute, we require a trade off...You allow me to interview you and I will
assist by giving you a lift to the clinic or helping you fund raise for a community
event...and so on” (Bourke et al 2009:102).

In my case, I ended up buying wares sold by hawkers (who move from one section of
Tembisa to the other street by street). I did my hair in the local salons owned by
Zimbabweans and spent lots of time in an internet cafe owned by another Zimbabwean who
was a key informant. Here, I gained valuable information from other Internet cafe users and
conducted some interviews there. As trade offs, I gave information on how to apply and get
places at the Midlands State University (where I work) to those that had relatives requiring
such information.

After being accepted as a community member I was expected to attend church services and
women’s meetings. While this was good for rapport, such expectations made it difficult for
me not to attend (because of other appointments with other interviewees) as individuals felt
let down. Therefore I found myself attending church services on Saturday (with the Seventh
day Adventists [SDA] and on Sundays (with members of Jesus Promotion Ministries and
ZAOGA Forward in Faith Ministries).

However, SDA church members were uncomfortable with the idea that I attended Sunday
services in other churches and with my wearing of trousers during the week. I found out
about my dressing style when one of my key informants passed a comment that I looked
better and smarter when wearing skirts and dresses than when wearing jeans. I tried to vary

89
my dressing because members from other denominations had problems with the wearing of
skirts and dresses during weekdays; these kinds of clothes are viewed as markers or signs of
being Zimbabwean. They were, thus, uncomfortable talking to me when I was dressed like
that. Dressing is quite tricky in a population that is trying very hard to conceal their
Zimbabwean identity.

4.5. Data collection techniques

4.5.1 Introduction

Research methods used were mainly semi structured and in-depth life history interviews
based on a sample of 58 that was purposively selected. These were supplemented by
moments of participant observation by the researcher as I stayed with the participants for the
duration of the study. The research is mainly based on life history interviews/narratives and
participant observation. Life history interviews are geared towards understanding the
migrants’ whole life course (Van Nieuwenhuyze 2009). The use of the word narratives here
is to emphasise the focus on how migrants create ‘their stories’ in explaining their life
courses. This understanding is guided by, but a bit different from Riessman’s (2002; 2008)
strict outline of narrative research as the major research method. The use of the semi-
structured interview is justified on the basis of having a flexible guide or framework for
interviewing (Patton 1990).

4.5.2. Interviewing

Interviews generally move along the continuum of structured to unstructured. The purpose of
the interview is to have an appreciation of another person’s perspective which is regarded as
‘meaningful’ (Patton 1990; Polkinghorne 2005). Interviews have been hailed for having the
following advantages (Hammersley 2008: 91): (a) providing a source of ‘self analyses by

90
informants’; (b) providing an indirect source of evidence about the participants’ orientations;
(c) being a source of witness accounts about events and settings in the social world; (d) being
a source of evidence about the constructional or discursive work engaged in by participants
(and perhaps by the interviewer) through which interview data are produced. These
advantages outweigh the weaknesses of interviews which include the interviewer bias and
errors caused by the research participants’ definitions of what they consider appropriate to be
spoken about or what they think the researcher wants. The quality of the information obtained
through interviews depends on the interviewing skills of the researcher who is the main
instrument of the research (Patton 1990; Polkinghorne 2005).

The aim of this research was to get participants’ narratives of their lives as foreigners in
South Africa. Riessman (2008) argues that the advantage of narratives is that they generate
detailed accounts rather than brief answers or general statements. She defines narratives as
stories told by research participants and interpretive accounts developed by an investigator
based on interviews and field observations. Narratives tend to be interpretations of how
participants view their lives and how these are also viewed by the researcher. Narratives have
diverse functions such as helping individuals remember, argue, justify, persuade, engage,
entertain and even mislead an audience (Riessman 2008:8). This research reveals how
Zimbabweans construct their stories and understand their lives with regards to social
exclusion from the South African labour market and society.

The researcher used the questions outlined in appendix 10.1 as the guiding framework though
the researcher asked additional questions to collect more information. These included the
respondents’ recommendations on what the governments of South Africa and Zimbabwe can
do to make their existence more dignified.

4.5.3. Participant observation

Participant observation is mainly associated with ethnographic research. In this particular

study participant observation was used to gain a deeper understanding of migrants as groups
with a culture that was different from the rest of the South African society. This strategy was
used but only to a lesser extent. I observed and participated in those communal activities such

91
as church gatherings on weekends. I attended one session of the book club frequented by
middle class migrants. I also visited some migrants at their workplaces observing their work
environments. I also shared meals with some migrants who invited me for dinner. Here I
observed their homes (mainly one room accommodation) and saw the kind of property,
furniture and material possessions they had. According to Polkinghorne (2005) researchers
can observe participants’ behaviours, facial expressions, clothing and other nonverbal
indications. They can also observe the environments such as homes, offices and furniture.

4.5.4. The pilot study

The importance of testing research instruments before the actual study can never be
overemphasised. Testing helps detect errors, possible ambiguity and reveals how respondents
will understand the questions asked. I tested the interview schedule through a pilot study
before the actual data collection in June. For the purposes of this pilot study the researcher
selected ten participants who did not participate in the actual study. These stayed in Tembisa
and Kempton Park. Observations from the pilot study led to the refinement of the interview
schedule and the decision to abandon the consent form after using it on five interviewees. As
a result of the pilot study I added questions on recommendations of migrants to both the
Zimbabwean and South African governments. This was caused by the migrants’ own need to
proffer solutions particularly to the South African government and their sentiments
concerning the economic situation in Zimbabwe.

The pilot study also led to a radical departure from the originally stated plan. Prior to the
fieldwork I had indicated that I would use a consent form (see appendix 10.2) where
interviewees would sign to show voluntary consent. Interviewees in the pilot study showed
reluctance to sign the form even after my explanations that the research was purely for
academic purposes. I then decided to drop the consent form.

The pilot study provided an estimate of the duration of one interview and the suitability of the
interview questions especially with regards to the self employed who could not talk about
being members of a union and employee rights. The longest interview was 70 minutes long
while the shortest was 10 minutes long. I noted that the use of the tape recorder was much

92
appreciated after I had shown that I was not interested in their names and after explaining the
reasons for using the recorder rather than the notebook, where I said that the notebook would
slow me down and make it difficult for me to capture everything. I also assured them that
nobody would listen to it except my research supervisor. So I maintained the tape recorder
while I also used a notebook and kept a diary to record other important activities. In the
actual research all except two interviews were tape recorded.

During the same study, I was approached by one Nigerian migrant in Kempton Park who
begged me to interview him. This was despite my explanation that the study only targeted
Zimbabweans. He begged and insisted that I interview him to the point of embarrassment. I
gave in and interviewed him. While this interview is not part of the study, it helped me
appreciate that his experience was no different from his Zimbabwean counterparts I had
interviewed. Although his eagerness to express himself could be interpreted as probably a
personality issue, it could also reveal the general need for migrants to be heard, listened to or
to simply unburden.

In terms of the direction the research would take, the pilot study revealed the importance of
church membership in facilitating the integration of individuals into the migrant community.
It also revealed family dynamics and how these changed as family members tried to help,
compete, outwit and shun each other in Johannesburg. These, became the focus of the actual
research.

4.6. Sources of data

Polkinghorne (2005) identifies three sources of qualitative data: interviews, observations and
documents. These fall within two broad categories of primary and secondary sources of data.
The research combines both primary and secondary sources of data, where primary sources
are those where the researcher directly collects the information from the research himself or
herself whereas secondary sources are those that the researcher does not have control over
since the data exists prior to the researcher’s particular study. It is already existing material.
This is usually in the form of archival data. Primary data were collected from the interviews
and life histories of the selected migrants. The researcher used notebooks and an audio tape
recorder to record data. I also kept a diary where I recorded activities such as church sermons

93
and other critical events. The use of the tape recorder only happened after the participants’
approval that they were comfortable. At the end of the interview I would play back the
recording in order for them to hear how their voice sounded on the recorder and approve of
the recording. Some insisted on this, while others did not want to hear themselves on the
recorder.

The research also involves secondary data analysis of literature, documents, statistics and
records of Zimbabwean migration to South Africa from institutions such as government
offices, the Internet, the International Organisation for Migration and other research centres
such as SAMP and FMSP. Because of the mix of primary and secondary sources of data, the
research entails an element of triangulation of data sources which increases the validity of the
study.

4.7. Sampling methods

Qualitative research designs use non probability sampling methods such as purposive, deviant
or extreme case, typical case, maximum variation or heterogeneity, snowballing and
convenience sampling methods. The main reason for the choice of a particular sampling
method is its ability to lead to the selection of cases with rich, deep data. While sample size
matters (Sandelowski 1995), the major aim in qualitative research is not representativeness of
the sample to the whole population but “the provision of full saturated descriptions of the
experience under investigation” (Polkinghorne 2005:139) and elucidation on the “particular
and the specific” (Creswell 2007:126). The sampling methods and sample size are
determined by the purpose of the research or the kinds of data the researcher is looking for. If
one’s purpose is to provide a snap shot of the current situation of a large population then a
quantitative large scale sample survey would suffice. However, if one wants to provide
meaning and analyses of people’s lives, processes and beliefs, then they may select
qualitative sampling methods using a smaller sample for a deeper analysis. Sandelowski
(1995:183) reiterates that:

“an adequate sample size in qualitative research is one that permits - by virtue of not
being too large - the deep, case oriented analysis that is the hallmark of all qualitative

94
 inquiry and that results in - by virtue of not being too small - a new and richly
textured understanding of experience”.

Again in a situation where one deals with mostly elusive, difficult to find, populations that do
not want to be known and has no sampling frame, then one cannot use probability sampling
methods. These are mainly premised on the assumption that there is a sampling frame and
some of the characteristics of the population are known.

Therefore, in this research I used snowballing and purposive sampling methods and a
deliberately small sample of 58 in order to allow for an in- depth analysis of participants' life
histories. Other factors that affected the sample size included the fact that the research was
carried out by one person and issues of saturation. Since this was individual research, I could
not cover more than these two areas (in any case these are huge areas themselves having
many suburbs and sections within them), neither could I engage in a quantitative research for
practical purposes. While Creswell (2007) has attempted to provide rough guidelines on
sample size (for example less than thirty for phenomenological research), I believe that there
is no prescription concerning the size of the sample in qualitative research. What may be
more important is the ability to reach saturation - a point when the researcher feels that there
is no new information generated by the interviews. This is the stage when one should stop
sampling (Sandelowski 1995).

Initial contacts were made through my personal connections with Zimbabweans in Tembisa.
One of these was my cousin who became my assistant cum roommate for the duration of my
stay. She accompanied me to all the sections of Tembisa and Kempton Park as we criss-
crossed these areas interviewing Zimbabwean migrants. Since there is no sampling frame of
Zimbabweans in Johannesburg and most undocumented migrants are difficult to access,
personal connections and referrals assisted in accessing participants. Migrants have migrant
networks and these greatly facilitated snowballing and identifying participants. Sometimes
interviewees would go with me and introduce me to their relatives and friends. This same
strategy was adopted by Muzvidziwa (2001) who used his sisters- in- law as entry points into
the circle of female cross border traders in Zimbabwe.

The sampling methods were purposive in that attempts were made to approach
knowledgeable individuals such as those who had been in Tembisa for a long period of time

95
(for example, more than 10 years) or those with special circumstances such as being
entrepreneurs, or those who had successfully changed their identities and citizenship to South
Africa through naturalisation and other methods. This was a deliberate strategy to involve
‘information rich’ individuals. The other deliberate purpose was including as many different
men and women as possible to achieve heterogeneity. The gender ratio was maintained such
that eventually there were 33 males and 25 females that participated in the study. This
roughly corresponds to the male-female ratio of migrants in Johannesburg (Polzer 2008;
Veary 2008; Crush, Williams and Nicholson 2009).

Literature on migrants in South Africa suggests that migrants tend to live in clusters (as a
security measure against hostility and crime) in selected areas of Johannesburg such as
Alexandria, Benoni, Berea, Hillbrow, Orange Farm, Tembisa, Rosettenville, Windsor,
Yeoville, (Morris 1998; Sinclair 1999; Harris 2001; Makina 2007; Veary 2008; Betts and
Kaytaz 2009; Makina 2010; Worby 2010; Crush and Tawodzera 2011). A study by
Vigneswaran et al (2010) revealed that most Zimbabweans cluster in inner city Johannesburg
areas such as Berea, Hillbrow and Yeoville. This trend was also visible in Tembisa where
certain family members were found in the same section or nearby section of Tembisa, for
example; Umthambeka and Endayini or Ndulwini and Phumlong.

Snowballing has the disadvantage of exposing the researcher to participants who have similar
characteristics and a similar perspective. Therefore, to cater for biases that could arise from
use of this method the researcher employed purposive sampling and deliberately left out
certain family members whose life histories tended to be similar or who were in similar
professions. This method brought the variety needed in the research and ensured that there
were more male participants than female participants in the sample since there are generally
more male than female Zimbabwean migrants.

4.8. Method of analysis

The research uses the Miles and Huberman (1994) approach to data analysis. This approach
aims to trace out stable relationships among social phenomena based on the regularities and
sequences that link these phenomena. While it is a qualitative method of data analysis, it
allows for a bit of quantification through data displays such as tables and graphs. In Chapters

96
Five, Six, Seven and Eight, I extensively use tables to display data. The Miles and Huberman
framework has 3 main components which are interactive and occur concurrently and
continually throughout the research. These are:

(a) Data reduction - in the early stages of data analysis data reduction occurs through editing,
segmenting and summarising the data. Because I used a tape recorder, I started off by
transcribing the data onto a notebook. After that I then engaged in a phase of familiarisation
where I read through the data many times in order to know the data and identify tags and
labels. In the middle stages it happens through coding and memoing (memoing is the writing
up of ideas about codes and their relationships as they strike the analyst while coding) and
associated activities such as finding themes, clusters and patterns (Polkinghorne 2005; Punch
2005). In later stages it happens through conceptualising and explaining, since developing
abstract concepts is one way of reducing the data. A list of the emergent themes, categories
and patterns in the data is provided in the introduction of Chapter Five.

(b) Data display - here data are displayed through graphs, charts, tables, networks and
diagrams of different types (Venn etc.). This enables data to be assembled and summarised.
Qualitative analysis involves repeated and iterative displays of data. In order to create data
displays such as tables, I ran a software programme called Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) and entered data after coding and creating 58 variables. All the tables and
figures in Chapter Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight were generated by this SPSS programme.

(c) Drawing and verifying conclusions - also takes place more or less concurrently with the
above two stages. Some conclusions may have been drawn at the early stages of the research,
but I regarded them as tentative pending further work and finalisation. In the end, conclusions
drawn provide explanations for the inclusion and exclusion of Zimbabwean migrants in South
Africa. Some of my conclusions are shown through the conceptual framework outlined in
Chapter Three which shows the observed linkages of certain variables such as having a
devalued status, the role of public and private institutions and officials and social exclusion.

97
4.9. Validity issues

While qualitative researchers agree that qualitative research must be valid they argue that the
criteria for qualitative validation are different from those used in quantitative research.
Instead of such terms as internal and external validity qualitative research is judged on the
basis of ‘authenticity’, ‘transferability’ and ‘credibility’ (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). Maxwell
(2002:42) argues that validity is not a characteristic of a research method but of research
reports that are “reached by using that particular method in a particular context for a
particular purpose”. He came up with three types of validity in qualitative research. These
are: descriptive (concerned with giving an accurate account of what is studied), interpretive
validity (having the ability to provide the proper meaning of events as perceived by
participants - i.e. providing an emic perspective) and theoretical validity (refers to categories
identified, relationships existing between these categories and abstractions and explanations
built by the researcher from the interpretations and descriptions given).

Judging the validity of qualitative research is often a difficult task since the research is
mainly based on the interpretations of the researcher’s understanding of the participants’
interpretations of their lives, such that the researcher’s story tends to be an interpretation of
interpretations of participants. Besides, every research report is written from a particular
philosophical, racial, gender and class standpoint informed by certain values (Maxwell 2002;
Riessman 2002; Polkinghorne 2005; Creswell 2007). Riessman (2008:29) warns that all
participants’ stories gathered by researchers tend to be selective and perspectival, reflecting
the power of memory to remember, forget, neglect and amplify moments in the stream of
experience. Indeed qualitative research has come under sharp criticism for not guaranteeing
validity, reliability and other criteria for judging the objectivity and scientific nature of
research.

Hammersley (2008) argues that qualitative researchers must not accept what participants say
at face value because sometimes what people say in interviews is not necessarily what they
do neither does it sometimes reflect their true feelings. He argues that:

“In everyday life when people tell us things, we tend to take what they say on trust
unless it conflicts with what we already believe, or unless we have some reason to

98
 doubt what they say. By contrast, the researcher must be less ‘charitable’ in this sense;
in other words he/she must adopt a more sceptical attitude towards the information
provided by informants. This is not just a matter of taking precautions against
deliberate misrepresentations, though that is certainly part of it, but also recognising
that people do not necessarily know what they think they know, that interpreting what
they say is not always straightforward, and so on. Above all we need to recognise how
both informants’ accounts and researchers’ interpretations of those accounts always
depends on assumptions, some of which may turn out to be false” (Hammersley 2008:
99).

These sentiments expressed by Hammersley were clearly reflected in the case of one migrant
who had responded by saying ‘no’ to my question about whether he would consider marrying
a South African woman. The migrant proceeded to do the exact opposite. After a fall-out with
his Zimbabwean live-in girlfriend with whom he had 2 children and whom he had stayed
with for four years, he went on to live with a well to do older Zulu woman. He had an
engagement party after two months and now plans to marry her. Another example is that of a
man who had told me that landlords treat tenants the same way and that there was no
discrimination between individuals. The same man moved out of his room at the end of the
month stating that the landlord did not want married tenants with children and that he now
planned to live with his girlfriend with whom he had a young child.

In order to guard against some of the seemingly contradictory situations and pitfalls identified
above and also to increase the credibility of this research report, I adopted the following ways
(adapted from Denzin 2002; Maxwell 2002; Mikkelsen 2004; Creswell 2007; and
Hammersley 2008):

1. I engaged in observation in order to compare what a person says at one point in the
interview and what they actually did and said at other situations outside the interview,
taking into account the different context. I would compare what they said in the
interview with what they said when I met them on the streets, at church and in the
internet cafe or shopping centre.

2. I compared what a participant said with what other participants said in the same
situation to detect possible errors of interpretation. This happened through

99
 comparisons of stories of undocumented migrants which were compared with each
other while stories of documented migrants were also compared with each other. I
tried comparing stories of house-maids vis-a-vis other maids while I did the same for
security guards and small business owners.

3. I carried out second or third interviews to provide a check on my analyses. This is in

line with Polkinghorne’s (2005) recommendation, since ‘one short’ interview (where
participant is only interviewed once) may not afford the researcher the needed full and
detailed descriptions that form the hallmark of qualitative research. This happened
with twenty four interviewees.

4. I ensured thick description providing detailed accounts of the participants under study
and their situations making extensive use of verbatim quotations. Hopefully this will
increase the confidence of the readers in the data. Creswell (2007:182) argues that
there are three types of quotes: short quotations that are eye catching by virtue of
being indented, embedded quotes which are quoted phrases within an analyst’s
narrative and long quotes that contain many ideas and that may require the researcher
to guide the reader ‘into’ and ‘out of’ the quote to focus the reader on what the writer
wants them to see. All these three are used extensively in Chapters Five, Six, Seven
and Eight.

5. I involved transparent documentation of procedures so that information relating to the

time and location of the data collection, procedures and methods of analyses are clear.
This happened through the use of notebooks and diaries where I entered my
observations and remarks regarding the research.

6. The research is validated by the data sources and theoretical triangulation that the
researcher employed. Data sources triangulation was employed through the use of
primary and secondary sources of data. Theoretical triangulation was used as the
researcher explored various theoretical explanations on social exclusion and migrant
networks and social capital in understanding the lives of Zimbabwean migrants.

100
 7. I also guarded against certain stereotypical answers (such as South Africans hate us or
beat us) by asking whether the participant actually experienced this at a personal
level. Surprisingly some answers pointed to the contrary.

Generally threats to the validity for qualitative projects mainly result from the inability of
the researcher to give a complete and accurate description of events or phenomena. They
also relate to reactivity (especially for interviews) and the researcher’s theoretical or
ideological biases permeating through the research. The best way to solve such problems
and curb these threats is to try as much as possible to capture everything thus giving a
detailed ‘thick description’ of the participants’ lives. The researcher was constantly aware
of how her conduct of the interviews affected interviewees’ responses. Such an
understanding allowed for reflexivity.

4.10. Ethical issues

Credible research is one that upholds certain moral standards. Although some researchers
may have reasons for paying respondents for providing sensitive information (for example,
Chin’s [2007] study of Asian and Latino migrants in New York), I decided not to pay
participants for fear of sending the wrong signals to them. I wanted participation and
acceptability to be natural and not economically driven. Throughout the study I endeavoured
to be sensitive to migrants’ unique cases and treat them with respect and dignity. While my
research obviously invaded their privacy in terms of asking for private and sensitive
information and also in terms of entering their one roomed forms of accommodation where
mostly one had no other option than to sit on the migrants’ beds, this was done in a respectful
manner. The specific guidelines I observed are outlined as follows:

1. In order to get access to participants it was necessary to use an introductory letter

from the Department of Sociology, UNISA. Therefore, I requested a cover letter from the
supervisor that clearly articulated the purpose of the study and identified the researcher as a
doctoral student of UNISA. I also got ethical clearance from the departmental higher degrees
committee which was satisfied with my proposed ethical conduct in the field. These
documents were used together with my UNISA student identity card, my MSU staff identity

101
card and my passport. All these were used at various stages of the research to negotiate
access to certain interviewees.

2. Voluntary informed consent was sought from participants. This means that the
researcher explained fully the purposes of the research to participants and made it clear that
participation was voluntary and not coerced. Those that refused to participate were left alone.
I had designed a consent form which outlined my intentions and which was meant to be
signed by the participants before starting an interview. However, I stopped using the consent
form after participants in the pilot study showed that they were uncomfortable with its use.

3. I did not mislead participants through promises of money, jobs, beer or connections
with the Department of Home Affairs as a condition of participation. However, I tried to be
useful to the participants by giving them information they needed about where I work and
about how to apply to study for a degree at both UNISA and MSU. I also helped sell goods in
one spaza shop in Moedi, Tembisa, while I used local salons and an internet cafe owned by
the research participants. I also participated in some church outreach programmes (for SDA)
where we went around Umthambeka section in Tembisa preaching the Christian gospel door
to door.

4. The researcher endeavoured to protect the participants’ privacy and confidentiality at

all times. The researcher only used the audio tape recorder after getting the consent of the
participants. I then played them back (those that requested) the recording to show that what
was recorded is what we had agreed upon. In the write up the researcher uses pseudonyms to
refer to participants such that their privacy is protected at all times. However, sometimes
pseudonyms may not be enough to protect the privacy of participants. Van Nieuwenhuyze
(2009) argued that pseudonyms may not totally protect the participants especially in narrative
studies where a detailed description is given to the extent that those that are familiar with the
person can easily tell who they are even without seeing the name.

5. The publication of findings will only take place after getting the consent of
respondents involved in the study.

102
4.11. Conclusion

This chapter provided an outline of the qualitative research methodology pursued in this
research providing the necessary justification for such a research strategy. Qualitative
research methodology is justified by the researcher’s quest to understand, describe and
explore in detail the lives of selected 58 Zimbabwean migrants in the areas of Tembisa and
Kempton Park. The need for flexibility is emphasised because the direction of the research
constantly changed as the research progressed. The need to capture the respondents’ stories
also justifies the deliberate strategy to give them room to air their views on how they feel
excluded from the South African society and their various strategies of surviving or dealing
with social exclusion in their quest for dignified lives in a foreign country. This qualitative
approach is best in answering questions such as: How do Zimbabwean migrants evaluate the
quality of their lives in South Africa? Or how do they interpret the treatment they receive
from nurses or local South African neighbours? Such questions cannot be answered using a
quantitative research approach as the deeper meanings and interpretations are not always the
focus of such researches. This study cannot provide estimates and generalisations concerning
all Zimbabweans in Tembisa and Kempton Park since it is not representative enough. It was
never the intention of the researcher to provide a representative sample, but it is the purpose
of this study to provide a detailed rich in-depth appreciation of the lives of the 58
Zimbabwean migrants under study.

103
CHAPTER FIVE: PROFILES OF ZIMBABWEAN MIGRANTS IN
TEMBISA AND KEMPTON PARK

5.1. Introduction

This chapter presents descriptions of migrants; showing where they live, why they came, how
long they have been in Tembisa and Kempton Park and how they live in these areas. It traces
the origins of the migrants and shows the role of non-migrants, in this case, parents, siblings
and partners, in the facilitation of the migration trajectories. The demographic profiles of
migrants reveal that the majority are younger males and females who are below the age of 45.
They largely engage in live-in arrangements which are semi-legal marriage arrangements.
These tend to be more flexible than the formal marriage systems. In this chapter I use the
words ‘locals’ to refer to native South Africans while ‘migrants’ refer to Zimbabweans. I also
use the words ‘Johannesburg/Joburg central’ to mean the city centre.

The chapter shows that while there is an equal number of Ndebele and Shona migrants in the
sample, Ndebeles have been in Johannesburg longer than the Shonas. The chapter reveals that
74% of the migrants have Ordinary level education only and a few have Advanced level
certificates and degrees. Some migrants engaged in step migration in order to get to
Johannesburg.

The chapter analyses the function of the family network in aiding newcomers with
accommodation, food and job search, especially when these family members are aware of the
newcomers’ arrival. When the newcomer’s intentions to migrate are unknown to the
established migrants, the new comer may be rejected. However, in some cases even when the
newcomer’s arrival is well known, he/she can be rejected if the economic situation of the
established migrant is poor. This then explains the severing of ties and the social exclusion of
migrants by other migrants.

This chapter also exposes the role of human smugglers (malayitsha) and their contribution to
the migrants’ social capital - where if they are known to the newcomer or his /her family
members in both countries transport money may be paid in instalments. This confirms

104
proposition number 10 of my analytical framework outlined in Chapter Three. The discussion
of malayitsha and bus drivers also sheds some light on the negotiations between the border
officials and these transporters exposing the corruption of these officials and their ability to
redefine the legality of migrants.

The reasons for coming to Johannesburg are given as largely economic, especially for males
while some women also migrated to combine job search and joining family members who
had migrated earlier. The chapter discusses in detail the living and sleeping arrangements of
migrants and the pressures they face every day. These may help us understand why some may
resort to crime and deviance to cope in difficult situations (this will be discussed in Chapter
7). The findings reveal a high percentage (85%) of migrants who remit at least once a year.
This shows how remittances are connected to the survival of migrant households in
Zimbabwe and explains why Zimbabwean migration is indeed by and large, a household
coping mechanism.

5.2. The current distribution of Zimbabwean migrants in Tembisa and

Kempton Park

Of those I interviewed, currently 74% stayed in Tembisa while just a quarter lived in
Kempton Park. These migrants are found in the following sections of Tembisa: Endayini,
Esangweni, Umfayaneni, Umthambeka, Moedi, Ndulwini, Oakmoar and Phumlong. In
Kempton Park migrants stay in flats, Edleen and Birchleigh. Of the 15 migrants that live in
Kempton Park, 10 of them never stayed anywhere else. There are 4 participants who once
stayed in Kempton Park but now live in Tembisa. The move to Tembisa is usually
undesirable as the township is looked down upon compared to Kempton Park. A fall in a
person’s fortunes could be responsible for the move to Tembisa. Rentals are cheaper in
Tembisa (where one can get a room for R500 or R600) than in Kempton Park (where renting
a room can cost between R1000 and R1500 per month). In other cases the explanation could
be that an individual requires bigger accommodation space (maybe two rooms) for R1000 or
R1500 which could only be sufficient for a room in the Kempton Park flats.

105
The same could be argued for migrants whose first area of residence was Tembisa. 50% of
the migrants, whose first stay in South Africa was Tembisa, are still in the township. There
are only 2 participants (3,4%) that started by staying in Tembisa and then moved to Kempton
Park. These are admired by residents of Tembisa because their movement is perceived as
upward social mobility. In a few cases, it is not easy to connect residential area with socio-
economic status because there are individuals like the security company owner who is
financially able to stay in Kempton Park but he continues to stay in Tembisa because of the
convenience it offers in terms of being closer to his pool of labour - the security guards. He
also argues that he does not want to waste money in high rentals and would thus invest the
money in his businesses in Zimbabwe. The same argument was put forward by the owner of
the internet cafe (Paradzayi) who has two internet cafes in Tembisa. He prefers to be closer to
his business premises.

5.3. Age, gender and ethnicity characteristics

In terms of the ages of participants most of them (91,4%) are in the economically active age
groups of between 20 and 40 while five of them (8, 6%) are over the age of forty but below
fifty nine. In this sample there are no Zimbabwean migrants above the age of sixty. The table
below illustrates these percentages.

TABLE 5: AGE OF PARTICIPANTS

Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent
20-29 22 38% 38%
30-39 31 53.4% 91.4%
40-49 3 5.2% 96.6%
50-59 2 3.4% 100%
Total 58 100%

106
While these migrants are still in their prime years they came to Johannesburg when they were
already over eighteen. This is different from what Maphosa (2011) found when he discovered
that most migrants migrated when they were younger than eighteen.

Of the fifty eight (58) participants, thirty three (33) were male while twenty-five (25) were
female. There were twenty nine (29) Shona speaking participants (20 male and 9 female) and
twenty nine (29) Ndebele speaking migrants (13 male and 16 female). The current state of
migrants in terms of ethnicity depicts the same numbers of Ndebele and Shona speaking
Zimbabweans in Johannesburg. The above statistics show that among the Shona participants,
males are dominant while among the Ndebele participants, the numbers are almost the same
though Ndebele women (16) are more than men (13).

5.4. Level of education of migrants

Most migrants (74%) had attained the Ordinary (O) level of education while 19% had
Advanced (A) level education. This was combined with a host of certificates and national and
higher national diplomas in various fields such as human resources, library science,
engineering, nursing, teaching, computers and administration. There were two migrants with
first degrees while one migrant had a masters’ degree. There was one migrant who had not
reached ordinary level (form four), he held a junior certificate and argues that his education
was disturbed by the liberation struggle in the 1978-79 period. He was the oldest in the group.
Most educational qualifications were attained before migration. Some migrants continued to
further their education in South Africa by attaining certificates in the areas of accounting,
catering, security and drivers’ licences. There are a few migrants that are currently pursuing
degrees with UNISA. These are documented migrants.

107
TABLE 6: LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF PARTICIPANTS

Level of education Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent
Junior certificate level 1 2% 2%
Ordinary level 43 74% 76%
Advanced level 11 19% 95%
First degree 2 3% 98%
Masters degree 1 2% 100%
Total 58 100% 100%

Migrants generally regard access and content of South African Education as easy but
expensive. For example, Bongani is currently doing a Bachelor of Education degree at
UNISA. He says he always gets distinctions because “it’s more of revision here” for someone
who did a Diploma in Education in Zimbabwe. Bongani has also done a year long course in
estate agency to the point that he has reached the level where he is allowed to register his own
company. Edwin is also studying for a Diploma in Information technology at UNISA. He,
however, struggles to raise the required fees per semester. Migrants prefer UNISA because of
its flexible arrangements of studying at home. There are migrants that are continuing
education using fake South African documents. For example, Farai acquired a fake South
African ID through his cousin. He is currently a shift supervisor at a restaurant. He started off
as a waiter and has been promoted twice. He has done many courses in hotel and catering
using that fake South African name. Migrants who have managed to use their fake documents
to study for certain courses run the risk of losing all their qualifications once they are caught.

There is another group of migrants who have acquired certificates in computers, secretarial
and administration (some even without documentation and legality in the country) from
private colleges. Daniel reveals that “private colleges don’t care whether your asylum is valid
or not”. However, they cannot use these credentials because there are ‘no jobs’ or they are
told that they do not have ‘experience’. Theresa says: “When I came here I did matric and
passed. I also did a diploma in computers but I have never landed a permanent job. They
always say its full”. Some migrants learn on the job. Unfortunately this training is not
supported by documents and is ultimately referred to as ‘experience’. It disadvantages them
on the labour market as they have no proof of training.

108
5.5. Last place of residence in Zimbabwe

In answering the question on where Zimbabwean migrants come from, the following table
shows the migrants’ last place of residence in Zimbabwe. This is the place where they last
stayed before moving to South Africa. It may not necessarily be the place of birth of the
migrants. In some of these places migrants pursued work and educational opportunities
before deciding to migrate. For Zimbabweans, there is still so much importance given to
having a rural homestead. Even when one resides in an urban setting he/she will still want to
have a rural homestead in the village. There are, however, growing numbers of individuals
who prefer to settle permanently in urban areas without building a rural homestead.

TABLE 7: LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF PARTICIPANTS

Last place of Frequency Percent

residence
Bulawayo 21 36.2%
Gokwe 1 1.7%
Gweru 4 6.9%
Harare 9 15.5%
Hwange 2 3.4%
Lupane 1 1.7%
Mutare 5 8.6%
Masvingo 4 6.9%
Marondera 1 1.7%
Mberengwa 1 1.7%
Nkayi 5 8.6%
Silobela 1 1.7%
Tsholotsho 3 5.2%
Total 58 100%

109
It is clear that some migrants came straight from the rural areas (such as Silobela, Tsholotsho,
Lupane, Mberengwa, Nkayi and Gokwe) while others first migrated to urban areas (such as
Gweru, Bulawayo, Harare, Marondera and Mutare) and then moved to South Africa. For
example Aaron is originally from Mberengwa but when he migrated to South Africa in 2008,
he was coming from Bulawayo where he did a course in motor mechanics, which he did not
finish. Therefore international migration was the ultimate step for individuals who were
already engaged in internal step migration.

The above table shows that rather than migration being concentrated in the western parts of
Zimbabwe (such as Bulawayo, Tsholotsho), migrants in Johannesburg now hail from all over
Zimbabwe. While the bulk are still based in major cities and towns (Bulawayo, Harare,
Mutare, Gweru) some migrants come from rural areas of Zimbabwe such as Gokwe,
Mberengwa and Nkayi. The effect of the economic crisis is clear in that rather than migration
being limited to the traditional routes in Zimbabwe, all parts of the country were affected in
the same way and thus people moved to South Africa to ensure survival.

110
FIGURE 1: MAP OF ZIMBABWE

The above map of Zimbabwe shows the areas where migrants come from. These are
Matabeleland North (which includes areas such as Lupane, Hwange, Bulawayo, Nkayi and
Tsholotsho), Matabeleland South (including Gwanda, Mwenezi), Midlands (including
Mberengwa, Zvishavane, Gweru, Silobela and Gokwe), Masvingo province (including
Chiredzi, Chivi, Mwenezi), Manicaland (including Mutare, Nyanga and Rusape),
Mashonaland East (including Marondera and Mutoko), Mashonaland Central (including Mt
Darwin and Bindura), Mashonaland West (including Chinhoyi and Kadoma) and Harare. The
provinces are roughly divided along ethnic lines, where the Matabeleland provinces are
dominated by Ndebele speaking people while Mashonaland, Manicaland and Masvingo
provinces are also dominated by Shona speaking people with different dialects such as
Karanga (Masvingo), Manyika (Manicaland) and Zezuru (Mashonaland). The Midlands
Province is a province with mixed ethnic groups of the Shona and Ndebele.

111
5.6. Length of stay of migrants in Tembisa and Kempton Park

In terms of the length of stay in Johannesburg, it is clear that among the research participants,
Ndebele speaking people have been there longer than the Shona. This is evidenced by the
percentage of Ndebele speaking people (31%) who have been in Johannesburg for over ten
(10) years while only 10,4% of Shona migrants are in the same category. Most Shona
speaking Zimbabweans have been in Johannesburg for less than nine (9) years. This
corresponds well with the period that the Zimbabwe crisis lasted starting in the late 1990s and
worsening from 2000 to 2009. There were no Shona speaking people who have been in
Johannesburg for more than fifteen years while there were 5 (17,3%) Ndebele migrants in the
same category. Among those Ndebele speakers that came to Tembisa in the early 1990s were
William and Bernard. William came in 1992 and he says that Tembisa used to be a dangerous
place full of criminal gangs while Bernard argues that there was no electricity when he came
in 1995 and he shared a room with eight men.

TABLE 8: LENGTH OF STAY IN JOBURG * ETHNICITY CROSS-TABULATION

How long have you been in Joburg? Ethnicity of respondent

Ndebele Shona
Count 1 1
less than a year
% of Total 3,4% 3,4%
Count 5 10
between one and four years
% of Total 17,3% 34,5%
Count 9 15
between five and nine years
% of Total 31% 52%
between ten and fifteen Count 9 3
years % of Total 31% 10,4%
Count 5 0
above fifteen years
% of Total 17,3% 0%
Count 29 29
Total
% of Total 100% 100%

112
This table reflects that the Ndebele people in this study have been in Johannesburg longer
than Shona. These come from Western Zimbabwean areas that have been traditionally
migrant sending places, where migration has become a career and a rite of passage. Maphosa
(2011) argues that people from western parts of Zimbabwe now have a culture of migration
and all their values and behaviours are associated with migration. This is particularly true for
areas such as Gwanda, Tsholotsho, Plumtree, Lupane and Nkayi. These are the same dry,
famine-prone areas of the country. Among the participants, the migrant who has lived here
the longest is a fifty four (54) year old Ndebele male who came to Johannesburg in 1992. He
has been in Johannesburg for twenty years.

5.7. Step migration

While most migrants came to Johannesburg straight from Zimbabwe, a few first stayed in
Musina and Pretoria while others had short stints in Botswana. Edwin first stayed with his
aunt in Pretoria in 2007. He then moved to a farm outside Pretoria where his friends worked.
He worked as a welder welding greenhouse tunnels. He then drifted to Johannesburg after
getting in touch with his cousin in Tembisa. Daniel first stayed in Musina when he crossed
the border in 2007 and stayed with his relatives for eight months before moving to
Johannesburg. There was one migrant who came to Johannesburg via Mozambique using a
Mozambican Identity document. There are five females who had worked in beauty salons in
Botswana as hair dressers but when they came to South Africa some started their journeys
from Zimbabwe. Ruth had been working piece jobs in Botswana and she moved with her
husband straight from Botswana to Johannesburg. Tapera had acquired a work permit in
Botswana and had been working there since 2006. He moved to Johannesburg in 2011
following a friend who had also moved to Cape Town. For these migrants the decision to
migrate to South Africa could have been made easier by their acquired ‘foreign experience’
in Botswana.

There are other migrants who have tried moving to further areas such as Cape Town. These
found Cape Town unfavourable and came back after job promises faltered. Among them is

113
Tapera who had moved from Botswana. He moved from Botswana to Zimbabwe then
Pretoria via Johannesburg to Cape Town and back to Johannesburg.

“My friend had promised me a good job in Cape Town so I went there. I found that he
lied when I arrived at his place and discovered that his sister did not know about my
coming. He avoided coming home till late and we confronted each other...he later
chased me away so I returned to Joburg. I walked some 15km and I had R40 only. It
was in December and I narrated my ordeal to a Zimbabwean truck driver who agreed
to ferry me from Cape Town to Johannesburg on the understanding that my nephew in
Joburg would pay the transport costs once we reach Joburg and that’s how I came to
stay with him in Tembisa” (Tapera).

Another migrant who came back from Cape Town was Farai. He was already in Tembisa
when he decided to try his fortunes in Cape Town in 2006 when he was aged twenty-one.

“I met a friend who told me that Cape Town has many job opportunities. We agreed
to go and try, so we went together. I wanted to go away because of the ill-treatment I
received from my uncle. When we arrived in Cape Town my friend’s relatives
couldn’t answer their phones. We ended up at a police station. We spent a week there
as the police were trying to locate my friend’s relatives. Surprisingly the police
couldn’t tell that we were Zimbabweans. I remembered a distant relative in Cape
Town and phoned him. He came and gave us bus-fare back to Joburg. That’s when I
was disowned by everybody and I started living in the park”.

Cape Town was found to be a harsher environment economically because there were no
friends and relatives willing to house and help the migrants. Without the family network
migrants were vulnerable there.

5.8. Migrant families in Johannesburg

Migrants tended to have a family history of migration. They also tended to have somebody
they knew first before coming to South Africa. This person was either a relative or a friend.
For most individuals it was the presence of relatives that gave them confidence to travel to
South Africa. No one was completely clueless when they came. 91% of the migrants agreed

114
that they had family members in Johannesburg. These were relatives such as parents, siblings,
cousins, uncles and aunts. Migrants also made use of extended family ties including distant
relatives. Only five had no relatives. They had friends living in Johannesburg. Some migrants
had both family members and friends in Johannesburg, so they had a wide choice in selecting
whom to stay with. For example, Godfrey says:

“I first stayed with my friend in Tembisa. My mom was also here but I didn’t want to
stay with her. I had many options. My friend had been here for a long time. I stayed
for two months with my friend and then moved out to stay on my own”.

Felix also had part of his family in Johannesburg. When he came he stayed with his mother
and siblings in the two rooms that they rented in Tembisa.

Another indication that these migrants already had connections in Johannesburg is the fact
that the majority (53%) of migrants first stayed with family members such as brothers, sisters,
cousins and partners. Eight (14%) first stayed with uncles and aunts. A sizeable number of
migrants (22%) first stayed with friends. Four (7%) even stayed with their parents when they
first moved to Johannesburg. Only two participants (who made up 45 of the participants)
were housed by people they did not directly know. Of these two one man (Moses) first stayed
at the Methodist church in Johannesburg central while another (Aaron) first stayed with the
brother of a friend.

For those who already had parents and siblings in South Africa it was difficult to talk about
their first trip as they had always visited during school holidays, leave and vacation. In their
case the first trip was taken to refer to the trip they made after deciding to live in South Africa
as workers or students. This meant that for some participants the whole family had over time
moved to South Africa. When they eventually migrated they were joining a bigger and well
co-ordinated family in Johannesburg. A good example is that of Bongani who comes from
Tsholotsho. He used to visit his mother and brothers in South Africa during school holidays
from 2001 up to 2004. Bongani was a school teacher in Zimbabwe for thirteen years. He then
decided to look for a job in South Africa after resigning in 2004. While most of his family
members are in South Africa, some are in South Korea. There is no longer anyone from his
immediate family remaining in Zimbabwe.

115
5.9. How did they come?

5.9.1. Introduction

This section describes how migrants prepared for their first journey to Johannesburg after
deciding to move and stay there for longer periods. It discusses how potential migrants got
their information and raised their money for the journey, how they were transported across
the border by malayitsha and how they arrived in Johannesburg. It also details how they were
received following their relatives or friends’ knowledge that they had arrived. Most migrants
did not have enough transport money so their relatives in Johannesburg paid the remainder of
the money upon their arrival. In some cases the relatives were aware of the migrants’ plans to
travel while in others they were taken by surprise.

5.9.2. Raising transport money

There was little resistance to the idea of migrating to Johannesburg. In some cases migration
was suggested by family members. A good example is that of Tatenda whose mother
suggested that she migrates to Johannesburg for a better future in 2008. She even sought bus-
fare for her daughter. There were few women who stated that there was resistance from their
parents. This resistance was not directed towards the idea of migrating to Johannesburg but
on the mode of transportation used. For the safety of their daughters, parents tended to prefer
buses or closely related malayitsha whom they could trust rather than unknown malayitsha.
Grace was one such daughter whose mother did not want her to come with malayitsha in
2007. Her sister in Johannesburg had paid malayitsha to bring Grace to South Africa but her
mother demanded a refund preferring that Grace travels by bus. When malayitsha refused to
refund them they had no choice but to take up his offer although the mother was upset.
Therefore in raising transport money there was always a preference for a safer (in terms of
not going via forests) mode of transport even if it cost them more money.

116
While some migrants had travel costs catered for by relatives in Johannesburg or Zimbabwe,
some stole the money from relatives in Zimbabwe. This was the story told by Bernard who
came to Johannesburg in 1995:

“I worked odd jobs in Zimbabwe before coming to Johannesburg. I used to sell

foodstuffs at a bus terminus. I also once worked as a tout for local taxis. One day I
stole my brother’s money that was meant for paying electricity and utility bills. I also
stole my other brother’s passport which I used to cross the border”.

Sometimes potential migrants stole from their employers. This was what Farai did. He used
to work at an internet cafe where he stole a computer and gave it to malayitsha as payment
for transport. Another migrant, Edgar, stole motor spares from his employer and sold them to
raise bus-fare. I noted that the migrants who had stolen goods or money for transport costs
were all male. While the act of theft created tensions, especially among relatives, migrants
were quickly forgiven when they remitted money back home. However, for those that did not
replace the stolen money through remittances, there was a strong connection made between
their misfortunes in Johannesburg (not getting good jobs) and the perceived anger of their
former employers. This belief was so strong that Paradzayi, the brother to Farai, ended up
repaying Farai’s former employer four years after Farai’s migration. This was because his
Farai could not get good jobs over that period and they feared that he had been bewitched by
his former employer.

There was another small group of migrants that raised their own transport money without
assistance from family members. These individuals saved money from their meagre salaries
in Zimbabwe. For example Bongani saved his bonus in 2003 so that he could travel to
Johannesburg in 2004. Vongai had saved her money from the Netherlands where she had
been an international student. From the Netherlands she spent a month in Zimbabwe and then
came to Johannesburg where she stayed with her friend contributing to household
requirements. Godfrey also had some money when he came in 2006. He had saved it for
some time when he worked in the Zimbabwe Prison Services. He was even able to board the
Greyhound coach, considered one of the luxurious cross-border buses in Zimbabwe.

117
5.9.3. Mode of transport used and the role of malayitsha in migrant travels

Migrants came by buses and malayitsha cross - border taxis. Migrants were given transport
money, information and tips on how to travel either by their relatives in Johannesburg or their
families back in Zimbabwe. This made the travel smoother although a few still complained of
being badly treated by their transporters, especially the malayitsha taxi operators. Buses were
generally believed to be safer than the malayitsha taxis because if one had an adequate
amount of money (which includes money for bribing officials) they could cross the border
properly without going through the bushes by just remaining in the bus while others had their
passports stamped. The immigration officers who inspect buses ignore such individuals when
they have been given a ‘reasonable’ amount of money of up to R200. Buses and malayitsha
usually charge between R1000 and R1500 for such cases. However, malayitsha were the
favourite mode of transport especially used by undocumented migrants without money for
bribing officials.

Undocumented migrants mostly prefer using malayitsha or migrant smugglers who have
ways of getting across via the bush. The malayitsha employ individuals called the impisi
(literally meaning hyena) who help potential migrants to cross the Limpopo River and walk
through the bush. They engage in risky business where they help migrants cross the huge
crocodile infested Limpopo River. These human smugglers can be compared with the
Mexican coyotes who smuggle undocumented migrants across the USA-Mexico border
(Krissman 2005; Donato, Wagner and Patterson 2008; Dolfin and Genicot 2010). A coyote is
a prairie wolf. Surprisingly the names impisi and coyote are names of wild animals that are
fierce, carnivorous and hunt in packs. I suppose the imagery is meant to give confidence in
their clients that they can handle the jungle because they live in it like predatory wild
animals. But, it could also mean that the clients run the risk ‘of being eaten’ by the same
animals because they are easy prey.

Fifty percent of the migrants agreed that their first journey after deciding to stay in South
Africa was illegal. They either did not have a passport or the visa that was required for legal
entry. Therefore the entry was illegal and some travelled via the bush or forests. Travelling
via the bush is commonly called dabulapu. The literal meaning of this word is not known
although one could say the word derives from dabula - which means to tear or cut wide open.

118
Migrants could be viewed as cutting through the forests to move from one country to the
other. Dabulapu is common among undocumented migrants in South Africa and Botswana.
Migrants who use dabulapu are always afraid of magumaguma (men who waylay potential
migrants in the forests in order to loot goods, money and clothes from them. They sometimes
rape and kill would-be migrants) and wild animals. For female migrants rape by
magumaguma is their greatest fear. Male migrants commonly joke about not wanting to
marry female migrants who came via dabulapu because some of them would have been
violated by magumaguma. The table below shows how the migrants first entered South
Africa.

TABLE 9: LEGALITY OF FIRST ENTRY

Was the first entry Frequency Percent

legal?
no 29 50%
yes 29 50%
Total 58 100%

Some migrants recalled harrowing stories of how they crossed the Limpopo River in the
company of the impisi and how they were lucky to have escaped the magumaguma.
According to Maphosa (2011) the magumaguma mainly operate in two ways: (a) offering
assistance to potential migrants in crossing the border unofficially and later robbing the same
individuals or (b) waylaying the potential migrants in order to steal, rape or kill them. For
female migrants it was particularly dangerous as they were also afraid of being raped along
the way. Those that used this strategy (dabulapu) recounted how they spent at least 2 days
walking through the forest. One particular lady (Tatenda) who crossed the border in 2008
recounted how they spent 2 weeks in the forests after being duped by the malayitsha that had
ferried them. Her story is as follows:

“I had R600 at the border and one malayitsha tricked us saying he could help us cross
the border directly without going through the forests. I gave him R300 and hid the
other R300. We stayed in the forest for two weeks. The man provided food but he was
stingy because we only ate pap and cabbages while other people belonging to other
malayitsha ate pap and meat. There were groups of people belonging to different

119
 malayitsha who were already there. In our group there were 14 of us and we were told
to wait until we were twenty because the malayitsha’s car needed to carry a full load
of twenty. I discovered five more groups belonging to other malayitsha”.

The story was the same for Mary who broke into tears narrating how they stayed for two
weeks in the forest after her first attempt to cross was foiled by the police at Musina in 2008.
She discovered that there were more than seventy (70) people in the forests belonging to
different malayitsha. She was even more perturbed to discover some individuals who had
been in the forests for two months waiting for their malayitsha’s cars to have the needed full
load.

5.9.4. Crossing the Limpopo River

There are myths associated with crossing the Limpopo River. In some cases migrants stated
that there were medicine men that would jump into the water to chase away crocodiles. In all
the cases men and women were made to cross the river stark naked. Rituals of crossing the
river involved: crossing the river in the early hours of the day, for example at 2am; killing,
beating or leaving behind small children who cried at the river; removing all the clothes and
holding hands while crossing. A vivid description of how the river was crossed came from
Scott who crossed the river in January 2012:

“We crossed the river at a site called Kwamumbengeyi which is near a soldiers’ camp.
The water in the river was just above the waist of a tall adult male. Women cried.
Some had children. I grew up in rural areas so I knew how to swim. I was not really
afraid. What I was afraid of was the fact that they said we should hold hands with
women and cross the river in a single file. We were arranged in such a way that men
would support women and help carry their weight as we crossed. No one was harmed
by crocodiles because there were men who were hired to help us cross the river. These
men jumped into the water to test it and then told us it was ok for us to cross. Those
women who had crying babies were beaten up and made to stop their children from
crying. The malayitsha are very harsh and hard hearted. They were hurling insults and
vulgar language. We crossed the river at around 3am”.

120
All the migrants that came to Johannesburg via the river agreed that they were made to
remove their clothes for ease of crossing. In some cases they crossed safely while in others
children were left behind or some people drowned. It was important to choose the timing of
migration so that one crosses the river at a time when there was little water, for example in
the months from June to October. However, some crossed in January when the river was
almost full. Desperation tended to be the major factor. For example, Aaron crossed the river
in January 2008 “when the water came up to my chest. There were many of us, maybe 400
people crossed that day”. While there might have been some exaggeration on the exact
numbers (400) there were many desperate people during that time whose crossing of the river
was not determined by a rational calculation of what the level of water might be in the river.

5.9.5. Awareness of the journey by relatives in Zimbabwe and South Africa

Not all journeys were planned properly with the knowledge of relatives from both sides of the
border. In some cases, individuals ran away from home and left people looking for them
while in others they arrived to unprepared relatives. Those that stole money made it a point
that their departure was kept a secret especially from the victim of the theft, but there was
always somebody whom they shared the secret with and who approved of their decision to
go. In some cases, mothers would know while in others, some brothers and sisters knew
about the migrants’ plans to leave for South Africa.

One female migrant (Hillary) ran away from home without telling her father whom she knew
would resist her decision, but her mother knew. The father panicked and thought that
something had befallen his daughter such that he inserted a notice in the local newspaper
looking for his daughter. This particular migrant left without notifying her aunt and uncle
whom she intended to stay with in Tembisa. When she arrived they were unprepared for her
and since they shared a room with their child she became an extra burden and was not
received well. To make matters worse, her bus-fare was not enough such that when she
arrived and notified her aunt about the deficit the aunt was not furious. They stayed together
for a month but relations were strained to the extent that a neighbour told her to move away
rather than destroy her aunt’s marriage. Her aunt and uncle openly told her that she should
have stayed in Zimbabwe where she worked as a nurse at a public hospital.

121
The first migration trip was shrouded in secrecy either at the departure or arrival point.
However, this period was perceived as stressful to the migrant, the family in Zimbabwe and
the relatives in Johannesburg who had to stretch their meagre resources to accommodate yet
another poor dependent. Depending on luck and level of preparedness prior to the arrival a
new migrant could be unemployed for up to two months. This is a long time to try the
patience of an unprepared and struggling migrant.

Coming unannounced and uninvited is a big risk as one may be rejected by relatives (this
illustrates proposition number nine regarding the repellent mechanisms of the family
network). For women, rejection could lead to rape (there were rumours of this though none
among migrants told me they were raped) and abuse by the malayitsha who would keep them
until the migrants’ relatives changed their minds. It is in the interest of the malayitsha to keep
them in-order for him (the malayitsha are always male) to get his transport charges (in most
cases these same migrants would not have paid their transport costs in full hoping that their
relatives would pay off the remainder). To make matters worse, sometimes new migrants
brought along their own friends and relatives. Tatenda had a similar story:

“We arrived in Joburg in February 2008 and stayed in Yeoville in the malayitsha’s
flat. The driver would phone people’s relatives to bring money and collect their
relatives. Some would switch off their cell-phones. In my case my distant uncle did
not know that I was coming. I got his details from his sister. He did not even know
me. He is a distant relative. When they phoned him he said he had no money and was
not ready for my arrival. I had my mothers’ friend with me who was also hoping she
could stay at my uncle’s place. We spent a week in Yeoville waiting for him to come
and fetch us. The malayitsha was already complaining that we were wasting his food.
He thought of returning us to Zimbabwe but then decided to take us to my uncle in
Tembisa. My uncle promised to make a bank deposit for the malayitsha’s money at
month-end. I also promised to give him the money when I got employed. I never gave
him anything up to now. I still have his phone numbers and bank details”.

Not all migrants got off so easily. At the height of the economic crisis in 2008 Aaron was
among those that were rescued by the police after being locked up in a garage for two days by
a malayitsha for non payment of the full transport costs. Fortunately, among the seven male
arrivals (he took away the women) who were ‘imprisoned’ by malayitsha was one young man
who phoned his father who stayed in Hillbrow. The father alerted the police who then

122
facilitated the release of these migrants. They were not deported. The police gave them food
and allowed them to phone their relatives while at the police station and simply let them go.

5.9.6. At the mercy of malayitsha

Throughout their journey migrants were at every stage at the mercy of malayitsha. At
departure point the malayitsha would charge unreasonable transportation fees and demand
half or the full amount depending on whether the migrant had a trustworthy story about
having relatives in Johannesburg. At the border the malayitsha would change his story about
crossing the border using the bridge and the normal border post. At that stage it would be too
late for the potential migrant to demand their money back since their agreement would have
been based on the belief that they will not use dabulapu. The potential migrant is forced to
accept the new terms set by malayitsha. This is what happened to Grace who says: “my sister
had paid for me to come straight through the border but as we approached the border
malayitsha told me that the people he knew/was connected to at the border were off-duty so
we had to go through the forests”.

Going through the forests in some cases (such as that of Tatenda and Mary) means that
migrants would have to stay in the forests for days with up to fifty or more people as the
malayitsha leaves them behind to look for other people to cheat and increase their number.
Food supplies become a problem in a situation where each malayitsha must feed ‘his people’.
Shortages of food would mean that in some cases the malayitsha would demand more money
in order to buy food for ‘his people’. In the forest the migrants were also in danger as the
malayitsha would phone the migrants’ relatives to confirm that he would get his money upon
arrival. Migrants narrated stories of other potential migrants who were left in the forests after
their relatives refused to commit themselves to paying for transportation. In other cases, the
new arrival would be stuck with malayitsha in Hillbrow or Yeoville, when their relatives had
disowned them. Again, this would be exposing them to abuse by the irate malayitsha who
would be demanding his money. The malayitsha were believed to overcharge migrants,
capitalising on their desperation. For example, when Aaron used dabulapu in 2008 he was
charged R2500 (although he did not pay it in full and ended being abducted by the angry

123
malayitsha) when the ‘normal’ fee was around R1500. He argues that some potential
migrants paid with two or more cattle.

5.9.7. Arrests and deportations

There were migrants who had been deported at least once in the various stages of their
journeys. Most were caught at the border while others were arrested along the way and even
when they were in Johannesburg. For example, Aaron was arrested the first time he attempted
to come as an undocumented migrant in 2008:

“I was arrested when I tried to come the first time. They caught me in Makhado and
deported me. I had to start afresh. I sold my starter pack (for cellular phone) to come
here”.

Bongani was also deported in 2005. They arrested and deported him in 2005 for coming
without a visa in Polokwane. Farai was arrested and deported in 2010 at a roadblock just after
the border. He argues:

“I was coming from visiting family members in Zimbabwe and there was a roadblock
just after the border. They arrested and deported me but I soon found a bus at
Beitbridge and lied to the bus driver that another bus (that had my luggage) had left
me while I was still sorting out my issues at the border. I showed him my ticket and
he agreed to transport me. It was a South African bus so the police did not search it.
South African buses are not known to carry illegal immigrants”.

Dan was arrested in Johannesburg central on his way to look for a job.

“I used to stay in Joburg central and they arrested me in 1998 when I was on my way
to ukumaketha (looking for a job). They checked for vaccination marks that appear on
the left shoulder of every Zimbabwean and caught us. We were deported but I came
back”.

Migrants who came before 2000 argue that arrests and deportations were much more frequent
then than those that happened after 2000. Lwazi came to Johannesburg in 1994. He argues

124
that “we came during the apartheid era. It was difficult. We were always arrested. In
November 1995 I spent the whole month in jail for not having a pass. When I got out, I
looked for friends from Durban who helped me get South African documents”. Thabani who
came to Johannesburg in 1996 also explains:

“...It’s getting better now. In 1997 it was worse because you couldn’t go to work
wearing your own clothes. You would be arrested for being a foreigner. So we wore
school uniforms. Now it’s over....I was arrested many times and I would end up at
Lindela but my brother would come and give me his ID. He got South African papers
faster than me though I was the first to come here, so he would slip the ID through for
me when he came to visit me at Lindela. I would then show this ID to the police and
they would release me”.

This story buttresses the argument about arrests and deportations having been very popular
before and soon after majority rule in South Africa. It also shows the inability of the police to
notice that the South African ID did not belong to Thabani but his brother.

Migrants believe that nowadays police are no longer keen to deport them such that even when
they reach Lindela they can still negotiate and bribe the police. Daniel came in 2007 and was
arrested in the same year. He was sent to Lindela where he was kept for two weeks. He
managed to pay a R200 bribe and was released. He came back to Johannesburg. The second
time that he was caught was in a train in 2009 where he refused to be arrested: “the
policeman asked for an ID and I told him I did not have it. I told him I am a South African
citizen born in Tembisa and staying with my mom. He got confused. I told him I was Venda”.

5.10. Reasons for coming to Johannesburg

There are many reasons for coming to Johannesburg, although the major cause was the harsh
economic reality. Migration tended to be an outcome of a combination of macro (economic
environment) and micro or interpersonal factors such as the availability of information and
money, encouragement and lack of resistance from family members and the individual’s own
curiosity and aspirations to improve themselves. These tended to be facilitating factors in the
migration process. The following four examples illustrate this point clearly.

125
 “After my wedding in 2001 the economy had changed. I couldn’t buy a four
plate stove or even a cow with the money. I had friends and relatives here.
They told me that doing art is lucrative business in South Africa. All my
family members are here” (Bongani).

“I used to work in the retail industry and rose through the ranks to the highest
levels until the company closed. I started cross border trading selling petrol,
chickens and other goods until I eventually decided to settle in South Africa.
My wife came to Joburg in January and I followed her in December 2006”
(Morgan).

“I didn’t really choose to come. My sister facilitated everything. But we had

already heard good stories about South Africa and also seeing them sending
groceries, so it was easy for me to agree” (Grace).

“The teacher was the poorest person in Zimbabwe ...my children couldn’t go
to school. There was no food. My husband was a driver but there was no fuel
in Zimbabwe. He moved to South Africa but was unemployed for one year...I
was ashamed to be called a teacher...here I got an opportunity to come out and
show my passion as a teacher again” (Maureen).

Migrants generally argued that “things were bad” referring to the harsh economic situation
that prevailed in Zimbabwe from the late 1990s onwards. For those that came after 2007
migration tended to be the last resort after all other avenues failed to deliver. The
Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) country report of 2010 reveals that in 2003, 72% of the
Zimbabwean population were living below the total consumption line. This percentage
increased with the deepening of the economic crisis between 2007 and 2008. At the height of
the economic crisis in Zimbabwe the inflation rate reached an official level of 230 million
percent (Raftopolous 2009:220). The formal sector employment shrunk from 1,4 million in
1998 to 998000 in 2004. In 2006, 85% of the population was below the poverty datum line
(ibid, 2009). The situation of Zimbabweans was desperate and some responded by migrating.
Therefore the reasons for migration were largely economic. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of
the respondents stated that their migration was in search of better economic opportunities and

126
the ability to look after themselves and their families. While a few migrants stated that they
came to join their family members, this decision was related to perceived better economic
opportunities.

TABLE 10: REASON FOR COMING TO SOUTH AFRICA

Reason for coming to South Africa sex of participants

male female
Count 30 16
Economic factors
% of Total 91% 64%
Count 0 2
Joining family
% of Total 0% 8%
Count 1 7
Economic and joining family
% of Total 3% 28%
Count 1 0
Education
% of Total 3% 0%
Count 1 0
Other
% of Total 3% 0%
Count 33 25
Total
% of Total 100% 100%

There are more females (28%) than men (3%) who came to South Africa to join their families
while looking for jobs. Survival was the push factor for both male and female migrants. This
is evidenced by the mixed nature of migration where migration included men and women and
the fact that their migration was not resisted by family members.

Some reasons for migration were a bit different though still related to the harsh economic
reality obtaining in the country. For example, Edgar came to South Africa because he was
running away from his responsibilities as a father and husband:

127
 “I had impregnated a woman while staying with another one who had a small child. It
was difficult. I was running away from these responsibilities. I told myself that those
left in Zimbabwe will look after them (women and children)”.

Anita came to South Africa after becoming a single mother and realising that she had added
extra strain on her father’s meagre salary:

“I had a child. My father couldn’t look after us all including my child. When my child
started going to school she didn’t have school shoes. We did not have enough food,
clothing and soap”.

Thabani came to Johannesburg in 1996 in order to further his education. He never worked in
Zimbabwe. Soon after finishing his Advanced level education, his father gave him money to
do a Diploma and later a degree in catering in South Africa. Thabani was the only one who
came to South Africa initially to further his educational studies.

However, to further buttress the fact that migrants were economically motivated to move the
South Africa is the analysis of the numbers that were employed in Zimbabwe. 74% of the
migrants were previously employed in Zimbabwe. The rest (26%) had never worked in
Zimbabwe. The reasons for migration are not related to unemployment but probably under -
employment and the high inflationary environment that rendered salaries and wages
meaningless. Norbert argues that he came to Tembisa in January 2009 because the
Zimbabwean money was ‘valueless’. Paradzayi came in September 2006 because:

“What pained me most was that my uneducated uncles would come back from South
Africa boasting that they can employ me and pay me better. You are told that he is a
security guard and he gets R1200. At that time R1200 was far much more than my
salary because my salary was equivalent to R100”.

The specific sectors of employment for those that had employment in Zimbabwe are
displayed in the table below. It shows that the majority of migrants (52%) were employed in
the formal sector. They left their jobs because they felt vulnerable as their jobs could not
offer them any form of survival.

128
TABLE 11: SECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT IN ZIMBABWE

Sector of previous Frequency Percent

employment in Zimbabwe
Administration/formal 8 13.8%
Informal 11 19%
Military 2 3.4%
NGO 2 3.4%
None 15 25.9%
Other 2 3.4%
Retailing 11 19%
Teaching 7 12.1%
Total 58 100%

The signs of the crisis are clear when one studies the types of jobs previously occupied by
migrants while in Zimbabwe. Twenty six percent were unemployed while nineteen percent
were in the informal sector. This reflects the shrinking in the formal employment sector that
took place during the Zimbabwe crisis. The formal sectors that were left by migrants did not
offer any attractive salaries, for example: teaching, military and retailing. The only attractive
sector that paid employees in foreign currency was the Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs). Unfortunately these organisations were also relocating, downsizing and no longer
renewing old contracts thus leaving individuals without jobs. This is what brought Lionel to
Johannesburg. The NGO he used to work for relocated and he was left without a job.

The reasons for coming to Johannesburg are economic rather than political. These findings
are different from Chikanda (2011) who discovered that some migrants had moved away
from political persecution. Migrants seem to have come to South Africa starting in the early
1990s and then up to 2009 as a result of the first and second ‘wave’ of the economic
meltdown in Zimbabwe (Pasura 2006; Crush and Tevera 2010; Makina 2012). The first wave
of the economic crisis started in 1990s with the introduction of the Economic Structural
Adjustment Programme. It led to massive retrenchment and inflation. The second wave was a
combination of further economic downward spiralling and political repression characterised

129
by land invasions on farms (beginning in 2000 through the fast track land reform), the
Operation Restore Order and the general decline in the rule of law.

Even after the Global Political Agreement between the three main Zimbabwean political
parties (ZANUPF and the two MDC formations), and the introduction of the US dollar into
the Zimbabwean economy in 2009, Zimbabweans continue to migrate to South Africa. They
argue that it is not easy to get hold of the US dollar. Moses came to Johannesburg in 2009
and is a hawker who sells brooms and other household goods. He says there are better
opportunities in South Africa than in Zimbabwe. Scott came to Johannesburg in January 2012
because his brother invited him and promised him a job.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the migrants under study did not migrate as a result of the
Gukurahundi and other factors that took place before 1990. Migration was caused by
financial difficulties and also the fact that some migrants belonged to communities that had a
migration culture. Migration among Zimbabweans is a family coping mechanism that is
facilitated by family networks. This is evidenced by the fact that for all migrants there was
little resistance from the family members ‘back home’. Family members such as parents and
siblings encouraged and facilitated new migration of family members. This evaluation is also
justified by the constant need to remit funds to family members, even though some migrants
(15%) have eventually stopped remitting. Thus, this survivalist mentality would render
Zimbabwean migration (as evidenced by the participants under study) as better explained by
the new economics of labour migration (NELM) theory (Stark and Bloom 1985). This is
notwithstanding the criticisms of the NELM theory which assumes that there is consensus in
selecting migrants to fend for the family and that the family head is always male. It is
important to argue that Zimbabwean migration to South Africa is neither wholly determined
by individual nor by family decisions. There are varying levels of individual and family
interests that are considered. Thus, migration is neither a selfish individual decision nor an
altruistic selfless act. To some extent, migrants have individual considerations and
expectations of a life that is better than that of their kin (this is what I refer to as great
expectations in the following subsection). All these considerations are then facilitated by
family, ethnic and friendship networks. In some cases, especially the western parts of
Zimbabwe that have a longer history of migration than all the other geographical areas of
Zimbabwe, migration is a function of cumulative causation.

130
5.10.1. Great expectations versus reality

“It was tough. I remember phoning my mother and she said come back my child and
grow sunflowers with us in the rural areas. I almost returned home” (Bernard).

Most came with great expectations of making quick money and going back rich. Stories
circulating in Zimbabwe generally reflected Johannesburg as a place full of wealth where one
could easily get ahead regardless of whether one is educated or not. However, participants
then realised that life was not so easy. The reality was shocking for most migrants who learnt
to bath in small basins inside their rooms for the first time, staying with three or more people
in a room. Going back to Zimbabwe was not a better option so they then decided to stick it
out. Sometimes migrants feel they cannot go back without anything to show for having been
to a foreign country (Van Nieuwenhuyze 2009). The reality was not as good as the images
portrayed by friends and relatives who already stayed in South Africa. Karen had this to say
about her great expectations when she came in 2008:

“I thought that if you are in Joburg you are in heaven. We were told stories about
good life and thought you would pick money on the streets”.

Some migrants were deliberately misinformed by their relatives. The same story was narrated
by Farai who was an ‘A’ level graduate who stole a computer from his previous employer in
Zimbabwe.

“I had so many difficulties here. I came with so many expectations and discovered the
reality was different. I did not find what I thought would be easy. I had problems of
accommodation. I sometimes slept in people’s cars and in the park during the day for
two months. I knew some of the car owners from Zimbabwe but they could not
accommodate me because they had their own families. During the night I would enter
pubs and stay there till they closed and would start roaming around the streets. One
time I spent two weeks without bathing. As for food I just ate what came my way. It
was difficult for someone this educated to face such challenges. I felt like going mad.
I was lucky I did not do drugs or crime but some of my friends engaged in crime”.

131
For almost all the participants, the first few months were disappointing as the expectations
did not match the reality. Some had left formal jobs such as nursing and teaching and could
not stomach the harsh reality. However, they felt they had not much choice considering the
economic situation in Zimbabwe and also that others had left improperly (after stealing, or
without notifying their employers and relatives, so they could not face them).

Among some of the harsh realities was the rejection by their relatives who had initially lured
them into coming to Johannesburg. Rejection is what led Farai to sleep in the park (this was
after his escapade to Cape Town and probably after his uncle, whom he was running away
from, felt that Farai was troublesome). Spiwe also narrated how she ended up
accommodating a woman she met in a bus from Zimbabwe:

“I met the woman in the bus to Johannesburg. When we arrived in Johannesburg she
phoned her sister telling her that she had arrived. The sister told her to go back to
Zimbabwe. She couldn’t return as she was already in Johannesburg. I pitied her and
took her in. I offered her accommodation”.

Relatives that rejected the migrants gave excuses of not having been notified about the new
migrant such that they were caught unaware. They chose to reject the new arrival insisting
that they go back home, but in most cases they relented and took the new migrant in.

For those relatives that did not out-rightly abandon the new migrant, life was not easy as they
had to share the already overcrowded accommodation and the meagre salaries. The situation
in some cases was very bad. For example, one day Paradzayi became so hungry that he
begged for an apple from a fruit vendor promising to give him his R2 when he got a job. The
fruit vendor gave him and sure enough after getting a job he looked for the vendor to give
him the R2. This man is an Information Technology expert who used to work for the
Zimbabwe Prison Services. He had been encouraged to migrate by his uncle (Bernard) who
had promised him a supervisory post in his security company. Upon arrival the man had to
wait for a month to get a job from his uncle who claimed that there were no “new premises”
requiring additional security guards. Eventually when there was an opening he was employed
as a simple security guard and never given the supervisory job promised. He argued:

“We were happy in the first few weeks. But because I stayed with him unemployed he
started changing his attitude and life changed. Where we used to eat three meals a day
they reduced to two and then eventually, one at 9 pm”.

132
The problem of food shortages was also faced by Farai who once stayed with his cousin when
he was unemployed: “his character was bad. He used to drink a lot. He would buy food when
he felt like it. If you have no money even if you are older you become the younger one”.

5.11. Living and sleeping arrangements of migrants

5.11.1. Sharing accommodation

Migrants in Tembisa can share accommodation such that 4 or 5 adults can sleep in one small
room regardless of sex and social distance. This means that one room can house men and
women who are relatives and friends sometimes including brothers and sisters-in-law or
uncles, aunts and nephews and nieces. For example, Norbert first stayed with his uncle who
was already staying with his brother-in-law. Karen also currently stays with her husband, her
child and also her brother who recently arrived from Zimbabwe. They live and sleep in the
same room. Such individuals are culturally expected to maintain a certain social distance
which becomes difficult when people sleep in the same room. There is lack of privacy and
decency and it can hinder the proper fulfilment of conjugal rights. To cope with the situation
migrants take turns to bath and dress while others go outside the room and just stand or walk
around the house. Grace explains how she first stayed with her sister, brother in-law and their
children in one room:

“I first stayed in Tembisa with my sister and her Zimbabwean boyfriend and his
children in one room. In the first days it was alright but family members can exploit
you. In the end the relationship was sour. Her boyfriend made advances on me. He
would give me pocket money like R100 to buy food. When I told my sister she
couldn’t believe me and thought that I had encouraged him. I got a stay-in job and left
them. I then found a room and went away. The relationship was spoilt forever.”

Tapera also explains how his friend could not trust him with his wife to the extent that he
chased him away:

133
 “My friend said I could come and stay with him. So I moved from my nephew’s room
where I had shared accommodation with my nephew, his wife and child...My friend
later changed his mind and chased me away saying he couldn’t leave me with his wife
as he was going for night duty”.

The two cases presented above reveal how this co-residential strategy sometimes leads to
conflicts based on issues of (or fear of) inability to satisfy conjugal roles, household
responsibilities and day to day survival. Staying with friends and sleeping in the same room
was only viable when none of the friends had a partner of the opposite sex. The presence of
females as wives or girlfriends put a strain on friendships leading to some friends being
chased away. This was not the case among relatives. Although there were strains on the
relationships, relatives did not out-rightly chase away their kin, they acted in rude manners
until the target got the message to move out and stay alone.

Some migrants are better off, renting two rooms. This makes it easy for other family
members to be accommodated. In other cases, old migrants (those who are already
established) find other relatives for the new migrant to stay with, especially in the first month
when the new migrant has no blankets and other material goods that could enable him/her to
stay on his/her own. The main problems, however, were about the family members not
relating properly because in most cases it involved distant relatives. For example, a husband
and wife may have their relatives coming to join them, say a brother of the wife and a
nephew of a husband. These are then made to sleep in the same room. Problems arise when
these two individuals meet for the first time and do not like each other’s personalities. This is
what happened when Farai who came to Johannesburg to stay with his uncle. He argued:

“I was made to share a room with his wife’s cousin. This man ill-treated me and
manipulated me. He would not buy food or pay rent. I did everything. I ended up
without money”.

There are migrants that also rent flats in Kempton Park. In most cases they share the flat
where three or four individuals (who always have other family members with them) take a
room each and then communally use the kitchen. In fewer cases concerning middle class
migrants like Vongai, Miriam, Trish, Morgan and Maureen, the whole flat or house would be
used by one family. For example, Vongai stays with her son and a maid in her flat. These

134
migrants argue that there are few days where they stay alone without any visitors. Miriam
said:
“There is not even a single day that I did not receive a visitor. I have made it a point
that the reason why I came was also to help other people. I have lived with up to
twenty people in my house. Most people dump each other”.

Morgan also stated that:

“I had decent accommodation and a better job so I took in my mother, sister, brother-
in-law and their children to come and stay with me. At one point we were ten in a
three roomed flat. The caretaker was sympathetic. I would tell him I have people
coming from Zimbabwe. We had problems of cutting keys for everyone”.

5.11.2. Do not overstay your welcome

Generally migrants believed that one should not overstay one’s welcome. Whether living
with friends or relatives there was urgency to quickly move and establish one’s life alone.
This normally happened in the first two or three months or after the new migrant got a job.
Moving out was a way of: moving away from strained relationships, trying to save
relationships from becoming bad and sometimes just to gain independence. Explaining why
she moved out of her friend’s flat after a few months, Vongai argued that:

“You still have a family back home. You need to be a stepping stone for someone
who wants to come to South Africa and you can’t be a stepping stone while staying
with other people”.

Vivienne clearly articulated that “when you are accommodated by friends you can’t overstay
your visit. You have to quickly move and find your own little room”. In Hillary’s case the
process of moving out was hastened by her aunt who insisted that she moves out without a
single blanket. She stated that:

135
 “I started staying alone without a blanket, without anything. My aunt did not have
enough blankets, so when I moved out I had no blankets of my own. Here it’s very
cold. They told me to buy a blanket when I get paid”.

There was one case that was different from the ones discussed above where the process of
moving out was resisted by the host migrant. Eric stayed for two years with his brother and
sister in-law. The brother rented one room but he insisted that Eric should not move out until
he had bought all he needed to start a new life alone and earning a better salary. Eric was a
security guard. Even when he moved out, he continued to come and eat at his brother’s place
upon the brother’s invitation.

The discussion of the living and sleeping arrangements of migrants reveals why migrant
households may choose to repel newcomers. The households are under strain and face food
and accommodation challenges. In such situations, rejection is a coping mechanism to the
increase in in-migration by fellow household members. This lends support to my proposition
number nine which states that rejection is a response of especially poor migrants and this
unfortunately may lead to the disintegration of families where those that are ill-treated may
eventually move out and establish themselves but the family bonds are weakened.

5.12. Communication and remittances back home

5.12.1. Communication and visits to Zimbabwe

Almost half (48%) of the migrants have returned to Zimbabwe at least once, while 35% have
never returned ever since they came to Johannesburg. The rest (17%) go to Zimbabwe every
year and sometimes every month. Migrants are generally not very keen to go to Zimbabwe.
However, they do communicate by telephone with their kin at least once every month (79%),
some use both the telephone internet services such as WhatsApp and Facebook (19%) while
one migrant (2%) stated that he writes a letter which goes through surface mail to
communicate with his family in the rural areas of Nkayi since they have no telephones and
cellular phones.

136
5.12.2. Mode of remitting money and goods

In terms of remittances, migrants no longer remit food stuffs as much as they did in the crisis
years before the introduction of the US dollar in Zimbabwe. They argue that food is now
readily available in Zimbabwe and they would rather send money. Some migrants (21%)
argue that they remit once a year, while others (36%) remit two to four times a year. There
are migrants that do not remit anything (15%) while a sizeable number (28%) remit every
month. Those that remit every month have children or parents that solely depend on them for
their survival. Some have workers looking after their homesteads who must be paid every
month. While the percentage of migrants who remit is very high (85%) most migrants made
no meaningful financial remittances even though they claimed to remit three to four times a
year (where they remitted less than R1000 at one time). This is related to their lack of access
to better paying jobs. This confirms proposition number 2 of my analytical framework which
states that the low status jobs migrants get from using bonding social capital directly affect
the level of remittances. The highest amount of money remitted per month was R3000
usually sent by the self employed business people like Alex, Lwazi and Bernard.

Migrants still favour informal ways of remitting money although a few have welcomed
formal agents such as mukuru.com and Western Union. The majority (47%) use malayitsha
and buses to remit money, while 22% use friends and family members. Cumulatively 69%
use informal channels to remit money. 15% do not remit anything while the remainder (15%)
use mukuru.com and other formal agents including banks. These findings are in line with
what Makina (2010; 2012) discovered concerning the reluctance by Zimbabwean migrants to
use formal channels of remitting money. He attributed this reluctance to the lack of access to
banking services and accounts. I would attribute the preference for informal channels to the
limited availability of formal remittance services, since mukuru.com started operating in
South Africa in 2011, while Western Union is hardly known by most migrants. The other
reason could be the strength of the trust in family and friends.

There is a slight movement from malayitsha and buses towards formal agents in transmitting
money because of their (malayitsha and buses) high charges. Malayitsha and buses charge
R30 for every R100 while mukuru.com charges R20 for every R100. This is still more
expensive than family and friends who do not charge anything for transmitting the money

137
back to Zimbabwe. The only problem of using friends and relatives is that sometimes there
may not be anyone going back to Zimbabwe at the time that the migrant wants to remit.

The malayitsha and buses still remain the favourite mode of remittance of groceries and
material goods for which they charged less than transporting money. Some migrants conceal
money inside clothes or other goods. For example Hillary highlighted that she puts money
(between R500-R1000) in a packet of sanitary pads and then sends groceries with
Malayitsha. Sometimes she puts it inside a pair of stockings or inside a frozen chicken in a
cooler box. That way she avoided charges for transmitting money by malayitsha. There are
risks in using malayitsha where sometimes the goods may not be delivered for certain
reasons. For example, Dorothy narrated how a certain malayitsha failed to deliver her
groceries claiming that he was involved in a road accident. She did not believe him. She is
now using another malayitsha.

Besides the quasi-institutional structure of the malayitsha and buses, Zimbabwean migrants
do not enjoy a strong migrant support system from their origin to their destination country of
South Africa. Besides the family, ethnic and religious groups there are no hometown
associations or other formal institutions that function as transnational structures to help
migrants move from origin to destination with ease. This is a radically different situation
compared to their migrant counterparts in other parts of the world, for example Nigerians in
the United States of America (Osili 2007), Mexicans and Salvadorans in the USA (Menjivar
1995; 2010). Such formal or quasi-formal institutions would help increase the bargaining
power of poor Zimbabwean migrants and also possibly increase the flow of remittances.
There are countries like El Salvador, Croatia and Yemen where remittances are far much
more than the official capital inflows (Levitt 2006). The reason for the lack of hometown
associations could be related to the fact that 71% of the migrants have been in Johannesburg
for less than ten years while cumulatively 91% have been in Johannesburg for less than
fifteen years. The length of stay could be a major determinant of whether migrants form an
association or not.

138
5.12.3. Pressure from back home

The pressures from home that migrants face can be better understood if the migration process
is viewed as a family survival or risk diversification mechanism. This is properly articulated
in the new economics of labour migration theory which evaluates migration as one of the
mechanisms of ensuring household or family survival (Bloom and Stark 1985, Taylor 1999).
The migrants and their families enter into an informal contract of co-insurance to ensure
family survival. Thus, the pressure to work hard and remit stems from feelings of
responsibility, altruism and pure self interest (for example, where migrants would want to be
looked after when they eventually get sick or in old age), (Taylor 1999).

5.12.3.1. Pressure to remit and stay in South Africa

Some migrants have responsibilities to look after the children and parents they left in
Zimbabwe. Thus they feel the pressure to remit frequently in order to meet needs for school
fees, rent and food among other things. To some extent, they feel ‘forced’ to stay in South
Africa in order to meet the demands of the family back in Zimbabwe.

“I am thinking about going back to Zimbabwe to do tobacco farming...My mother

doesn’t want me to go back and stay in Zimbabwe. Whenever I tell her that I want to
come back home, she prays and fasts so that I stay in South Africa” (Ruth).

The pressure on migrants is also seen through the way migrants were encouraged to come in
the first place, especially where parents played a major role in sourcing information and
money for the migrant.

5.12.3.2. Pressure to ‘achieve something’

‘Achieving something’ entails buying property back in Zimbabwe. This includes buying
housing stands and or homesteads. Alternatively, it means starting a business in Zimbabwe.
Whilst these are their aspirations, there are only a few migrants who have succeeded in this

139
regard so far. In terms of businesses, there is one migrant (Bernard) who runs a successful
bus company which plies the Bulawayo-Nkayi route in Zimbabwe. Of interest is the function
of these aspirations in keeping the migrants in South Africa, even in the face of the stark
reality that migrants may never achieve them. Grace acknowledged this fact when she said:
“we thought we would easily buy a house and go back but now it’s impossible”. Tatenda also
reiterated the same point:

“I want to have good things. Maybe when I have a car or a house that’s when I will go
back to Zimbabwe, but life here is no longer fun...I wish to buy a house in
Zimbabwe”.

These seemingly contradictory statements by Tatenda reveal the pressure that migrants feel.
It is the pressure to bring or build something as proof that one’s migration was not in vain.
Migrants are embarrassed to go back home without anything to show for having been to
South Africa. This pressure is caused by how migrants would have created an image of South
Africa back home; and how the non-migrants themselves back in Zimbabwe evaluate South
Africa as the land of opportunities or the place of gold. The image of South Africa is
reinforced by perceptions of both the migrants and non-migrants. Generally, migrants are
viewed by non-migrants as privileged and thus ‘enjoying themselves’ in South Africa.

There is also the fear that not bringing something back home is proof of irresponsibility or
having been carried away by the pleasures of a foreign country. Zimbabweans have the
negative label ‘umadliwa’ (literally meaning one who gets eaten) reserved for migrants who
come back at the end of their working lives, without any money or property and not having
remitted during their prime years. Such people are shunned and are viewed as failures.

The other reason for the pressure to achieve something is related to migrants’ confusion as to
where they belong or want to belong. Very few migrants are clear about where they want to
be or stay forever. They may imagine themselves in South Africa in the next five years, but
they do not want to belong to South Africa for their whole lives. Vivienne says:

“That’s one confusing thing. That’s why you find yourself investing here and there.
We are still so uncertain about the future. So, in case something goes wrong here,
your home (in Zimbabwe) must be properly organised. I bought a house in Zimbabwe
and am leasing it to people who pay rent. I still want to invest more in terms of
business, although I don’t really know where my future would be. If everything was

140
 to end here in South Africa at least I have got a house to go back to, in Zimbabwe. I
won’t go back there and be a burden to anybody. People would say; oh look at her,
she stayed in Joburg all this time only to come back to be looked after by us here!”.

Another reason for achieving something before one goes back home is the fear of returning
home as an HIV/AIDS patient. The whole argument of not ‘being a burden’ is invoked where
migrants fear negative evaluation by family members in Zimbabwe, when they come back
sick and without money. Thabani argued that:

“People should not forget where they come from. Some are just drunkards and they
love women (especially locals), they forget about AIDS and become a burden to their
parents”.

However, not all migrants felt this pressure to remit. For those whose family members were
now in South Africa or in other countries, they had no pressure or obligation to send anyone
anything or to invest in Zimbabwe. For example, Trish stated that: “I don’t have anyone I am
obliged to give anything. My whole family is here”. Miriam argued: “My mom is in the UK,
one sister is in the UK, my brother is in South Africa; there are only two sisters in Zimbabwe.
I have never felt any pressure to do something for them”.

5.13. Conclusion

This chapter has provided descriptions and analyses of profiles of Zimbabwean migrants in
Tembisa and Kempton Park, tracing their origins and migration patterns. The role of
malayitsha and bus-operators has been clearly outlined. The risks of undocumented migration
have been discussed. The reasons for migration strongly point towards issues of desperation,
survival and relative deprivation. This falls within the ambit of the new economics of labour
migration theory. The existence of migrant networks facilitates migration by reducing the
costs of migrating and ultimately leads to further migration.

The chapter also highlights the everyday struggles of most Zimbabwean migrants showing
the pressure they face. This provides a context for understanding some of the reasons for
repellent family networks. This discussion also depicts cases of local South Africans whose

141
behaviour opposes the stereotype of violent discriminatory citizens, for example, Morgan’s
caretaker who sympathised with him and overlooked the fact that Morgan had many
dependents living in his flat, and the police who rescued Aaron from malayitsha and also
Farai and his friend in Cape Town.

The main point contained in this chapter is the importance of the family network as a source
of social capital and the fact sometimes that this social capital may not benefit the migrants if
family members are in difficult economic circumstances leading to the rejection of new
family members. This proves the point that families can reach a saturation point after which
they cannot be expected to be useful to a new migrant.

Because migration is a household coping strategy migrants are under a lot of pressure. The
pressure to remit and be successful could make some Zimbabweans deviate from certain
social norms or endure all kinds of exploitation and discrimination on the labour market. This
is the subject matter of the following Chapter 6.

142
CHAPTER SIX: PARTICIPATION OF ZIMBABWEAN MIGRANTS IN
THE LABOUR MARKET

6.1. Introduction

In understanding the extent of participation of Zimbabwean migrants in the South African

labour market the questions I attempt to answer are: How did they get their first jobs? What
kinds of jobs do migrants have? Where do they work? With whom do they work? What are
the relations like at work? And what kind of contracts and benefits do they have?

This chapter discusses how Zimbabweans engage in job search. This is summarised in the
section that discusses the concept of ukumaketha. The discussion of ukumaketha provides
empirical confirmation of proposition number 2 that the first job is usually not good although
it is facilitated by relatives and friends without much choice from the migrant himself/herself.

While Zimbabwean migrants are found in very diverse fields such as: the clergy,
administration, teaching, accounting, marketing, security, information technology, motor
mechanics, engineering, driving and the service industry, some sectors are more receptive to
Zimbabweans than others. These are the Zimbabwean dominated sectors. Zimbabweans
rarely move out of these sectors. However, these sectors are characterised by easy entry and
easy exit. They are also characterised by poor conditions of service and wages with no
migrant employee participation. Most migrants (69%) earn less than R6000 (approximately
USD$600) per month with no other benefits available at work.

This discussion on the participation of Zimbabwean migrants in the South African labour
market succinctly confirms my argument about adverse incorporation/ unfavourable
participation where migrants are not barred from entry into the labour market but they find
their way into low paying sectors. This is regardless of whether they are documented or not.

The capitalist interests in migrant labour are exposed clearly in the discussion of migrant
perceptions regarding employer preference. Migrants perceive that on average employers
would prefer hiring migrant labour because of the exploitability nature of these migrants and

143
also because of their perceived better investment in human capital and positive attitudes
towards work. However, there are few exceptions to this rule as would be revealed in this
chapter.

This chapter further discusses relations at work which are mainly perceived as riddled with
racial discrimination and xenophobia. These factors are some of the reasons for some
migrants’ decisions to engage in self-employment. Of much emphasis is the fact that
successful self-employment hinges on the migrants’ ability to acquire legal identity
documentation which may include shedding off the devalued Zimbabwean identity.

6.2. Getting a job: ‘ukumaketha’

The methods used by migrants to get a job are: going and standing at strategic points (such as
traffic lights at road traffic intersections) carrying a placard or sign describing what one can
do; going door by door in shops asking for employment; using agencies to send a curriculum
vitae to prospective employers or having a relative refer you or sometimes take you to the
prospective employer. The most common methods among the unskilled migrants include
standing at strategic points (especially those targeting the construction industry and other odd
jobs such as painting and plumbing) and moving door by door (for those targeting the retail
and food industry). The whole process of looking for a job is called ukumaketha (literally
meaning marketing or advertising). Van Nieuwenhuyze (2009) calls this ‘the asking strategy’
where migrants move around looking for vacancies. Vivienne explains how she got a job as a
waitress:

“I found the job on my own. I had no relatives here except friends. So I went shop by
shop, door by door looking for a job getting rejected but I kept my faith never getting
discouraged”.

This asking strategy can be stressful as an individual is never guaranteed of good reception
where s/he goes looking for jobs. It can also be a process that is potentially embarrassing and
degrading especially for the more educated migrants.

144
Here is another description of ukumaketha by Bernard who got odd jobs while standing by
the traffic lights:

“You would stand at a robot (traffic light) and signal with a finger that you are
looking for a job and you are alone. The white man would stop and you quickly jump
into his car. There was competition so you needed to be the first to jump into the car.
You would then spend the whole day painting or plumbing or doing anything required
by the employer. But you needed to be careful in raising the proper finger and signal
properly otherwise using the wrong finger would be an insult that elicits anger from
the prospective employer”.

For most migrants this process of ‘marketing’ was largely guided by seasoned migrants
(relatives and friends) who would go with the new migrant to the robot so it was less
stressful. However, for some individuals who had no relatives to orient them (like Bernard
who was unfortunate in that his brother who had invited him got very sick and had to be
transported back to Zimbabwe three days after his arrival) they had to use ingenuity to
survive although other friends would help in one way or the other. There was not much
choice exercised by the migrant in getting his/her first job lending support to my proposition
number two that strong ties facilitate getting the first job.

6.3. The current employment status of Zimbabwean migrants

Of the 33 males, 21 (64%) of them are currently employed in the formal sector while 10
(30%) are self employed and 2 (6%) are employed in the informal sector. There are no
unemployed males. This means that male migrants engage in all kinds of jobs in order to earn
a living. Among the females nine (36%) are also employed in the formal sector while twelve
(48%) work in the informal sector and some are self employed. Females work as domestic
workers/ housemaids while others work in retail and food outlets, teaching and
administration. There are 4 (16%) female migrants who are currently unemployed. It can be
argued that women seem to have fewer opportunities than men when it comes to working in
the formal sector. Female migrants mostly seem to have opportunities in the informal sector
either as employees or self employed entrepreneurs. The informal sector is characterised by
part-time casual jobs.

145
Although there are seemingly huge numbers of migrants employed in the formal sector, this
does not translate into better salaries and job security. Most jobs are contract-based lacking
any insurance and pension. Migrants’ jobs are characterised by long working hours (of more
than 8 hours) and low wages and salaries. The following table shows estimates provided by
migrants regarding their monthly earnings.

TABLE 12: EARNINGS PER MONTH

Earnings per month Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent
None 4 6.9% 6.9%
Less than R1500 7 12.1% 19%
Between R1500 and R3000 16 27.6% 46.6%
Between R3001 and R6000 13 22.4% 69%
Between R6001 and R10 000 6 10.3% 79.3%
Above R10 000 but less than
6 10.3% 89.7%
R15000
Above R15 000 6 10.3% 100%
Total 58 100%

Migrants do not earn much per month. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the migrants take home
less than R10 000 (which is about USD$1000 using an exchange rate of 1USD is equivalent
to 10 ZAR) per month while the rest (21%) earn more than R10000. Of this 79% that earn
less than R10000, 69% earn less than R6000. Almost half of the migrants under study (47%)
earn less than R3000 (about USD$300). This means that they are barely surviving. These
same individuals must pay rent of about R600 per month for a single room and spend almost
the same amount in transport costs. That is why some migrants prefer to share
accommodation with friends and relatives. This co-residential strategy was also common
among the Senegambian migrants in Belgium (Van Nieuwenhuyze 2009).

146
6.4. Employer preference

6.4.1. Introduction

There are positive and negative reasons given by the majority of Zimbabweans as to why
employers prefer Zimbabwean migrant workers more than other workers. The common
argument put forward by participants was that employers prefer Zimbabwean migrants
because they are hard-working, intelligent, can speak English, respectful and maintain
consistency in terms of coming to work and executing their tasks. This was compared to local
South Africans who were portrayed as unreliable workers who after receiving their salaries,
would not report for duty consistently. The participants further highlighted that some local
South Africans tended to be vocal when it came to their rights and benefits at work. This was
in sharp contrast to Zimbabweans who did not insist on having these. Thus Zimbabwean
employees were perceived by employers as generally quiet, contented and unlikely to cause
trouble by complaining. The migrants are aware of the exploitation and abuse they suffer at
the hands of employers but seem to have less choice. That is why some end up using fake
identity books so that they can be viewed as South African and can be eligible for certain
benefits and rights at work.

6.4.2. Zimbabweans consider themselves as eager to learn

Migrants argued that among the characteristics that gave them a competitive advantage over
locals were: their hard-work and eagerness to learn and adapt quickly. They argued that these
tended to be valuable characteristics that Zimbabweans are praised for among all migrants.
Scott narrated how he expressed his zeal to learn on the job:

“After two weeks the white man asked if I could use machines. I agreed and started
using a grinder for the first time. I did it for a week and he called me again and asked
if I could use a cutter and I told him I will read the instructions and use it. He tested

147
 me for two hours and saw that I was able. He was satisfied and then made me the
operator of the machine. Other local colleagues got jealous and started asking why the
machine was given to a newcomer after three weeks only. They knew I was foreign
because I used my real Zimbabwean name”

This willingness to learn on the job was a tenet shared by both men and women. Karen
explains how she became the envy of her colleagues when she became the favourite
employee because of her ability to operate a machine:

“I was working at a Fish and Chips outlet and I showed my ability to clean a washer
which was believed to be a man’s job. So I was able to clean it in the absence of male
employees and the employer was happy. Nobody had taught me to do it”.

In her previous employment, Karen had also managed to excel in a guesthouse where she
worked as a maid. She had not done that job before but she distinguished herself to the extent
that she was given a permanent post. She had started as a temporary worker who was holding
fort for someone on maternity leave. She was now constantly being referred to other jobs by
her former employer because of her good conduct.

The willingness to learn was also shown through the need to improve oneself through
acquisition of diplomas and certificates in various fields. Bernard says:

“When I did a driving course some of my folks laughed at me saying whose car will
you drive? Where will you drive it in South Africa? Why drive a car when you don’t
have a house? But this became my advantage over others when there was a post that
required a security guard with his own gun and a drivers’ licence. That was my
opportunity and I was appointed supervisor. I upgraded myself with courses in
supervision, management and administration”.

This was mainly the case with documented migrants, especially those that had acquired
permits and South African identity books. Currently there are a few migrants that are
pursuing degrees with UNISA while the majority have acquired diplomas and certificates in
various fields. Acquisition of a South African qualification is viewed as an added advantage
when looking for a job because they will not have to endure the hassles of qualifications

148
evaluation by SAQA. Even those migrants with degrees already had added certificates and
diplomas acquired from South African institutions.

However, in some cases the documents and certificates were acquired fraudulently. Bernard
explains his case:

“In 1998 after I got my pass (SA ID) I left the construction industry and ‘bought’
grades in security. I did not enrol for the security course but I bought the certificates
and also bought a gun. When I got a job as a security guard it was discovered that I
had ‘bought’ the certificates. They discovered that my name was not appearing in the
system and almost fired me. They made me go through a proper training programme
and that’s how I trained as a security guard”.

6.4.3. Zimbabweans perceive themselves as hardworking

The majority of migrants (76%) stated that employers prefer Zimbabweans because they
work harder than South Africans and they are willing to experiment with machines and new
methods of doing work. Participants provided negative stereotypical perceptions of local
South Africans as lazy, uneducated and unwilling to learn. They used these stereotypes as
reasons why employers preferred foreign workers.

Tapera had this to say:

“South Africans are lazy. If foreigners go on leave the employer has a problem. You
see the boss hugging a Zimbabwean when he comes back from leave, this shows
Zimbabweans know their jobs. If it is a local South African coming back from leave
the boss is not bothered...so when they get paid they do not come to work next
Monday. They drink a lot”.

Migrants generally insinuated that Zimbabweans have a work ethic that was different from
South Africans. This work ethic entails hard-work, dedication and reliability. This perception
exaggerates the qualities of Zimbabwean migrants. A typical stereotypical view of local
South Africans is presented by Bongani who is a real estate agent:

149
 “South Africans are lazy that’s why they say we take their jobs. They want the
government to provide them with food, shelter and everything. They don’t want to
work. They protest about everything, for example child grants, houses etc. these
things destroy the economy...if you take Zimbabweans and put them in any
inhospitable [he actually said ‘desert’] environment they will survive. Take South
Africans and put them in Zimbabwe they will die in masses. They can hardly work.
They just want to be spoon-fed”.

Zimbabweans argue that they are talented and dedicated workers. This makes them more
preferable than other groups in the labour market. It can be argued that having such
perceptions about the exaggerated differences between foreigners and locals functions as a
defensive mechanism for the Zimbabweans.

6.4.4. Ability to speak English considered an added advantage for Zimbabwean migrants

Migrants under study believed that their command of the English language was far much
better than local black South Africans. They argued that they could speak English better and
thus had an advantage over locals. They generally believed that they were also more educated
than South Africans. Vivienne expressed this point clearly when she said:

“I believe that coming here in South Africa it was an advantage for me because a lot
of people couldn’t speak proper English, so if you are a waitress you must be able to
communicate with customers. In Zimbabwe we were taught English. Even today
Zimbabweans have an advantage when it comes to speaking English. It was not
difficult for any manager to hire me. I would go there and speak my (her emphasis)
English which was far much better than a real South African”.

Mosala (2008) agrees that Zimbabweans have in some sectors gained an advantage over
locals because of their command of the English language. However, that better English of
Zimbabweans sometimes landed them in trouble with locals who could easily tell that one
was Zimbabwean because of the accent. Vivienne further explained:

150
 “...but that also became a disadvantage because if you are able to speak English well
the locals would start asking; where do you come from?, while you are serving them
and then you become afraid to tell them that you are from Zimbabwe because of the
negative reaction you will receive from people”.

6.4.5. Zimbabweans evaluate themselves as desperate and easily exploited

“...we don’t have as many opportunities as locals. Foreigners are perceived as

desperate. They see films of desperate foreigners jumping the fence and think we are
desperate. The employer can sack you any time thinking you are not going to take
action and it’s mostly true” (Morgan).

Research participants believed that the preference of Zimbabwean migrants above all other
groups was also because they can be exploited easily without any financial and legal
implications. This was related to the images and information that was conveyed by the mass
media which portrayed Zimbabweans as desperate and willing to do anything for low wages.
The images portrayed convey the message of a fortress South Africa that Zimbabweans
desperately want to enter.

Farai argued: “we are desperate and stranded. They prefer us and at the same time mistreat us
because they think we are so desperate”.

The willingness of Zimbabweans to accept any job and impress employers can on its own be
dangerous because regulations could be ignored and flouted to the benefit of the employer.
This means that Zimbabwean workers could be exposed to dangerous working conditions
endangering their health in the process of securing employment. A good example concerns
my key informant Tatenda, who is currently working as a waitress at a food outlet. Almost
every day she has nosebleeds and she says it is because of the chemicals they use to clean the
cooking space. However, she has no option but to continue enduring these as the other option
would be to leave the employer and find another job, which on its own is a mammoth task.
The employer pointed out to her that she will not receive any help from the organisation in
rectifying this problem. She was told to “either take it or leave”.

151
6.4.6. Employers prefer South Africans and other groups of people

“Some jobs are reserved for South African locals. They don’t want foreigners, for
example, they wanted drivers in Pretoria. I went there but we were told they don’t
want Zimbabweans” (Edgar).

“I attended and passed an interview at Tembisa hospital but they said that they were
told not to employ Zimbabwean nurses and doctors because Zimbabwean hospitals do
not have nurses and doctors. They said if I had a South African ID they would take
me” (Hillary – she is a trained Zimbabwean nurse who now works at a crèche as a
teacher).

There are migrants who believe that employers prefer South African locals in recruitment and
selection and even when it comes to promotion.

“...currently I feel I deserve a managerial position but I don’t have it simply because I
am a foreigner, yet I have achieved the educational levels required for
management...For some jobs, it is out-rightly written that foreigners should not apply
even if you qualify, for example in financial management and accounting. In some
websites when you register for employment they ask for a South African identity
book and if you don’t have but you possess a work permit the minute you write
passport and permit then you don’t get a response. In some cases it’s stated that in this
job we are not considering anyone with a work permit” (Trish).

“They preferred South Africans there. I was the only Zimbabwean and I worked as a
receptionist. I would be the last to get paid. They would say they forgot to pay me.
They would start by paying whites, then local blacks and then me. If I didn’t ask I
would not get paid” (Hillary).

Whereas the majority (76%) of participants argued that employers preferred Zimbabwean
employees, those that said employers prefer South Africans (7%) argued that there are new
policies by government favouring the employment of local South Africans. They said that
some jobs are clearly indicated that foreigners should not apply. These migrants thought that
even in terms of promotions, locals’ received them more easily than foreigners who were
overlooked in such issues. These views lend support to proposition number 5 of my analytical

152
framework which states that high skilled migrants report social exclusion in the form of
blocked opportunities for career growth. Migrants alluded to the BBBEE Act of 2003 which
encourages employers to promote blacks (South African citizens) into management positions.
However, what migrants could be witnessing is the implementation of the Employment
Equity Act of 1998 which advocates for affirmative action towards historically disadvantaged
groups, defined as designated groups, which are the blacks, women and the disabled South
African citizens.

“Government policies are quite clear. They are encouraging South Africans to take
managerial posts. Employers love Zimbabweans but government policies are
constraining. They give you permits but they change policies in the workplace, you
end up without a job. Now they want to employ people with permanent residence and
citizenship” (Barbara).

The above quote from Barbara reveals how migrants perceive the government as shifting goal
posts - where migrants now have work permits but cannot access employment. This still has
the effect of excluding them from the labour market. Other migrants (14%) said employers
have no special preference and 3% said employers prefer other groups like Malawians,
Mozambicans, Swazi, Nigerian and Indians. This was mainly the case when the employer
was also a foreigner. For example, at a private school where Dorothy teaches, the owner is
Malawian. Dorothy thinks that there is an element of nepotism where the employer prefers
Malawians whom he also promotes to head of department positions. However, there were
Zimbabweans who claimed that the workplace was a neutral ground where the employer did
not have a special preference for any ethnic group since the workplace had a mix of Nigerian,
Congolese, Ghanaian and South African workers.

There were few cases of migrants who worked or used to work for Zimbabwean employers.
These employers were mostly whites who left the country because of the land grabbing
during the third chimurenga (land revolution) that started in 2000. These white Zimbabweans
were happy to recruit black Zimbabweans whom they positively evaluated as reliable and at
the same time identified with as ‘homeboys’. The migrant workers for the same employers
also positively evaluated their employers as understanding. An example of such a case was
Thabani who worked at a local hotel. His employer was a white former farmer from Norton,
near Harare in Zimbabwe. He liked Thabani and the workplace “was full of Zimbabweans”.
There was one case of a female migrant who worked for a middle class Zimbabwean black

153
couple as a domestic worker. This woman (Lydia) praised her employers for being good to
her. Recently they gave her an almost new Nokia C3 cellular phone and a double bed.

6.5. Zimbabwean dominated employment sectors

Migrants gain entry in private organisations and employers that do not strictly require identity
documents. These organisations provide access to employment to migrants using asylum
documents or those without general work permits. However, migrants who do have permits
may still find employment in these private companies where both entry and exit tend to be
easy. In some cases, there are interviews that migrants attend (especially waitresses) which
they pass easily after being coached by their relatives who would have found them the jobs in
the first place. In other cases, there are no interviews, the curriculum vitae is adequate to get
one employed. Females dominate in domestic services (as domestic workers), hairdressing
and hospitality industry (as waitresses), teaching and training, while males are predominantly
found in the hospitality (as waiters and drivers), information technology and computers,
motor and security industries. Domestic workers can either stay in or stay out (meaning they
travel to work rather than live with their employers). Stay-in domestic workers would go to
Tembisa and see their families on weekends since they spend the week staying at their
employer’s residence. Stay-out housemaids, on the other hand, can work for up to three or
four employers per week since they have designated days they work for particular employers.
The table below shows the various areas of employment for Zimbabweans.

154
TABLE 13: CURRENT JOB OF PARTICIPANT

Frequency Percent
Food service 9 16%
Welding 2 3%
Driving/transport
8 14%
industry
Hairdressing 3 5%
Domestic 4 7%
Unemployed 4 7%
Retail 4 7%
Construction 1 2%
Security 3 5%
Teaching 3 5%
Training 1 2%
Accounts and
2 3%
finance
IT and computers 8 14%
Other 6 10%
Total 58 100%

Some of those who practised hairdressing had come via Botswana. There are many
Zimbabwean women who worked as hairdressers in Botswana as observed by Mutsindikwa
(2012).

While migrants may change jobs they rarely change their industry. The table below shows the
jobs that migrants did when they first arrived in Johannesburg. It is clear that these are still
the same industries receptive of migrants. However, there are clear cases of upward
movement where one moves from domestic work to office work. This shift tended to be
facilitated by sympathetic domestic employers. This was certainly true for female migrants
who are ‘O’ level certificate holders with Diplomas, for example former teachers who started
off as domestic maids. The case of Maureen, the businesswoman who owns a crèche, is a

155
clear example. She got the domestic job through her sister-in-law but then got the teaching
job through her domestic employers whom she had good relations with. She then got advice
on how to open a crèche through help from the Zambian former owner of the crèche who
helped her with documentation and other connections. Maureen’s case renders support to the
analytical proposition number 6 where I argue that some employers facilitate the upward
mobility of their female domestic workers. The same argument can be made for former
employers of self employed migrants who facilitate migrants’ acquisition of human capital
(see discussion of self employed migrants in section 6.9). Such employers defy the stereotype
that employers always facilitate the social exclusion of their migrant workers.

TABLE 14: WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST JOB?

Your first Job Frequency Percent

Construction 10 17%
Domestic 11 19%
Security 5 9%
Hairdressing 4 67%
Office 8 14%
Other 13 22%
Waitressing 7 12%
Total 58 100%

Most men started by working in the construction and security industries as well as office
work, while most women started in the domestic, office, waitressing and hairdressing sectors.
The category of ‘other’ includes jobs in the retail, motor and service industries. Migrants
worked as drivers, motor mechanics, graphic designers, engineers, teachers and sales agents.
There was one case of a migrant who changed her profile completely by starting off as a
hairdresser and now she is a banker who is finishing her course as a chartered accountant.
The change was facilitated by her friends who are also already established accountants.
Miriam says:

156
 “while working as a hairdresser at a salon I met these Zimbabwean young girls living
a beautiful life and driving beautiful cars. They were the same age with me and had
started with the same educational qualifications as I had. That’s when I decided to
change course and decided to go to school”.

Miriam eventually did diplomas in book keeping, office administration and started a course in
chartered accountancy. Another migrant who changed jobs is pastor Lloyd who came to
Johannesburg as an administrator but worked in various piece jobs until he eventually ‘got
the calling’ from God and trained as a pastor.

6.6. Employee rights

6.6.1. Introduction

“Foreigners have no rights. The moment you express yourself you expose yourself” (Alex).

“My previous employer was from Israel and he preferred Zimbabweans. But we got
less money and more working hours. We would work from 7am to 6pm or from 6pm
to 7:30am. There were poor working conditions. When it was winter we would spend
some time on the street, handing out pamphlets, they wanted us to wear company T-
shirts on top of our clothes so that limits the kind of clothes you wear especially
during winter. We were not allowed in office until after 11pm we would wait outside
at night. One girl was hit by a car while distributing the pamphlets” (Mary).

There are generally few or no workers’ rights for most Zimbabwean migrants. The worst
areas are security and waitressing where they endure long working hours that are not
considered in the calculation of salaries. Workers work up to 12 hours a day but still get less
than R2000 per month with one day off per week. They usually knock off well into the night
(between 11pm and 3am). In some cases transport is not provided (thus making it dangerous
to travel at night) and contracts are verbal agreements. While this situation also affects locals
who are in the same industry, it is a serious one for migrants who are the majority in these

157
sectors, which in any case, tend to be shunned by locals. A worker can be dismissed without
notice in the same way that he/she can also disappear without notice. Absence for more than
two days is interpreted as loss of interest in the job and the worker is easily replaced. This is
what happened with Pauline when she went to process her asylum documents for two days.
She found that her employer had replaced her with another domestic worker. Most
Zimbabwean migrants do not belong to any worker associations. They shun union activities.
While the Immigration Act of 2002 (as amended in 2004) states that it is up to the employer
to ensure that migrant workers with permits receive fair salaries and enjoy the same rights as
their local counterparts, employers usually do not comply. Lack of enforcement of this
provision leads to the exploitation of migrant workers by their employers. Furthermore,
ignorance combined with “reluctance to cause trouble and lose their rights” cause migrants to
accept unfair situations.

6.6.2. Type of contract

“If you have no identity papers you can even be bullied by a woman”, Tapera.

The type of contract tends to be tied to the legal status of the migrant. Those that are illegal or
use asylum papers tend to have verbal contracts, while those whose stay is legal or who have
acquired South African documents, have formal written contracts and get payslips. On verbal
contracts Scott describes how he was engaged:

“When I first joined the job I did not know whether it was permanent or not. I just
heard workmates saying they would be working with me permanently. I never signed
any contract. But my white boss showed interest in me”.

Norbert also started the same way:

“When I started I just worked for months without signing a contract even though I
knew I was entitled to one. I could not ask for fear of jeopardising my job. The
employer formalised the situation and gave me contract this year.”

Norbert got the job in 2009. He only signed a contract this year (2012) after almost four years
of not knowing how long he was going to be at that organisation. This was also complicated
by the fact that he was employed as an asylum permit holder. He got a work permit in 2010.

158
The problem of a verbal agreement is that it is not binding and enforceable. In Scott’s case
there was no agreement at all. Scott had been brought by his brother to the job and
negotiations had been done by this brother. Unfortunately, he did not last at the job as he was
sacked at the end of the month for lack of identity documents after locals had complained of
favouritism on the part of the employer.

Paradzayi had this to say about his experiences prior to acquiring a passport and a permit:

“I used to work for a South African white man. When I told him the truth that I am a
Zimbabwean he would shout at me saying you are Zimbabwean and you don’t have
identity papers, I can call home affairs people any time. He always did this at month-
ends, so every time I lived in fear of being deported...but this only happened to those
without identity documents”.

Morgan also had this to say:

“The employer can sack you anytime thinking you are not going to take any action
and it’s mostly true. People don’t fight, unlike the locals who are very unions
conscious (they know CCMA). I have a cousin who is working 18 hours a day in a
restaurant. There is no over-time. Last month, he was paid R500. I told him to record
all the hours he had worked so that the day he is fired he can demand his money... he
uses asylum papers”.

Desperation makes Zimbabwean undocumented migrants accept almost any kind of contract
and quietly endure it. While they are aware of exploitation and abuse they have no better
choice than to accept the terms and consider themselves lucky to get the jobs in the first
place. They only change jobs or become vocal about their conditions once their status has
been legalised. Those who are not legal, find that their educational qualifications do not
matter as they occupy low, degrading jobs (Van Nieuwenhuyze 2009). That is why many
Zimbabweans in South Africa will argue that education does not really matter (Maphosa
2011). The above case by Morgan also reveals that, sometimes, even legality may not matter
because an asylum holder can still be exploited and underpaid.

159
6.6.2.1. Lack of union representation

Whether documented or undocumented, Zimbabweans largely do not participate in union

activities. This is either out of “not wanting to create trouble” or in most cases not having
access because they do not qualify or they are simply ignored. Ruth has a passport and work
permit but she is not a member of the union at her workplace. She says every time there are
union meetings at her workplace, Zimbabweans are left outside. They are only told
afterwards what transpired at the meetings.

6.6.2.2. Informal employee rights

There were cases of migrants who were lucky to work in organisations that were dominated
by migrants to the extent that they could enforce their rights informally, even though these
rights were not written down. This was facilitated by their influence in middle management
that was dominated by Zimbabweans. Kevin explained that:

“We have rights here. Our managers are Zimbabwean....(and) the South Africans
cannot complain against us because all the management is Shona”.

The clustering of Zimbabweans in this particular truck company shielded them from
discrimination by locals and actually threatened the locals who were few in this organisation.
In such situations locals were afraid to express themselves and could not be xenophobic for
lack of support from management. Lower level migrant employees (the truck drivers and
mechanics) could enforce informal norms on their Shona managers by reminding them that
they come from the same country. In a related case Norbert explained how Zimbabweans
dominated a steel and engineering department of a company to the extent that they felt safe
from local competition:

“South Africans have no option but to like us since our department is very powerful.
We earn more money than them and recruit each other as Zimbabweans”.

Karen also explained how they relate with the Pedi woman they work with at her workplace
where she is employed as a tailor:

160
 “the white woman says she wants Zimbabweans only. There are four (three Shona and
one Ndebele, [Karen]) Zimbabweans and one South African. The Shona women and I
are united. We understand each other. The Pedi woman doesn’t like us”.

All the cases narrated above reveal how migrants can enforce certain norms (even when they
are not written down) by virtue of being a majority in a department and also by having
management support to some extent.

6.7. Benefits available at work

The purpose of this subsection is to explain what else was offered at the job. This includes
such factors as medical aid, funeral fund, housing allowance, transport allowance, fees for
school children, opportunities for growth, fees for further study and food on the job. The table
below shows some of the benefits enjoyed by migrants at work.

TABLE 15: BENEFITS AVAILABLE AT WORK

Benefits at work Frequency Percent

Funeral fund 5 9%
All benefits are there 2 3%
None 35 60%
Not applicable 11 19%
UIF 5 9%
Total 58 100%

It is clear that the majority of migrant workers (60%) had nothing offered to them except their
monthly salary. The salary becomes very important in a situation where one has no other
security mechanism to cushion him/her in times of trouble. This means that when migrants
get sick they must fork out their own money and when they die there is nothing their relatives
get from the organisation. A few individuals (9%) stated that they contribute to the
Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) which would cushion them in case they lose their jobs.
There were two individuals who stated that they have all benefits including UIF, medical aid
and funeral fund. These individuals are among those that have gone through the naturalisation

161
process and are now viewed as citizens in South Africa. They had parents who were already
in South Africa. Sections 26 and 27 of the application for permanent residence permit allows
for a child (without age restriction) of a South African citizen or a relative ‘within the first
step of kinship’ to apply for permanent residency and naturalisation.

The category labelled ‘not applicable’ reflects those that are either unemployed or self
employed. It is a pity that the self employed cannot afford to pay for their own self
protection. But even among those that can afford to pay (e.g. the security company owner and
training company owner) migrants thought that having medical insurance was a waste of
money, preferring to pay cash whenever medical attention was needed.

6.8. Racial discrimination and xenophobia at work

Migrants complained of racial discrimination at work and xenophobia from fellow black
workers.

Concerning racial discrimination, Brian who is a haulage truck driver and mechanic argues:

“Workers’ rights are there but whites are a problem. They always make sure that you
don’t enjoy them. They lie to government about their operations and when the
government relaxes that’s when we get exploited. They make super profits exploiting
us. In every organisation where there are good benefits the positions are reserved for
whites only”.

The same sentiments were echoed by a 54 year old self employed welder who maintained
that:

“I used to work with young white technicians doing the same job but I earned R3000
while they got R8000-R9000. I was actually more experienced than them and had
taught them the job”.

Another Zimbabwean female migrant Theresa also had the same concerns regarding the retail
shop owned by an Indian that she used to work for. She highlights that:

162
 “I worked at an Indian shop with my friend for 7 years and got R150 per week. There
was no overtime. We normally got a salary raise of R20 per week. There was an
Indian that was recruited as a supervisor and he did not know computers. We taught
him and he eventually became our manager and was paid more than us. We
eventually left the organisation”.

Two female migrants who worked as housemaids complained of ill-treatment from their
employers who made them mop the floors while kneeling rather than standing and made them
eat their food from plates normally used for dog food. Grace explains:

“I once worked for a white employer who did not want me to use a mop. She said I
should kneel and mop the whole house while kneeling. It was a big double storey
house... As for food I would be given two slices of bread without Rama and milk, just
plain black tea. This one knew I was Zimbabwean. I left her”.

Another former domestic worker Karen said:

“My previous employer would give me food in the same plate that they used for dogs
and cats. This plate was kept outside the house. My friend also had the same story”.

Migrants also experienced discrimination from their fellow local black workmates who
complained of migrants’ overzealousness and their eagerness to please the white employers at
any cost. They also felt that migrants were favoured by white employers. Dorcas who became
a South African citizen through naturalisation explained what happened at her workplace:

“There was this man from Zimbabwe who had a degree in Quantity Surveying. He
was promoted and given a car whereas locals who had been at the organisation for a
long time were not promoted. They did not like it and didn’t care that he had better
qualifications than them. They talked very badly saying foreigners are taking our jobs
and (if they are so educated) they must go and improve their country rather than
crowd us...I felt hurt but I couldn’t show it ...you must not show that you are
Zimbabwean to be on the safe side”.

Usually such cases do not last long as the migrant is harassed until they leave their job.
Daniel narrated his ordeal:

“I got promoted quickly and got hated by people. I became supervisor but I couldn’t
manage the locals. I was also too young. I was the only Zimbabwean. I got threatened.

163
 I was insulted. I felt uncomfortable. They gossiped. I was told I am a foreigner. I was
bullied and I left”.

Sometimes locals would try to find fault in the migrant and when they succeeded the
individual got sacked. Relationships at work were characterised by jealousies and lack of
trust between migrants and locals. Employers were perceived as lacking interest in protecting
migrants such that they would rather sack the migrants than agitate the locals. However,
employers benefited from the divisions between migrants and locals at work.

6.9. A discussion of self employed migrant entrepreneurs

The following is a discussion of the challenges and opportunities self employed migrants face
and how this is connected to social exclusion. The challenges reveal xenophobia and lack of
acceptance therefore the inability to create social bonds, which is relational social exclusion.
This social exclusion is as much a product of the locals as it is the fault of the migrants.
While locals have their own negative stereotypes of migrants, the migrants themselves have
very negative stereotypes of locals as employees. This hampers social cohesion.

Another insight coming from this discussion is the relative ease with which to start a small
business (In terms of the formal requirements and local regulations). This shows the absence
of social exclusion in terms of the institutional macro and meso level structures. The only
problem is lack of access to bank loans. Exclusion from accessing bank loans affects the
growth and size of the resultant small businesses.

The discussion will also show that while entry into migrant entrepreneurship might have been
facilitated by negative factors such as poor jobs and wages, self employment is a positive
outcome. This thesis will also highlight that the very fact of belonging to a devalued identity
group which is perceived as possessing certain work traits can work to the migrants’
advantage eventually opening up good avenues for training and business ventures. Therefore
employers in South Africa are not always on the look-out to exploit Zimbabwean migrants.
They sometimes train these migrants providing them with rare opportunities for economic
development. For such migrants, South Africa is really a land of opportunities for the less

164
educated Zimbabwean migrants who have made it as self employed entrepreneurs. These
migrants use bridging social capital with former employers to get ahead.

There is a growing number of Zimbabweans that opt to work for themselves and rent space in
order to offer certain services and goods such as training, teaching, security and retail. There
are 17 self employed Zimbabweans who constitute 28% of the research participants. In terms
of gender 6 are female while 11 are male. Of these, 7 (three female owned) had registered
businesses while the rest (10, of which 7 are owned by men) were unregistered. In terms of
educational levels one (1) has a Zimbabwe Junior certificate education (ZJC), twelve (12)
have Ordinary level education and at least a certificate or diploma in the field that they were
pursuing their business, three (3) have advanced level education while one (1) had a masters
degree and several certificates. There were sixteen (16) whose ages range from 20-40 and one
fifty four year old man. He is the one with ZJC education. He argues that his education was
disturbed by the liberation struggle in 1978 when Zimbabweans fought against British
colonial rule. He never resumed schooling.

The businesses of Zimbabwean entrepreneurs can largely be evaluated as micro enterprises.

In South Africa micro enterprises “are businesses consisting of only the owner, some
members of the family and at most one or two paid employees. They usually lack formality in
terms of business licences, value added tax, registration and accounting procedures, Most of
them have a limited capital base and only rudimentary technical or business skills among
their operators” (Radipere 2012:15). On the other hand, small businesses may operate from a
business or industrial premise but they employ less than 50 full time employees, have a
turnover of between R2 and R6 million, they are registered for tax and meet all other formal
requirements (ibid 2012). Migrants’ businesses range from professional information
technology services, training, educational services to mechanical electronics, welding, hair
dressing salons, security services and spaza shops. The self employed migrant Zimbabweans
engage in businesses that are not very different from the jobs they have had in South Africa.
For example, if one was employed as a teacher at a crèche, one then starts a day care centre
or if one was employed as a security guard one eventually starts a security company and if
one was employed in human resources one forms a business in training and human resource
development.

165
There are push and pull factors in self-employment. Among the reasons for starting a
business are: the opportunities available (or not available) in the employment sector,
perceptions of unfairness at work (especially about racism and xenophobia. William argued
that he earned less than inexperienced white technicians), having accumulated the required
resources (knowledge, money) and a desire for growth (wanting much more than can be
offered by the employer and fulfilling a dream or destiny or vision). Some Zimbabwean
migrants also ventured into self-employment because of the existence of clear markets for
their particular services and the perceived reluctance of the South African locals to engage in
such business ventures. The following case shows some of the reasons for self-employment:

“Working for someone else was so stressful because as highly educated as I was, I
reported to people who had barely matriculated. All they had was experience which I
didn’t have in South Africa. My experience in Zimbabwe didn’t count here. So I had
to cancel my Masters degree from my CV in order to get a job... The moment you
speak about the Masters you become overqualified and lose the job.....nothing can all
be bad. That’s where I learnt a lot of the things that I do now” (Vongai).

The reasons for self-employment given above reveal a combination of frustration with what
the employer was offering and the general working conditions and a positive outlook of
seeing the work experience as an opportunity to learn so that one can be independent.

Analysis of the lives of the self employed entrepreneurs reveals that no one can be totally
excluded, supporting Kabeer’s (2000) argument on disadvantageous participation. It is clear
that even within an exclusive macro environment some migrants could still identify
opportunities to start businesses and better their lives. Their participation in small businesses
turned out to be an advantage as it gave them opportunities to know everything necessary to
start a business. So while working for a small company could have been a result of inability
to find jobs with big organisations (probably as a result of social exclusion), that yielded
positive results in the end. Vivienne argued:
“I learnt everything on the job. The good thing about working for a small company is
that you become a jack of all trades in accounts, sales, supervision etc....after
spending six months in the UK being trained at the organisation’s headquarters, I felt
confident that I could start my own company. My products are similar to those of my
previous employer. I gained the product knowledge from that company”.

166
This was the same story shared by Bernard, Paradzayi, Vongai and Maureen who developed
an interest in creating their own businesses as a result of the training they received from their
employers. They had the necessary knowledge, connections and requirements of establishing
a business and thus it was easy to start businesses. Bernard explained how he developed his
‘vision’ to start a security company:

I had been working in the security business for three years and had become a
supervisor. In 2000 a white senior manager decided to form his own security company
and persuaded me to join him. There were twelve of us. I did everything and over
time I occupied every position in the company. It eventually became a very big
organisation. I then developed a vision to start my own security company.

The above case of Bernard also reveals his ability to use bridging social capital in order to
start his business. It also reveals an important issue about the stereotypical literature that
exists concerning employers of migrants in South Africa. In this case rather than the
employers exploiting and discriminating foreigners, they actually trained them and that is
how the migrants eventually became self employed. Thus the desire to be one’s own boss was
predicated on the confidence and belief that one could do it, which came as a result of
training and experience. What seems clear is that the migrants would have previously worked
for small to medium firms themselves. Such environments created by small and medium
firms offered migrants the requisite tacit knowledge to be able to venture out on their own.

6.9. 1. Start- up capital and explanations for success

According to the self employed Zimbabweans, they raised their capital by working very hard
sometimes holding two jobs. They had no access to credit and could not rely much on family
and friends. They therefore started very small, and up to now some are still very small having
invested less than R1000 to start the business. There are few Zimbabwean entrepreneurs so
they have no role models, neither do they have good financial support. What keeps them
going is their engagement in businesses that they are well versed with. These self employed
entrepreneurs do not venture into complex business activities but stick to what they know and
keep it simple. Those who do training have qualifications for it. However, those
entrepreneurs who are in the food business (selling kotas, owning spaza shops) engage in trial

167
and error as they had never done it before. However, the advantage is that the tasks are
mundane and routine that they can be learned quickly. They explain their success in terms of
sheer hard work and determination. Bernard, who is one of the owners of the security
company which employs up to 40 security guards, argued that as a business owner:

“Your performance must be fifty times more than that of other people because you
know that you are affected directly by losses”.

Most of these entrepreneurs described how they rose through the ranks as employees in their
various fields and how they felt they had gathered enough experience to venture on their own.
This means that all entrepreneurs started off as employees and then left to start their own
businesses. For some, like Bernard, rising through the ranks also entailed cheating the system
by getting fake educational certificates, drivers’ licence and eventually identity books.

It is important to note that migrants used bridging social capital to help kick-start their
business ventures. For example, Vivienne got the knowledge from her former employer who
had approached her when she was waitressing at a certain organisation. She got the required
experience and was sent for further training in the UK. When she came back, she had enough
confidence to start her own company. Bernard also got the needed experience after his former
manager started a security company and called him to be a supervisor. That is when he
developed his vision to start his own company. Maureen got money (R 1 million) to apply
and register for a business permit from her Ghanaian church pastor.

6.9. 2. Their preferences as employers

The recruitment decisions of these Zimbabwean entrepreneurs reveal the general negative
stereotypes that some Zimbabweans have about local South African workers. These impede
social cohesion with locals. These perceptions facilitate social isolation. Here are some of
their views concerning the calibre of employees they want:

“I don’t care about nationality but South African locals are a problem....they have an
attitude towards you. They would say what can he tell us? He is a foreigner and
because I use fake South African identity documents I become afraid that they are

168
 suspicious of me and might report me to the police. That’s why I don’t recruit
them...blood is thicker than water. I treat Zimbabweans as brothers and sisters. I
consider them first”. (Bernard).

“Our industry requires hard workers. I once employed South Africans and got
frustrated. I have since stopped. We have different work ethics”. (Vongai).

“Congolese women are better workers. They are humble. When you give them their
wages at month-end they show extreme gratitude. Zimbabwean workers are greedy.
The moment they see clients paying for their children’s fees, they think you have lots
of money. They don’t care about the bills you must pay...they want to open their own
crèches and compete with you. Some of them are snakes!” (Maureen).

Zimbabwean entrepreneurs generally prefer Zimbabwean employees. This is not necessarily

facilitated by feelings of camaraderie but by the profit motive. It is facilitated by bonding
social capital. Bonding social capital seems to help the self-employed migrants to acquire
cheap labour from co-ethnics. For example, Bernard’s wife works as a part-time secretary at
Bernard’s security company, she is not paid anything, although she may be given money at
home to buy what she requires for the family. Employing Zimbabweans means that one may
be able to pay them late and less or not paying them at all, expecting them (migrant
employees) to ‘understand’ the situation. They also thrive on relationships of obligations or
patronage. These relationships range from obligations about bus-fare (from Zimbabwe to
Johannesburg), accommodation, employment, church membership and issues of illegality.
While employing co-ethnics affords those worse-off Zimbabweans to at least get a means of
survival, it might also lead to co-ethnic exploitation.

The above quotations reveal one employer (Maureen) whose preference was for other
foreigners who are not Zimbabwean. She felt that Zimbabwean employees were jealous of
her business and could jeopardise it. Such feelings cause divisions and show that even if
Zimbabweans face the same adversities these may not necessarily increase their bounded
solidarity. I discuss this argument further in Chapter Eight where I consider the effects of
tribalism and regionalism.

The observation that most of these self-employed migrants started their business ventures
only after acquiring fake South Africa identity books further reinforces my argument on the

169
devalued Zimbabwean identity. In all cases the acquisition of such identity documents was
also based on bridging social networks. However, there were some self employed migrants
who started businesses using their passports only - without any work or business permit and
that is illegal. These are the owners of small spaza shops who sell kotas. The research
findings provide support to proposition eight (8) stated in my analytical framework. The
proposition states that self employment for documented migrants is a consequence of pull
factors in self employment rather than the existence of blocked opportunities in the labour
market. According to this proposition documented migrants benefit from bridging social and
human capital from former bosses and their resultant businesses tend to be bigger than the
undocumented migrants who have less exposure.

6.9.3. Bounded solidarity and co-ethnics as a ready market

Zimbabwean migrant entrepreneurs seem to relate much better with other foreigners than
locals, e.g. Nigerians, Congolese, and Zambians. This could be a result of a perception of
bounded solidarity where they share a common fate as foreigners in South Africa. For
example Maureen got access to her first business premise from her former Zambian boss. She
employs Zimbabweans, Nigerians and Congolese. Paradzayi is employed by a Nigerian
entrepreneur on a part-time basis. Paradzayi also has Nigerian friends who supply him with
computers and spare parts.

While such situations lend support to the ‘ethnic facilitation argument’ (although in this case
these foreigners are not from the same ethnic group) and be a source of social capital, it may
sometimes lead to the abuse of foreigners by other foreigners, where foreign employees may
be paid less than locals (for example, in the case of Paradzayi who pays his part-time
employees R50 a day) or where foreigners sell each other stolen goods and land themselves
in jail and where some foreigners benefit from other co-ethnics’ unfortunate circumstances
(for example during the ZDP Paradzayi became famous for his ability to fraudulently provide
proof of residence and employment documents to other co-ethnics for a fee of R150). While
Paradzayi was able to solve his co-ethnics’ problems they provided him with a ready market
that he was happy to tap into. Paradzayi has since diversified his activities to include

170
recruitment and advertising for co-ethnics who are looking for jobs as domestic workers,
waiters and drivers. To some extent, these represent Paradzayi’s captive market.

6.9.4. The neighbourhood and socio-political environment

“I saw someone urinating on the wall of my shop. When I confronted him he said
makwerekwere had no right to establish businesses in South Africa when the locals
can do the same...I could tell that he was looking for a fight” (Paradzayi).

“The challenge is that they are currently looking for BEE candidates. They are
looking for black South Africans....they look at your BEE status (for example how
many South Africans do you employ)...it becomes a challenge in terms of the business
opportunities you can get” (Vongai).

“The big problem here is corruption....if you don’t have a khaki envelop you won’t
succeed. Business is not really based on merit...if you are not connected to certain
people you won’t succeed. It’s not easy” (Vivienne).

Migrant entrepreneurs generally perceive the environment as characterised by xenophobia

and lack of government support of migrant businesses. However, it must be acknowledged
that it is fairly easy to start a business in Tembisa and Kempton Park, especially hair salons,
spaza shops and hawking. There seem to be no local by-laws that migrants have to deal with
concerning these. Establishing any of these is a matter of negotiating with house-owners who
have backyard rooms or who have space to accommodate mobile shops (ship containers). The
most important actors at this level are the local South Africans who provide the space and
buy goods and services from self-employed Zimbabweans. Their reactions and attitudes
largely determine these business ventures. So far, this study reveals that locals present no
specific big problems for the self employed migrants, except for the occasional negative
statements indicated in the above first quotation. This happened in Tembisa. There are no
such incidents in Kempton Park. The local police are remotely involved as they visit these
business ventures at least every six months, searching for undocumented migrants.

171
6.10. The unemployed

All the unemployed migrants studied were wives who depended on their husbands for their
day to day upkeep. They also did not have work permits. However, they had been
unemployed for less than a year and were actively looking for employment. They all agreed
that staying at home was not an option since life is not easy in Johannesburg. For example,
Pauline, who has a diploma in Human Resources, came to Johannesburg in October 2010 to
join her husband. But she soon realised that “staying as a housewife was impractical”. She
found a job as a domestic worker through the help of a church elder. However, she lost the
job when she spent two days in Pretoria where she had gone to apply for asylum documents.
When she came back, her employer had found a replacement. The unemployed risk facing a
domino sequence of social exclusion; where lack of ‘documents’ leads to failure to access
jobs, which eventually leads to disadvantageous life chances. For example, Pauline argued
that:

“We want jobs. We want office jobs but without a permit it’s problematic. If you want
to have a drivers’ licence they refuse people with asylum papers. I don’t have a permit
because I am unemployed. Permits are difficult to get, they only give them to
employed people. You also need money to apply for a permit and R700 to get your
certificates evaluated by SAQA”.

The above quote reveals the vicious cycle of social exclusion, where lack of proper
documentation leads to lack of a good office job. This in turn makes it difficult for one to
raise money to get one’s certificates evaluated by SAQA, thus leaving the individual stuck in
an unfavourable job that is easy to get without a permit but discourages upwards social
mobility.

6.11. Conclusion

172
Zimbabwean migrants mostly participate in contract, casual, menial jobs that do not pay
much but ensure their survival. The research reveals that migrants are not totally shunned
from employment, but they participate on disadvantaged terms. Therefore rather than facing
social exclusion due to unemployment, they experience adverse incorporation, exploitation
and abuse. This tallies with Silver (1995)’s argument that migrants can be trapped in “bad”
jobs which, unfortunately for them, are the only easily accessible ones. The employment
sectors that are open to migrants have no job security and other related benefits. There is stiff
competition for semi-skilled and unskilled jobs between migrants and locals. This increases
chances of conflict between the two groups which end up shunning each other. For most
migrants their exploitability is their competitive advantage as employers tend to prefer
employing migrants over locals. Employers benefit from the low cost of migrant labour.

This chapter has also revealed the reasons for some Zimbabweans venturing into self
employment, arguing that this entry is facilitated by a combination of factors such as
discrimination and poor jobs on the labour market and also the experience that migrants had
gained from their previous employers. Therefore rather than facilitating social exclusion these
employers encourage acquisition of social and human capital eventually making it easy for
some migrants to be successful entrepreneurs.

173
CHAPTER SEVEN: COPING MECHANISMS FOR GAINING SOCIAL
ACCEPTANCE AND ENSURING SURVIVAL

7.1. Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to give a broad outline of the various tactics used by
Zimbabweans to gain social acceptance. It broadens the discussion from Chapter 6 by
exploring coping mechanisms of Zimbabweans in and beyond the labour market. It also lays
the foundation for understanding Chapter 8 where there is a discussion of how the specific
coping mechanisms (for example church membership) identified in this chapter could either
increase or decrease the level of social exclusion of individual migrants.

The major point is that Zimbabweans are aware of the devalued migrant identity as
makwerekwere. Most of them do not seek social acceptance as ‘foreigners’ living in South
Africa but they want to negotiate social acceptance with locals as South Africans through
disguising their Zimbabwean identity. As such they use tactics such as changing their style of
dressing and walking as well as collusion with local South Africans to conceal their
Zimbabwean identities gaining social acceptance and jobs in the process. Migrants also use
church and family networks and connections with former classmates and schoolmates to get
jobs, accommodation and marriage partners in Johannesburg. Some migrants have also tried
marrying South Africans as a way of blending in and gaining acceptance among the locals.

There are two coping mechanisms that I discuss which show how some migrants have given
up trying to gain social acceptance among both their migrant networks and the locals. These
strategies are: ‘keeping to yourself’ and ‘living within your means’. These mechanisms
reflect the level of social isolation that some migrants experience.

The chapter ends by giving an appraisal of the migrants’ perceptions of their present
circumstances and the future. This discussion of the future is part of understanding the extent
of migrants’ social exclusion. In this regard, as Atkinson (1998) argues, if people’s current
way of life does not ensure better future prospects then they can be regarded as socially
excluded.

174
7.2. Friendships and marriages with local South Africans and fellow
migrants

Friendships and marriages with locals are some of the best ways of creating bridging social
ties for individual migrants. They increase the level of acceptability into the local community
even at work. Brian uses friendships with locals and this has gained him acceptability at
work. He says:

“In 2010 when I applied for my leave I invited one South African colleague of mine
to go with me to Zimbabwe. He was surprised to see that we are organised, we have
good homes even in rural areas. He appreciated our lifestyle. In the Harare city he saw
how my brothers lived. He saw that Zimbabwean police assist foreigners and do not
ask for identity books. They don’t terrorise foreigners. He was told how South
African leaders were helped during the apartheid...I have two South African
colleagues whom I trust. They can visit my house in Harare even when I am not
there”.

Some migrants have tried having sexual relationships and even marriages with South
Africans. Migrants sometimes use marriage to gain citizenship and accommodation (Van
Nieuwenhuyze 2009; Lancee 2012b). Among the research participants were two men who
once married South African women, but the marriages soon ended in divorce. Those that said
they could consider marrying South Africans (9%) were either already having relationships or
had had relationships with South African women. South African women are generally
perceived as sexually appealing to Zimbabwean male migrants. However, Zimbabwean
female migrants do not consider South African males as prospective partners. Barbara had
this to say about South African men:

“I have dated South Africans. They don’t know love. South Africans are rough. I will
get married to a Zimbabwean man”.

The majority of Zimbabwean migrants (88%) say they would not consider getting married to
South Africans. This is because Zimbabweans have negative stereotypes about South
Africans, especially local men. Therefore, while male Zimbabweans could have fleeting

175
relations with South Africa women, they mostly have no considerations for serious
relationships leading to marriage.

Migrants argued that South African women were very attractive and could divert the attention
of migrant men. According to Maureen:

“Marriages are under attack, the divorce rate is too high. It’s like Zimbabweans have
never seen mini-skirts, fat and light skinned women before. They are so shocked.
They run away from their wives”.

Pastor Lloyd believes that:

“Marriages of Zimbabweans and locals are about convenience...it’s about this person
helping me to cross a bridge or reach a certain stage and that’s it...it’s because of
different cultures. At first there may be genuine love, but as time goes on, it changes.
South African women love a good life, they are not taught about responsibility;
whereas Zimbabwean women know their duties”.

Pastor Lloyd gave several reasons for the failure of Zimbabwean-South African marriages:
(a) instrumental calculations where a relationship is forged by someone who wants to get
ahead using a relationship with a local woman (b) differences in culture and (c) the possible
inability of local women to remain in the marriage when the migrant men become
unemployed or experience financial problems. Male migrants argued that being married to a
South African woman was demeaning because South African women have no respect. They
will resist going to Zimbabwe, have problems conversing (language barriers) with the
migrants’ family members in Zimbabwe and would discourage investment in Zimbabwe.
They argued that marrying a local woman meant that ‘one becomes the wife’. The two
migrants that tried marrying South African women were disappointed when these women
showed lack of respect and an interest in money. Bernard argued that:

“I found a lady who came from Natal and stayed with her for four years. When she
discovered that I am a foreigner she looked down upon and despised me. I then met a
Zimbabwean woman whom I married. I compared the level of respect that was shown
by the two ladies and discovered that I was respected more by the Zimbabwean. I paid
lobola for her while staying with the South African whom I eventually left”.

176
Bernard had not paid any lobola for the Zulu woman. What he did not realise was that the
Zimbabwean woman was in a desperate situation concerning accommodation and life in
general and therefore could be expected to be more respectful (deferential) and understanding
compared to the local woman who had no such pressures. Thabani is another migrant who
stayed with a Zulu woman for eight years. He said he left her because; “she prevented
pregnancy without my knowledge. I wanted a child and she undermined me”. Generally,
migrants prefer ‘shacking up’ or ‘just living together’ arrangements with local women.
Sometimes such arrangements become permanent and produce children (Maphosa 2011).

Moving in with migrant male partners was a common strategy among female migrants who
were quick to find men to live with. This practice is commonly known as ‘ukuhlalisana’
(which literary means living together). This draws parallels with the ‘mapoto’ marriages
which were a common phenomenon in early urban settlements in Zimbabwe. Female
migrants became ‘wives’ that way, without any formal negotiations involving other family
members. With time, the arrangement may either be formalised as partners become more
involved, or destroyed, as partners drifted apart. Among migrants in Tembisa and Kempton
Park, this practice could be facilitated by the expectation of relatives to move out quickly
while the individual is unprepared or by low wages and sometimes unemployment. This is
one of the reasons why some migrants severed relationships with their relatives. For example,
Scott argued that he had a sister whom he did not communicate with often.

“We have problems with sisters who live with men without the payment of lobola.
My brother doesn’t like it. My sister had a child with a man who hadn’t paid any
lobola. When the child died my brother never went to pay condolences because he
said she was ‘just shacking up with a man’ and the child was illegitimate. I pleaded
with him saying let’s relate well since we are in a foreign country. We are now trying
to reconcile”.

Sometimes women had boyfriends who helped them pay rent even though they did not stay
together. This was the case for Hillary who was single but had a boyfriend (Paradzayi) who
helped her pay rent for a room in Kempton Park, while he stayed in Tembisa with his wife
Grace.

177
Having multiple partners is dangerous and could easily spread HIV/AIDS. Pastor Lloyd
argued that:

“Life in South Africa is hard... It is very fast and free. It mainly affects females who
end up in relationships that destroy (kill) them. When they get desperate for
accommodation, they end up staying with strange men or end up in unplanned
marriages”.

7.3. Church membership

“Even if I was to wake up tomorrow and there was no heaven, I wouldn’t regret
having gone to church because it moulds you as a person. That’s why my children
also go to church. I want to be disciplined. I want them to be disciplined. It keeps me
rooted. You don’t just live without knowing where you come from” (Vivienne).

Zimbabwean migrants are very religious. The church was believed to be the moral compass
guiding migrants. Going to church was viewed as important for the following reasons:
spiritual guidance and protection from God, access to information on accommodation and
jobs and also acquisition of friends. Church members tend to be from the same network that
provides work and accommodation. It is in these churches that migrants form revolving social
and grocery clubs. They also marry within the same cliques.

90% regularly go to church while only 10% do not go to church. Migrants mostly attend
Pentecostal churches which originate from Zimbabwe. They have not been integrated into
South African churches. In these Zimbabwean originated churches they preach in Ndebele
and Shona and sometimes reminisce on the days in Zimbabwe. Few attempts are made to
convert their South African neighbours to join them. Because of this, churches must be
viewed as sources of social exclusion, thus showing the darker side of bonding social capital.
Such an analysis lends support to propositions 3 of my analytical framework, where I argue
that migrant religious networks may lead to the social exclusion of their members.

178
TABLE 16: WHICH CHURCH DO YOU GO TO?

Which church do you go to? Frequency Percent

Seventh Day Adventist 18 31%
ZAOGA Forward in Faith 4 7%
JPM Pentecostal 5 9%
AFM 3 5%
Other Pentecostal 14 24%
Catholic 1 2%
Vapostori/ Masowe 7 12%
None 6 10%
Total 58 100%

Research revealed that 31% of the migrants are members of the Seventh Day Adventist
church, 4% belong to ZAOGA, 5% go to JPM, and 5% are members of the AFM. There were
migrants who belonged to various inter-ethnic Pentecostal churches that largely included
other migrants like Ghanaians, Nigerians and Congolese. These constituted 24% of the
sample. Migrants seem to shun traditional churches such as Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist
and Roman Catholic which are dominant in Zimbabwe. The reason could be proliferation of
Pentecostal churches in Johannesburg and the lure towards what these churches purport to
offer. The new Pentecostal churches are well known for miracles and the ability to help
individuals who have different problems. In fact, there was one migrant (2%) who claimed to
be Catholic while 12% belonged to the Apostolic church sects such as Johane Masowe or
Johane Wechishanu or Mugodhi. These are strictly Zimbabwean indigenous Protestant sects.
Members of these churches wear white or other colourful garments on Saturdays and
Sundays when they go to church. They are also visible because male members attend church
services carrying staffs/rods and their services are conducted in open spaces (usually in the
bush) outside buildings.

Migrants who attend Apostolic/vapostori church services benefit from prophetic messages
and visions that are relayed to them. This is where their future is foretold; identifying future
troubles and fortunes. Strategies to deal with future problems are mapped out. The uncertain
future can somehow be controlled through prayer and petitions. Prophetic messages provide

179
explanations to situations that trouble migrants. That way, migrants can cope with these
situations better. Daniel stated clearly that:

“I used to go to Baptist church but then decided to go to the vapostori. I had family
problems. A friend of mine invited me. They prophesy here. I was told things by
prophets, for example how I lost my job. I was told people hate me”.

Sheunesu is another migrant who goes to Johane Masowe Apostolic church. He says:

“Problems befall everyone. We go to church because of problems, difficult situations

and circumstances”.

Maphosa (2011) concurs that the challenges of migrant life are usually dealt with via
churches that prophesy and foretell the future. Some prophecies are about impending return
journeys and the dangers associated with them. Prayers accompanied by fasting are usually
recommended to deal with the challenges of migrant life.

The church is critical in that God is viewed as the protector against police, especially for
those without proper documentation. They pray so that the police cannot arrest an
undocumented migrant. One forty six year old male migrant (Tapera) argued that “If I get
deported it doesn’t matter. God knows my situation. I know I am being unfair to God because
I am breaking the law by being illegal”. Another male migrant (Farai) argued that local South
Africans do not need to pray:

“As a foreigner you know your problems, when the going gets tough you have to
focus on God. You are desperate...Locals are at home and relaxed, they have no need
to go to church. They have relatives all over”.

Farai’s argument points to the belief that God is very important to people without relatives
and friends. He also gives a better identity (being called a child of God) to those whose
identity is devalued. He is the relative and friend to the lonely, desperate and needy.

This perception was clearly portrayed in one of Pastor Lloyd’s sermons, where he
admonished people to continue seeking God even after getting jobs. He said there was a
tendency of people to relax after getting jobs, only to seek God again when they became
unemployed and desperate.

180
There was a small number of migrants (10%) who stated that they are Christians but they do
not go to church. They sometimes spend free time drinking beer. Among this small group
was Eric who ends up engaging in public fighting when drunk. He has been arrested several
times for public fighting. His most recent arrest was in early 2012 when he beat up a security
guard at the Tembisa Plaza. He paid a R1000 fine which he got from his brother.

7.4. Crime and deviance

7.4.1. Introduction

Migrants believe that some Zimbabweans engage in criminal activities. These activities range
from obtaining fake South African identity books, petty thievery, prostitution, to serious
crimes like embezzlement of funds or robbing at gunpoint. They argue that these people are
desperate and have no other acceptable channels of making money. The majority of migrants
under study (84%) know of Zimbabweans involved in crime. In some cases, migrants
witnessed crimes committed by Zimbabweans. Alex witnessed a crime in a retail shop where
people were ordered to lie down while the robbers spoke to each other in Shona. He also
argued that he knew Zimbabweans who made a living out of cloning other people’s credit
cards and withdrawing their money. These criminals had posh lifestyles and drove the latest
car models. However, there were also arguments by the same migrants that those criminals
who moved around in gangs tended to be a mixture of Zimbabweans and South African
locals, so it becomes difficult and stereotypical to say that Zimbabweans are ‘the’ criminals
in South Africa. Migrants were quick to say that the majority of criminals resided in Hillbrow
and not in Tembisa.

7.4.2. Use of fake South African identity books

Among the popular strategies used to survive in South Africa is the use of South African
identity books. Most of these are falsified, having been stolen from or lost by South African

181
citizens. A key informant of mine, Tatenda, told me that she did not steal but ‘picked up’
someone’s lost identity book, removed the photo and replaced it with hers. What this means
is that the details of the person whose identity book is missing will be used by Tatenda
including the name. This strategy of using another person’s identity book is called “khupha
faka - literally meaning remove and replace”. In some cases, there is genuine consent from
the owner of the identity book where the agreement is that the migrant uses the identity book
to get a job but pays a small fee to the local South African. They also agree that there will not
be any debts or police fines acquired for the period that the migrant uses the identity book.
This is what Eric did to get a job as a security guard. However, this mechanism is no longer
popular as there is a nationwide campaign against it and arrests are being made for people
caught using others’ identity books. A month after I interviewed Eric, he lost his job when it
was discovered that he used another person’s identity book. He opted to leave his job when
one day he was invited to the manager’s office and, without notice, was subjected to a lie
detector test. They asked him a battery of questions about his name, age and area of origin.
He stopped going to work after that day. Some of his colleagues who remained were arrested
for fraud and fined R3000 or imprisoned. Eric regards himself as having been lucky to escape
by absconding from work after that exercise.

There was one male migrant(Tendai), who stated that his employer had a large batch of
identity books that he gave to foreign migrants to use at his workplace, such that whenever
there was a new recruit, he automatically got an identity book from the employer. The
migrant himself was a recipient of such an identity book as he was still waiting for the
adjudication of his application for a worker’s permit. However, one of the conditions of using
the identity book was that the migrant agrees to remain on probation until he got a permit.

More commonly, migrants made use of connections with officials in the DHA to actually
produce identity books. It was a whole chain of corrupt officials who participated in the
production. The process was costly with migrants paying between R4 000 and R 10000 for a
South African identity book where one would be given a South African name. Women got
Zulu names like Siphokazi or Nozipho or Pedi names such as Lerato, Karabo and Lesedi.
There was also a tendency to alter the year and place of birth. Most Zimbabwean migrants
who used this route claim to come from Mpumalanga or Natal. Of note is the fact that these
migrants were low skilled, giving credence to proposition number five which explains how
low skilled and undocumented migrants acquiesce by obliterating their Zimbabwean identity.

182
However, these documents sometimes did not prevent arrests by the police. In some cases,
the migrants would not even be keen to reveal their ‘south African identity’ to the police
when they are arrested. For example, in 2009 Theresa was arrested for loitering in Hillbrow.
She was visiting relatives. When the police demanded identification she was afraid to show
her South African identity book although she had it with her. She preferred to phone her
husband who came and paid a fine of R200 for her release.

Nowadays there are Zimbabwe-South Africa identity books that can be produced via the
same networks. These documents will identify the person clearly as Zimbabwean but as
having permanent residence. One can get them for roughly the same price as the South
African ones.

While some migrants out-rightly agreed that they use fake identity books, others were not so
overt. All the participants that said they use South African identity books got them through
unorthodox means. However, those that have permanent residence either got it through
naturalisation or again faking identity. There was only one migrant (William) who got
permanent residence through the amnesty for SADC citizens in 1996. The following table
shows the current legal status of migrants.

TABLE 17: IS THE CURRENT STAY LEGAL?

Is the current stay legal? Frequency Percent

Yes 22 38%
No 3 5%
I have a passport but no permit 12 21%
I have asylum papers 2 3%
yes I have South African
11 19%
documents
I have permanent residence 8 14%
Total 58 100%

Those that said their current stay is legal are using passports with work permits. The permits
were acquired either directly by personally going to the DHA offices in Pretoria (during the

183
ZDP) or indirectly by use of agents. Those who accessed them directly sometimes had to
endure long hours of waiting in the queue for application forms. Hillary argued that:

“We were ill-treated. They threatened to phone the police to come and take us to
Lindela. Those without passports were actually taken to Lindela. We were told that
we were making noise and they would phone the police”.

Middle class migrants like Vongai, Miriam and Trish used agents to access work permits.
These agents are expensive. Vongai says:

“When you use an agent you pay more - R15000 for the whole process. If you go
directly you pay R1500 so the R13500 is for the agent. But you see, the agent
involves a whole chain of other people, it’s him, somebody in the department (DHA),
and maybe five more people. They share the money”.

In the sample, there are only two participants that still use asylum papers. Most migrants
surrendered the asylum papers during the Zimbabwe Documentation Project of 2010. There
are a number of migrants (20%) that have passports without permits. These are currently
illegal and conceal their identities through adopting local languages, dressing styles and other
South African mannerisms. However, even some of the documented migrants disguise their
identity because legality does not necessarily translate into social acceptance.

7.4.3. The concept of ukuzama (trying)

A common concept among migrants was that of ‘ukuzama’ - literally meaning ‘trying’, which
entailed elements of being clever or being smart in a mischievous way. Those engaged in
criminal activities were seen as ‘trying’, although they were mostly not emulated. Maphosa
(2011) noted a similar concept of ‘ukutshaya iscore’ - literally meaning ‘to score’ as referring
to success in criminal activities where an individual engages in a big criminal activity that
gives him (mostly male) lots of money which they use to establish businesses back in
Zimbabwe. That is how most malayitsha were believed to have acquired start-up capital to
buy cars and buses that they used in their cross-border transport businesses (ibid: 2011). This

184
is what Edgar, one of my research participants, hoped to gain when he robbed his nephew’s
employer. He was unsuccessful. His narrative is as follows:
“A nephew of mine who worked as a gardener had called us to come and steal from
his employer’s safe. I went there with my friend during the night. We did not find any
money. We only found his employer’s gun. We got arrested after my nephew
confessed everything to his employer. The employer had threatened my nephew with
being arrested and possible deportation”.

This man was a driver during the day and a thief during the night. He had also stolen motor
spares from his employer in Zimbabwe in order to get transport money for migration. He
seemed to have continued his criminal activities in Johannesburg. He was a habitual criminal
who sometimes stayed in jail.

In another case, Pastor Lloyd revealed how uncomfortable he was in Hillbrow, when he
discovered that his brother, whom he stayed with, was a criminal. He prayed to God for a job
so that he would move out and leave his criminal brother. When he eventually got the job, he
moved out and went to stay in Tembisa.

There was a tendency by migrants to show elements of tribalism and regionalism in

identifying Zimbabwean criminals. Ndebele speakers tended to think that Shona people were
criminals while Shona speakers said the Ndebele were the criminals. One Shona speaking
man, Norbert, argued that prostitutes in Kempton Park spoke Ndebele and Shona. Kevin, who
comes from Mashonaland East, vehemently argued that criminals are from Masvingo. He
said:

“It might be true that some criminals are Zimbabweans. They are from Masvingo. I
saw it when I went to apply for asylum documents in Pretoria. They would hit us and
take things from us. I could tell from the dialect that they were Karanga, from
Masvingo. They told us that they are taking money from us because they have no
jobs...But gangs tend to be a mixture of Zimbabweans and South Africans”.

When I further questioned Kevin, I discovered that he was not beaten by these people as he
claimed, but he witnessed other Zimbabweans being beaten and their money taken by these
Shona speaking men. Participants revealed that between 2010 and 2011 (during the ZDP
period), they were generally more afraid of the Shona, than anyone else, when they went to
secure legal documents in DHA offices in Pretoria.

185
7.4.4. Bribing the police

Among the research participants, in all the cases involving bribing the police, it is the police
that initiated the bribes. One woman (Karen) was approached by the police officers in
Johannesburg central who demanded a bribe saying “Ingwenya ihlala emanzini - literally
meaning that “a crocodile lives in water”. This was their language for asking for a bribe. She
could not understand their language at first until they told her that she was under arrest for
loitering. Karen had gone shopping in one of the Chinese shops in Johannesburg Central. She
thought she was easily spotted by the police because she wore a long dress. She also carried a
child on her back wrapped in a distinctively Zimbabwean cloth. The police first asked for her
identity book and when she stammered, they told her she was under arrest for loitering and in
the process solicited the bribe.

Most arrests made on migrants pertain to issues of illegality in the country where the
individual either has an expired passport/ asylum document or does not have any of these
documents at all. This is understandable given the fact that half of the participants entered
South Africa illegally the first time. What is disturbing is that the crime and the charge did
not tally. All the cases to do with lack of documents were charged with loitering, which is a
term that means something different. Both male and female migrants were charged with this
crime of loitering.

The arrests were mainly done in Hillbrow, Yeoville and other central parts of Johannesburg,
while 14% were arrested at the border or along the way to Johannesburg. This was true for
migrants who were deported as they tried to get to Johannesburg. Some migrants were
arrested in Tembisa and Kempton Park, though in these cases a few arrests did not concern
documentation but were about other issues such as public fighting, theft and crossing a
freeway. Kevin was arrested for crossing a freeway although he pleaded with the police that
he did not know that it was a crime since Zimbabwe does not have freeways. Paradzayi was
arrested in Kempton Park in 2007, before he had a passport. He argued:

“When I disembarked the train, the police asked for my identity book. I lied and said
my passport had expired but they insisted on seeing the expired passport. As they

186
 searched me they saw R200 and took it. I pleaded with them and they took R100 and
released me”.

Most arrests took places in public areas such as business centres, taxis, trains and buses. The
table below shows that in total, 38% of the respondents have been arrested while 62% said
they had never been arrested.

TABLE 18: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ARRESTED?

Have you ever been Frequency Percent

arrested
Yes in Joburg central 7 12%
Yes in
Tembisa/Kempton Park 7 12%
or other areas
No 36 62%
Arrested in other parts
8 14%
of South Africa
Total 58 100%

Migrants believed that police arrested and demanded a bribe even when the migrant’s papers
were in order. They also believed that the police usually spotted migrants when they carried
their luggage to Park Station where they went to seek buses to ferry their remittances back to
Zimbabwe, or when they went shopping in Johannesburg central. One male migrant (Edwin)
narrated how he was arrested in Johannesburg central:

“I was arrested for public loitering. I had gone shopping in Chinese shops in
Johannesburg central. These shops sell goods without giving receipts. The police
demanded proof of purchase of the goods I had. I told them we could go back together
to the shops where I bought the goods so that they could verify whether I was telling
the truth. They refused and started asking for a bribe. I said I did not have any money.
They said I should accompany them to the police station. They asked for a bribe the

187
 second time after I had shown them my asylum papers. I paid R150 and they let me
go”.

This migrant ended up paying a bribe even though he had relevant asylum papers. Another
female migrant (Tatenda) who is Edwin’s cousin was arrested while walking with her aunt
towards Park Station. She was carrying some of her aunt’s luggage. The aunt was en route to
Zimbabwe. Tatenda had left her passport and work permit at home because she thought no
one would notice her. When they caught her, the police asked for a bribe and openly told her
they did not want ‘small money’ like R20 and R50. Her aunt ended up paying R100. The
police had threatened to hold the migrant in police cells over the weekend since it was a
Friday.

7.4.5. Bhudi handei (my brother let’s go): prostitution in Kempton Park

Female migrants were generally believed to resort to prostitution when faced with hard times
of unemployment. However, among the migrant interviewees, none admitted that they were
in prostitution although they knew Zimbabwean prostitutes. Daniel knew of Zimbabwean
prostitutes in Kempton Park. He said “it’s painful to see Zimbabwean prostitutes, you feel
ashamed to be Zimbabwean in such situations”. Norbert also said:

“I know of Shona prostitutes in Kempton Park. They speak Shona on the streets, they
can see you wearing Zimbabwean takkies and other identity markers and they tell you
point blank ‘bhudi handei - my brother lets go’. They originally did not mean to
prostitute. Women must be educated when they come here looking for jobs”.

Karen reiterated the same point by arguing:

“Some people are not used to working hard. I know women who prostitute in
Kempton Park. They can even beat you for walking with a man because they want
clients. They openly tell you they want a man. You can tell they are Zimbabweans”.

Analysis of the above quotes shows that migrants generally believe that ‘hunger forces
people to do bad things’. They are therefore not quick to judge their fellow migrants who

188
engage in deviant behaviour although Karen thinks that those who engage in prostitution take
the easier way out - they are generally lazy. The quotes also reveal the level of desperation of
these prostitutes who brazenly approach their potential clients and sometimes beat up female
counterparts of the male Zimbabwean migrants.

The above discussion of crime and deviant behaviour lend support to my proposition number
7 which maintains that desperation causes migrants to become deviant, thus deviance is
mainly economically motivated. It is indeed among the low skilled poor migrants that petty
theft and prostitution are common. When paths to desired economic goals are blocked, the
poor respond by engaging in crime and deviance in order to meet the societal goals of
success.

7.5. Languages, dressing and style of walking as disguise tactics

Zimbabweans feel motivated to conceal their identities through the following methods: some
walk alone, dress and talk like South Africans while others pray for protection every day.
Some wear long sleeved shirts in-order to hide vaccination marks on shoulders. Police
usually identify Zimbabweans by looking at the vaccination mark that appears on the left
shoulder of every Zimbabwean. Migrants with permanent residence are not motivated to
engage in any ways of concealing themselves since their stay is legal. They are not afraid of
the police. The same can almost be said for the majority of migrants with permits. This is
because most migrants that participated in the study (74%) are legally living and working in
South Africa. That is why 60% of the migrants stated that they would not deliberately and
intentionally do anything to conceal who they are. While this is what they said in the
interviews, in reality most of these same migrants were not really willing to be known as
Zimbabwean. This behaviour reveals that it is not enough to have legal documents. For one to
be accepted into the South African community one must cease belonging to a devalued
identity group, that is stop being Zimbabwean.

189
7.5.1. Learning local languages

Migrants agreed that the ability to speak at least one local language was an added advantage
that helped escape stigmatisation and arrests. They emphasised the importance of learning
local languages for new migrants. The first weeks after arrival were usually used to learn the
local languages and dressing before venturing to look for employment. The speed at which
they learn is tremendous. One Shona male migrant, Scott, who came to South Africa in
January 2012 was already fluent in Zulu by the time he participated in this research in July of
the same year. Before coming to Johannesburg, he could not speak Ndebele which
Zimbabweans believe to be linguistically closer to Zulu.

There were only 8 people (14%) that stated that they could not speak any local language. Of
these eight, the majority could speak Ndebele, while a few were Shona speakers who could
not even speak Ndebele. Vongai was one of them. She highlighted that: “local South Africans
don’t understand why I talk to them in English when I am black. It irritates them”. The
popular language that migrants learnt easily was Zulu though they still argued that their Zulu
was not as good as that of local South Africans. Some migrants spoke more than one local
language to the extent that they had even learnt Afrikaans, Pedi, Sotho, Tswana and Venda.
Speaking local languages was an advantage which gained migrants a bit of tolerance among
locals. Some locals would then start evaluating migrants positively saying that they ‘do not
really look like Zimbabweans’.

TABLE 19: DO YOU SPEAK ANY LOCAL LANGUAGE?

Local languages spoken Frequency Percent

Zulu only 32 55%
Zulu and another local
11 19%
language
More than two local languages 7 12%
None 8 14%
Total 58 100%

190
The motivation to quickly learn new languages hinged on acquisition of proper
documentation; where the undocumented migrants were more motivated to learn than the
documented migrants.

7.5.2. Dressing

“I now wear jean trousers. I saw that if you wear skirts and dresses you can be easily
seen that you are Zimbabwean. I decided to imitate South Africans” (Lydia).

Migrants were self conscious in terms of determining how they appear to others. There was a
tendency to shy away from ‘Zimbabwean forms of dressing’. The Zimbabwean style was
described as wearing loose fitting, formal, cheap and long clothes, whereas the South African
one involved wearing tight fitting, smart, casual expensive clothes. There was a clear
preference for the South African style which was also viewed as smarter. While there were
migrants who argued that they did not consciously choose their clothes the researcher still
noticed how they preferred wearing tight fitting jean trousers (than loose dresses for women).
The connection between loose fitting clothes and arrests by police was made by Scott. He
maintained that:

“When I came here I used to wear oversize T-shirts and clothes from Zimbabwe. I had
brought three T-shirts, two formal shirts and two pairs of trousers. My brother advised
me never to wear them because I would be deported very fast as everyone could see
that I was foreign. He said South Africans wear tight fitting clothes and not loose
ones. I had difficulties adjusting but now I am ok”.

Migrants did not only talk about the length and tightness of clothes, they also agreed that the
quality of clothes worn by South Africans was better than that of Zimbabweans. They stated
that South Africans wear clothes with labels such as Jeep, Puma, La Coste, Reebok, Adidas,
Quicksilver, Roxy, Levi, Umbro, Nike and Billabong. These were said to be expensive and
most Zimbabweans could not afford them as they preferred cheap clothes sold in Chinese and
Indian shops. However, they said if one wanted to blend in and avoid being caught by the
police and even being suspected by locals then one had to buy expensive clothes. They
looked down upon Zimbabweans who bought from Chinese shops and described them as

191
dirty. Migrants use dressing to disguise their identity (Muzondidya 2008; Broerders 2009).
Kevin commented that:

“...sometimes I don’t carry my passport especially here in Kempton Park. I don’t

carry it because I dress properly. Zimbabweans can be noticed by bad dressing, some
are dirty, especially those from Masvingo and Mberengwa rural areas. Rural people
are a problem”.

Pauline also said: “I no longer buy clothes from Chinese shops. I now buy expensive clothes.
You can be seen on the streets (if you are wearing cheap clothes). They call you kwerekwere
or Shangaan”.

However, there were migrants who were members of the SDA and Apostolic churches whose
church doctrine did not allow the wearing of trousers by women. Such women continued to
wear skirts but they made sure that these were tight and of medium length. In any case, they
argued that dressing was not a full-proof strategy to evade the police and avoid
discrimination, since inability to speak local languages could sell out a migrant. They spent
their energies improving their local language proficiency.

7.5.3. Style of walking

In terms of style of walking there was no consensus on whether the way Zimbabweans walk
was different from that of black South Africans. Those that said there was a difference still
could not agree on their descriptions of how black Zimbabweans and black South Africans
walked. Some said Zimbabweans walked faster than South Africans while others said the
opposite is true. Some went on to say that Zimbabweans are timid in their way of walking,
while others said Zimbabweans walked with pride and confidence. Thabani said:

“Zimbabweans walk with arms spread out, like rich men. They also talk fast while
South Africans talk slowly”.

Farai said that: “Zimbabweans show fear when they walk. Their bodies are stiff”.

192
Although there was no consensus on the actual descriptions of styles of walking, it is
important to note that, depending on their definition of the Zimbabwean and South African
style of walking, some migrants were using the style of walking to blend in and disguise their
Zimbabwean identity. It is also necessary to pinpoint that the issue of style of walking tended
to be confined to migrants in Tembisa rather than those in Kempton Park.

7.6. Downplaying xenophobia at work

As part of coping mechanisms, some migrants downplay situations that are clearly
xenophobic. This is explained in proposition number five (5) of my analytical framework,
where I argue that low skilled individuals are likely to downplay, trivialise or ignore actions
of South African locals that are overtly exclusionary and discriminatory. This is due to their
weak bargaining position, even when they are documented. An example is what happens to
Lionel at his workplace. Lionel works for a company that creates software for GPS devices.
He says:

“I have never been insulted as makwerekwere but at work people call me

makwerekwere in a jocular manner. These are just jokes....We are treated the same.
We work under CCMA. But I am not a permanent worker because I am a foreigner.
They said it would cause tensions among South Africans...I am not afraid of the
police. I just carry my passport everywhere I go for easy identification in case of an
accident”.

The above quote reveals three contradictory situations where the migrant consistently
evaluates South Africans in a positive manner; disregarding the reality which points to the
contrary. This could be his way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. To reduce cognitive
dissonance, Lionel downplays all the negative information about being called makwerekwere
by workmates, about not having a permanent job and also about constant demands for
identification by the police.

193
7.7. Revolving clubs, book clubs and professional organisations

There were only six better off migrants that were members of professional organisations and
clubs. Five of them belonged to a local book club while one claimed to be a member of a golf
club. These are using bridging social capital to get ahead. They confirm proposition two (2)
of my analytical framework that skilled and better-off migrants use weak ties to get ahead.
Among the five was Vongai who was also a member of the Institute of Personnel
Management in South Africa. Being part of this organisation was strategic for her as a trainer
and motivational speaker. I attended one session of the book club and noticed that it is fairly
expensive. Members hold their meetings fortnightly, where they invite prominent authors and
critique their new book/ publication. Members pay R150 per meeting which goes towards
buying good food and sustaining their club. Participants in the club were accountants, sales
persons and middle managers.

Some migrants stated that they participated in revolving savings clubs or stokvels where they
pay subscriptions of between R300 and R1500 per month. This money was invested and
functioned as social security. Cindy participates in a revolving club which has five members.
They pay R1000 per month and it is composed of Zimbabweans only. She says they trust
each other and they do not include locals whom they fear will “run away with our money”.
Participating in revolving clubs was common among both sexes, although it was largely
associated with women and cut across socio-economic classes. There were also a few
Ndebele speaking migrants from Tsholotsho (for example Bongani and Dorcas), that
participated in a viable burial society. Membership of that society was mainly confined to
migrants from two specific wards in Tsholotsho. They were, therefore, exclusive. SDA
church members also had a burial society which allowed non members to join. They paid R60
per family, per month. In case of death, their subscriptions would cover the member, their
spouse and children under the age of 21.

194
7.8. Keeping to yourself as a coping mechanism

This tactic best exemplifies Barry’s (1998) argument on social isolation where one chooses to
be secluded because of fear of negative evaluation and discrimination. It involves avoiding
public places and avoiding friendships, especially with local South Africans. It is mainly used
by undocumented migrants or those documented ones that are pretending to be South
African. They fear that close relations could expose their disguise. Such migrants limit
conversations as much as possible and stay in their rooms, only leaving work or sometimes
church. These individuals prefer walking alone and generally not disclosing much about
themselves, except to close trusted relatives. They argue that people who walk in groups
attract the attention of the police. One woman, Ntombi, believed that police arrest people
“who talk loudly and move in groups”. This seemed to be the general sentiment among lower
class migrants who believed that Zimbabweans are characteristically loud. At home, keeping
to yourself usually means staying in your room as much as possible. Some migrants did not
even know the occupants of the rooms next to theirs. This was because of their attitude of
minding one’s business and keeping to themselves. Tatenda told me how she limited her
interaction with locals as a way of disguising herself:

“You only greet them, talk about the weather and go back to your room or go away.
That way they will never know who you are... you also tell your friends or relatives to
talk in Zulu or Xhosa when they visit you. If your relatives from Zimbabwe phone
you, close your door and speak with a low voice so that they (mastanda) never hear
you speak Shona”.

In the public places, keeping to oneself as a coping mechanism means avoiding contact with
others as much as possible. In a taxi, it means being quiet throughout the journey. Tsitsi
highlights that in a taxi “I try not to talk. I just listen. I don’t speak in a taxi”. Keeping to
oneself is a form of voluntary social exclusion that results from a hostile social environment.

195
7.9. Living within your means or sometimes borrowing?

‘Living within your means’ was the constant phrase that migrants used to describe how they
were able to survive financially. This seemed to contradict their love for fashion. However,
living within one’s means meant strict budgeting. When one wanted to buy expensive clothes
one arranged to put them on lay-bye and pay over three or four months. In terms of food,
‘living within your means’ entailed eating pap with cabbage most of the times.

Migrants did not like ‘being a burden’ to their relatives, although they certainly resorted to
the same individuals when they were in dire financial situations. They argued that conflicts
were the likely results of borrowing money, especially from relatives. Businessman Alex
argued, “friends are better than family when it comes to money. I would rather approach
friends than family members when in a financial crisis”. Another businessperson, Vivienne,
said that her ‘policy’ was “never borrow from or lend money to relatives. Family members do
not repay money. If it’s a friend it is easy to insist on a formal agreement”. Friends and
church members were sometimes preferred to solve financial problems over family members,
for fear of being shunned and negatively evaluated by them.

7.10. Zimbabwean migrants and local house-owners

South African landlords/house-owners are known by Zimbabweans as mastanda - literally

meaning one who owns the stand - basically it is the owner (even though in some cases the
person is a caretaker and not the owner. The singular term is umastanda, while the plural is
omastanda). Zimbabwean migrants think that local landlords are just concerned with money
and nothing else. They are therefore largely indifferent to the migrants. This means that their
relationships are largely instrumental such that as soon as the migrant fails to pay his/her rent
he/she is quickly thrown out and replaced by another one that can pay. This tends to create
cold, calculative relations that are devoid of emotions. Therefore, in times of crises, migrants
do not count on their landlords for help or sympathy. Migrants have many stories of some of
their folks who were chased away by landlords for inability to pay rent or who had their
property (such as refrigerators, television sets and beds) seized in lieu of rent. Pastor Lloyd
explained:

196
 “If you can’t pay rent then you have no place. They don’t care about why you don’t
have money. Last week, I attended a case of a Zimbabwean who had stayed for more
than 4 years at a certain house paying his rent consistently. When the company he
worked for was sold and the original owner went away without paying the employees,
the man could not pay his rent. He defaulted and after a week he was thrown out by
his umastanda. The umastanda was now demanding a television set and a radio as
payment for rent. I had to take my own money and give it to him so that he could pay
rent. I knew him for a long time and trusted him...it took another week and he got his
salary. He paid me back my money. The umastanda couldn’t be patient for just one
week”.

Among the participants 16% of migrants think that their landlords treat them well. These few
are the ones that can count on the same landlords for help when they lose their jobs or against
xenophobic attacks by local South Africans. The same percentage of migrants (16%) argue
that their landlords treat them badly by: restricting the number of visitors they have, making
constant requests for money to buy electricity, instituting a no child ‘policy’, increasing rent
for each visitor that is accommodated for over a month (for example R50 for every additional
adult) and complaining that the yard is dirty each time a Zimbabwean female migrant sweeps
it when it is her ‘duty’. In some cases migrants argue that Zimbabweans are the ones given
such duties disregarding some local females who could be staying at the same house.
Sweeping the yard is a gendered activity that only involved females. I witnessed a case in
Umthambeka where the landlady complained that Zimbabweans ‘finish electricity’ by
switching on all their electrical gadgets at the same time. Barbara evaluated the mastanda as
parasitic. She said:

“Before its even month-end they will ask for part of the rent. They sometimes ask for
mealie-meal, sugar and cooking oil. If you don’t give them, they say you have an
attitude and they end up chasing you”.

While one may not necessarily be chased away for not giving the mastanda the food items
they require, as Barbara insinuates, the mastanda may then look for excuses to chase the
migrant. That behaviour would have been triggered by the negative perception of the
mastanda who would have perceived the migrant as mean.

197
The majority of participants (52%) say their mastanda are indifferent to migrants - neither
hating nor liking them. The 16% whose responses were recorded as ‘not applicable’ stayed in
flats or houses with absentee landlords. What must be appreciated is the issue of
socioeconomic class; where most complaints of negative relations with mastanda came from
residents of Tembisa. Plausible explanations for the negative relationships could relate to
differences in age and financial status.

In terms of age, most migrants are young (38% below the age of 30 and cumulatively, 91%
are below the age of 40), while their mastanda are mostly older men and women (above the
age of 50). The two age groups may have differences in their preferences and ideas, where
the younger migrants may want ‘their freedom’, for example, in having visitors; while the
older generation could be more conservative. These differences are also heightened by
cultural divergences.

In terms of financial status, most migrants work and earn an income, while the older
mastanda may be unemployed, relying heavily on rentals for their own subsistence.
Therefore, even if the migrant may not be earning much (as shown in the section on
migrants’ earnings), he/she could still have more disposable income than the mastanda.
These migrants mainly stayed in the backyard rooms of their mastanda’s houses, using the
same ablution facilities, thus to some extent, occupying the same social space. The level of
contact with migrants was therefore high and the mastanda got to see what migrants brought
home everyday. Some mastanda openly envied migrants, saying they had lots of money,
while others would always ask for money that they never returned, arguing, like Tatenda’s
umastanda, that; ‘you people have lots of money because you work’. This goes back to the
old argument that ‘migrants take our jobs’. Therefore, rather than the high level of contact
ensuring good interaction, in some cases, it bred jealousy and hatred, sometimes eventually
the migrant moved away.

The length of stay at a particular house was related to the treatment received from the
umastanda and the size of the rooms available. There were a couple of migrants who had
stayed for close to five years at the same house (even after being robbed once) because they
were treated like family. They felt free and comfortable.

Concerning room sizes, bigger rooms obviously accommodate more property and ensure
better comfort than smaller ones. However, they cost more in terms of rent, (for example,
R800 or R900 compared to R500 for small rooms), so when the fortunes of the migrant fell,

198
s/he moved to a smaller room and when they improved the migrant sought a bigger room.
Issues of accommodation were governed by laws of supply and demand, with the supply of
rooms outpacing the demand. Therefore, when a migrant was chased from one room, s/he
could quickly find another room from a desperate umastanda. To some extent, migrants had
some leverage.

Not all relations with locals were negative. There were cases of collusion to beat the formal
system by both migrants and local residents. Such cases included being given documents
such as drivers’ licenses and identity books so that migrants could use them to find work.
This of course happened for a fee. There was a unique case of a migrant who was helped by a
local South African woman to get a birth certificate and an identity book in exchange for
getting employment for her sons. Here is how the migrant (Thabani) explains what happened:

“I talked to a landlady where I used to rent a room. She took me as her child and we
arranged to go and get a birth certificate in Natal. She ‘made me her son’ and up to
now they are my relatives. This happened after I had offered to get jobs for her sons. I
also used to give them food and we would help each other...they (sons) talked to their
mother who agreed to help me get a birth certificate. I now have an identity book and
a passport. They are now my family...they said I did not show that I am
Zimbabwean”.

A closer interpretation of this quote reveals the survivalist mentality that governs
relationships between foreigners and locals. Locals were willing to help because he could
offer something - jobs through his connections. It also shows what it means to be
Zimbabwean for the locals: being different, possibly through speech and dressing and also
not sharing what one had with the locals. However, I want to stress that from this perspective,
being Zimbabwean is less about difference than it is about competition for scarce resources,
(for example being a perceived threat to local omastanda’s “children” and kin at work) When
Zimbabweans showed concern and helped the locals, they suddenly became ‘less
Zimbabwean’. All the migrants that had friends or acquaintances among locals were told that
they were different from other Zimbabweans. They were positively evaluated as smart and
lighter (in complexion) than the rest of Zimbabweans. South Africans could identify with
them. This lends support to Lancee ‘s (2012b:66) argument that building bridging social
capital may set an individual apart from other migrants and by connecting with local
individuals, the migrant shows that they are ‘good’, ‘able’ and positive.

199
The same quotation reveals Thabani’s ability to create bridging ties. Bridging ties are those
that span structural holes and depend on thin trust (Lancee 2012b:28). According to
Wuthnow (cited in Lancee 2012b:29) there are two forms of bridging ties: identity and status
ties. Identity ties are those that connect cultural and ethnic differences while status ties
connect lower status with higher status individuals. The case of Thabani and his landlady is
an example of identity bridging ties with a resource rich group. It shows his ability to tap into
the Zulu ethnic group and gaining from it through his umastanda and her sons. The same tie
also worked in his favour by improving his status, because, in this case, gaining South
African identity is interpreted as moving up the social hierarchy. Indeed, it resulted in him
getting better jobs and accessing other resources reserved for South Africans. By changing
his identity, he became less excluded.

7.11. Evaluation of the present and the future

Migrants are clear that there are more economic opportunities and technological advantages
in South Africa than in Zimbabwe. Therefore, they want to continue living in South Africa.
However, they are not sure about the rest of their lives. They do not know where they would
want to spend the rest of their lives, although the majority are sure that they want to be buried
in Zimbabwe when they die. Some have created homes in South Africa and would like to stay
there for a long time, but they are uncertain about the socio-political environment in the
country that they perceive as characterised by high xenophobia.

7.11.1. Migrants’ definition of home

While migrants still acknowledged Zimbabwe as their place of origin (and therefore their
‘roots’) by communicating with their relatives regularly (phoning at least once a month) and
sending remittances, some no longer consider it as their home; preferring to make a home
wherever they find themselves comfortable. Female migrants were more vocal about staying
in South Africa. Some migrants said their home is where they currently found themselves,
while one woman openly stated that: “Zimbabwe is just my entry point into the world”

200
(Vongai). Other migrants said that South Africa was their home, ‘for now’. Such perceptions
could mean that some Zimbabwean migrants do not want to go back to their country; neither
do they view South Africa as their destination. These are the cosmopolitans who are not
rooted anywhere (Beck 2002).

Zimbabwean migrants under study are mostly trans-nationals who have varying levels of
belonging in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. Migration is no longer an issue of moving
from one country and staying in another for good, but it is increasingly about belonging to
two countries simultaneously - transnationalism (Levitt 2006). Thus, although migrants may
not want to go back to Zimbabwe they are still actively involved in the activities of their
families back in Zimbabwe (Chikanda 2011). Sometimes, migration is about not belonging
anywhere - cosmopolitanism (Beck 2002).

Some migrants do not feel at home in both countries. Vivienne captures this feeling of being
in between by arguing:

“We feel like foreigners in South Africa and in Zimbabwe. It’s like there is no longer
a place for you (in Zimbabwe), it’s like you are dead. You feel there is no longer
room for you”.

The above view by Vivienne is supported by Maphosa (2011) who highlights that
transnationalism creates exclusion in both the home and destination countries

7.11.2. Future prospects

Part of understanding social exclusion of migrants is to analyse their future prospects.

Atkinson (1998) argues that people may be socially excluded if their current way of life has
no better future prospects. Generally Zimbabweans are not secure. They believe that South
Africans do not like them. They are afraid of outbreaks of xenophobia in the future. Most of
them were not directly affected by the xenophobic attacks in 2008 but they believe that the
attacks can happen any time. However, they still prefer a future in South Africa than
Zimbabwe which is perceived as economically unstable.

201
Seventy nine (79%) of participants believe that the future may be characterised by
xenophobic attacks. They, therefore, live in fear of what the future may hold. Only a few
(21%) argued that they were not afraid of xenophobia in the future. These are individuals
who have been in Johannesburg for more than ten years and have acquired South African
identity books. To some extent, they have strong connections resulting from the long time
they have spent in South Africa. It is unsettling to know that, regardless of area of residence,
Zimbabwean migrants (79%) are afraid of future eruptions of xenophobic attacks. While
those in Kempton Park might argue that xenophobia happens in poor locations, they are
afraid of it too. The following statements by Simba reveal the insecurity he has about a
having a future in South Africa.
“I want to raise money to start my business here...(but) I don’t feel comfortable
buying property. What if xenophobia comes back?”.

Although the majority of Zimbabweans are afraid of xenophobia in the future, they still want
to be in South Africa in the next five years. Fifty seven percent (57%) stated that they would
be in Johannesburg in the next five years. 29% were uncertain of where they would be in the
next five years. One person, (2%) said he would be in the UK. Very few individuals (12%)
were certain that they would be in Zimbabwe. The reluctance to go back to Zimbabwe is
informed by economic calculations, where individuals evaluate the economic benefits
existing in Zimbabwe as lesser than those found in South Africa. It is also informed by the
reality that, for some migrants (like Bongani) there is nobody to return to as the whole family
has emigrated to South Africa and other countries.

To show that most Zimbabweans still consider a future in Johannesburg were the
recommendations that they gave on how they could be assisted by the South African
government. Migrants were concerned about the difficulties of accessing asylum documents
and what they perceived to be the slow feedback on the adjudication of applications for
general work permits. That is why 47% recommended that the South African government
should provide faster mechanisms of getting identity documents to legalise their stay. Some
migrants (19%) were specifically worried about getting jobs. Cumulatively 66% are worried
about their participation in the labour market. This means that even for those whose primary

202
recommendation is the issuance of work permits and identity documents, their ultimate goal
is participation in the South African labour market.

As they stay in South Africa, 24% of migrants are concerned about being treated as less
human than others. That is why they recommended that they be perceived and treated equally
as fellow Africans rather than aliens. Tsitsi argued:

“In Zimbabwe we also had foreigners coming from Mozambique, Malawi and
Zambia. We treated them well. There wasn’t a distinction. We are all people. We
were created in the same way by God. Who knows? Maybe in twenty years South
Africans will want to come to Zimbabwe when their country goes bad too”.

These migrants were the same individuals who evoked the discourse of pan-Africanism,
while others stated that their countries helped South African refugees during the apartheid era
and they rightfully expected the same dignity that was afforded to these South Africans by
the Zimbabwean government then.

Concerning South African locals, migrants argued that locals should appreciate foreigners
and learn from their hard work. Vongai had this to say:

“They are still dreaming while all the good opportunities are passing by. It’s not the
foreigner that is the problem, it’s the mindsets. They (locals) have more opportunities
that they are not using. They even have laws that give them these opportunities. They
still don’t use them. Instead of looking at foreigners as a problem, they should see
them as role models. To these locals I say; ask yourself what is the foreigner doing
differently that I can imitate or learn so that I can transform my own life? I don’t
doubt that there are South Africans that are doing well. I think these have learnt well
from foreigners”.

The above perception by Vongai reflects the general tendency by some migrants to
exaggerate the differences in the work ethic of Zimbabweans and South Africans to the extent
that the Zimbabwean work ethic was viewed as the best practice that others can learn from.
This is a rather disturbing perception considering that these migrants want to continue staying
in South Africa because holding such views hinders cohesion and encourages negative
stereotypes.

203
7.12. Conclusion

The various coping mechanisms employed by migrants have been discussed in detail showing
that they mainly address problems of social acceptance encountered in dealing with
employers, mastanda and government officials such as police officers. Local South African
mastanda were viewed as less welcoming and mainly concerned with how much they could
get out of their Zimbabwean tenants. In terms of future prospects, migrants expressed an
interest in continuing working in South Africa, although they wanted to be treated with
dignity (like fellow Africans).

The discussion has revealed that some mechanisms of gaining social acceptance among
fellow migrants discourage social integration with locals (such as marriages and church
membership in migrant networks), while others encourage social integration with locals on
the basis of shedding off or concealing the Zimbabwean identity (e.g. faking South African,
identity documents and adopting local languages and culture), thus proving that the
Zimbabwean identity is devalued. Other mechanisms (e.g. ‘keeping to oneself’ and ‘living
within your means’, point directly towards social isolation which is an indicator of social
exclusion.

204
CHAPTER EIGHT: SOCIAL NETWORKS AND AGENTS OF SOCIAL
EXCLUSION

8.1. Introduction

This chapter begins by appreciating the role of two main migrant networks: the family and
the church. It shows how these facilitate the migration and settlement of new migrants. It then
discusses how these same networks may be an inhibiting factor and eventually unwittingly
lead to the social exclusion of their members. The family network is revealed as especially
repellent of new migrants as the competition for jobs on the labour market gets fiercer.
Feelings of jealousies, anger, tribalism and regionalism exclude Zimbabweans from other
Zimbabweans.

The chapter then discusses the main agents of social exclusion as identified by Zimbabwean
migrants. These are the police, hospitals, employers, omastanda, teachers, pupils and
sometimes taxi operators or fellow commuters. In most public places migrants (both the
documented and undocumented) prefer not to ‘create trouble’ by keeping to themselves as
much as possible and generally, limiting visibility and attention to themselves. This makes
them not participate fully in the different places they find themselves. To that extent, they are
excluded.

The chapter ends by discussing how social class as a variable affects social exclusion. I argue
that middle class status can shield migrants from stigmatisation by omastanda, where those
migrants who stay in Kempton Park do not report nasty experiences with their house-owners
or caretakers. However, when it comes to banks migrants from all social classes report
different forms of exclusion, from denial of access to loans to inability to open a savings
account. There is a section in this chapter where I identify the effects of social exclusion. I
attribute habits of secrets and lies, poverty and superficial relationships with locals to social
exclusion. Social exclusion may not wholly explain all these factors but it is to some extent
responsible for the above mentioned factors.

205
8.2. Social networks and Zimbabwean migration to Johannesburg

Strong ties relating to bonding capital are certainly useful in helping the migrant move from
Zimbabwe to Johannesburg. These ties provide the needed shelter, food and comfort,
especially in the first months soon after arrival. They also help with the entry into the first
job. However, they make have the negative impact of being so overwhelming that they may
limit the choices of migrants within them, thus functioning to exclude migrants (see
proposition number three (3) of my analytical framework).

8.2.1. Church networks

Studies on religion and migrants reveal how churches function both as a means of integration
in the receiving country and also as a migration strategy in transit countries (Akcapar 2006;
Levitt 2006). Migrant churches in Tembisa and Kempton Park mainly help migrants deal
with their receiving country. They help them in various ways. However, their functionality is
constrained as they do not have institutionalised methods of dealing with migrants’ issues.
Pastors deal with each individual case differently. The churches tend to be small, with an
average number of forty congregants. Church branches are relatively new, having been
established in the last two to ten years. However, the networks that are created at church tend
to be just as strong, or even in some cases stronger than family ties as the individuals pay
homage first to the church and then to the family. Sometimes, individuals prefer church ties
to family ties.

Akcapar (2006) and Aydin et al (2010) argue that church membership provides spiritual
healing, helps and empowers individuals to deal with loneliness and other challenges faced
by migrants. Christian churches also encourage individuals to see themselves as belonging to
a bigger nation/ kingdom which has no boundaries (however, this could still be exclusionary
where members of other religions such as Islam, are not perceived as belonging to this
kingdom [Levitt 2003; 2006]). They exhort individuals to work hard, endure and change their
lives in the same way that the Israelites conquered throughout their history in the Bible.

The churches themselves have become transnational and have membership across the
borders. Pastors officiate at weddings and funerals in Johannesburg and Zimbabwe. They also

206
pray for jobs and accommodation for their members. Sometimes they help by providing
advice, counselling and decision-making on issues that appear complex to migrants. Migrants
tended to attend protestant or evangelical churches where the majority of members were
Shona and Ndebele Zimbabweans. These churches compare very well with those described
by Menjivar (2010) where evangelical churches put more emphasis on conversion and
religious rituals. But the churches also responded to the practical concerns of their members.
The pastor took the role of the father in admonishing his flock while offering counselling,
advice and sourcing money to pay rent for some church members. All the three main
churches studied (JPM, SDA and ZAOGA) relied on Zimbabwean pastors. The founding
leaders and headquarters of JPM and ZAOGA are in Zimbabwe.

There are five (5) functions of religiosity identified by Leman (cited in Akcapar 2006:838).
The church functions (a) as an institutional conveyor of ethno-cultural bridging; (b) as a
medium of socio-cultural integration; (c) a medium of affirming original culture; (d) a
celebration of cultural and religious syncretism and (e) as an engine of non-adaptation. Using
these categories, religion among Zimbabwean migrants can be evaluated as fulfilling function
(c) - that is, affirming original culture.

Although, church ties help in creating a comfortable environment for an individual, they do
not necessarily expose him/her to a different reality as migrants attend their Zimbabwean
based churches. This means that the migrant moves in the same circles and is rarely exposed
to any newer information since it is the same people they stay with whom they meet at
church. The church membership tends to be small (around 40) especially for migrants in
Tembisa, thus not exposing the migrants to the wider society. There are many church
activities that take place throughout the week thus creating strong relations among church
members. While these smaller groups ensure bonding social capital, they may insulate the
individual from accessing newer information and opportunities outside their social network.
The situation is different for those that attend multicultural churches in Kempton Park. These
churches have the potential to expose migrants to the wider society. However, their weakness
is that migrants may have superficial relations with other church members and thus
eventually feel lonely and detached.

207
There have been arguments about the church as both a facilitator and inhibitor of migrant
integration and assimilation (Menjivar 2010). The evangelical churches studied in Tembisa
and Kempton Park could be said to inhibit assimilation in the following ways:

(a) Preaching - while there was an attempt to preach in Zulu and Ndebele with an English
interpreter, examples given by preachers were from Zimbabwean places and the Zimbabwean
history. For example in a sermon given on the 16th of June 2012 by an SDA preacher,
reference was made to the Zimbabwean liberation struggle and how the two main political
leaders; Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe, fought fiercely to win back their countries from
British colonialists. The preacher drew parallels with the Christian faith where he encouraged
Christians to jealously guard their Christianity. In another sermon at the same church on the
23rd of June 2012, a preacher gave examples of Zimbabwean dairy farms explaining how
people work on these farms. My argument is that if such preaching becomes the norm, it has
the potential to de-motivate those that have no knowledge of Zimbabwe and do not share this
common memory.

(b) Another source of exclusion concerns some songs that were sung in Shona (this was true
for ZAOGA and AFM churches), making it difficult for those that cannot understand Shona
to participate. Church members also made constant reference to how things were done in
their parent churches in Zimbabwe.

(c) In line with proposition number 3 of my analytical framework, perhaps the biggest
potential source of social exclusion is the insistence by church members that they are
different from those that do not go to their church. This is especially true for SDA members
who pride themselves in being morally upright and wanting nothing to do with the rest of the
community members who are viewed as ‘sinners’. Such views can hinder attempts to
integrate for fear of bad influence. There is a tendency to judge local South Africans as the
bad influence who would lead migrants to partying and forgetting about their homelands.

(d) Exhortations of belonging to a new family - all the churches emphasised that migrants
now belong to the new family of Christ or family of God and had responsibilities to look after
their brothers and sisters in Christ. Although such values encourage unity within the church,
they do not necessarily encourage the same attitude towards other individuals that do not
belong to the ‘family of God’. The church therefore functions to strengthen bonding rather
than bridging social capital. Church members may also end up being drawn closer to fellow

208
members even at the expense of their own family relations, especially with those that do not
share the same faith.

(e) The church does not seem to question illegality or lack of documentation - rather than
encouraging members to legalise their stay and conveying the same message to potential
migrants in Zimbabwe, the church concentrates on praying, healing and attending to other
practical needs of the migrants, without necessarily questioning why migrants are illegal.
Therefore, instead of encouraging some undocumented members to go back to Zimbabwe
and apply for passports and legalise their stay, the church concentrates on praying for the
same members so that God protects them from the police. Maphosa (2011) made similar
observations when he studied members of the Zion church. He noted how church members
never really opposed an undocumented migrant’s journey, preferring to pray for protection of
the member instead. This stance becomes problematic when the same church does not offer
any kind of legal services and facilitation of application for regularisation of stay to its
members. This means that the undocumented migrants remain like that as there is no
deliberate strategy to encourage them to be legal. They may, remain in their precarious
position in so far as the law is concerned. This provides empirical confirmation of the
proposition number 3 regarding migrant networks as actively promoting the social exclusion
of their members. Bonding social ties bind but sometimes they ‘blind’ network members.

8.2.2. Family and ethnic networks

As agents of social exclusion, family and ethnic networks mainly exclude migrants through
their rejection of migrants. This rejection is, however, involuntary as these networks,
especially the family, experience a lot of pressure from in-migration and their own
hardships on the labour market. The main problem revolves around the provision of food
and accommodation to unemployed migrants. The following three quotations highlight how
some migrants feel about this issue.

“Life in South Africa is expensive...they will love you for the first few months. As
time goes on if you don’t get employed they get frustrated. Both of you have the
burden of looking after relatives in Zimbabwe. Low wages affect relationships. You

209
 become an extra expense. Love drops and drops until he tells you point blank (to)
look for a job. Don’t just sit. They start ill-treating you. You will, either, go back
home (Zimbabwe) or move out and live your own life. It’s rare for such people to
come back together (reconcile) again” (Pastor Lloyd).

“To get somebody coming and staying with you and the person does not take
responsibility for everything that needs to be taken care of...that really strains
relationships especially concerning food. I stayed with two of my brothers and the
experience was not nice....I have stayed with people I ended up throwing out because
I couldn’t handle it anymore. They didn’t have money for rent, food and were
unemployed. I couldn’t carry on forever. They had become a burden. They couldn’t
find jobs and had no permits. It’s a foreign land, it can get hectic” (Vongai).

“It was terrible. I stayed with them (uncle and aunt) for one month. In the first days
they would leave eggs and bread for me. Around the third week they started ignoring
me, not talking to me. Later the husband started beating up the wife (who is my
relative) until the neighbours told me to move out. Sometimes they would shout at
each other for small things like sugar and bath soap...Maybe they were angry that I
just came without informing them.” (Hillary).

Rejection by family members and friends is among the major themes of this research. The kin
network is now repelling people. This is related to the structure of opportunity in the
receiving country (Menjivar 1995; 1997). Worby’s (2010) study of Zimbabweans in central
Johannesburg pursued the same theme of rejection by family members. Menjivar (1995:220)
argues that: “the structure of opportunity in the receiving country affects how one is received
and their ability to help others. These include the state’s reception of migrants, local labour
market opportunities, the receiving community, which includes the history of particular
migrations flows and the internal dynamics of the migrant groups”. This notion is depicted
clearly in proposition number four (4) of my analytical framework where I argue that the
structure of opportunity is not static but changes with the macro political and economic
environment and also with the rate of in-migration. This then determines the level of social
exclusion experienced by migrants.

Migrants deal with rejection through staying in open spaces such as parks or sometimes
living with friends in less habitable places like shacks. Some move away to other townships
where they can identify sympathisers. In other cases, migrants manage by themselves limiting

210
visits to those that would have rejected them, even when their fortunes change for the better.
Relationships may be severed forever.

8.2.3. Bridging ties that help migrants get ahead

The argument on bridging social capital is that an individual gets connected to individuals
that belong to other ethnic, cultural and status groups to the extent that the tie is able to close
a ‘structural hole’ (Burt 2001; 2004; Lancee 2012b). A structural hole is a gap in information
flow existing between different networks that give individuals the opportunity to broker or
create connections in networks that are not connected. Such individuals stand a greater
chance to benefit from this ‘structural hole’. Ties with employers and colleagues helped
migrants move ahead and sometimes change jobs. Migrants that have moved up the social
hierarchy did not necessarily rely on their family members. For example, Miriam got her
current job of accountancy through an acquaintance she used to board a taxi with while
Bongani got his estate agency job through his former students in Zimbabwe who now became
his supervisors. Sympathetic and understanding employers helped migrants to open bank
accounts, access permits, find better jobs and do better in life. Entrepreneurs were able to get
‘good ideas’ through their bridging ties with former supervisors and bosses. Maureen the
owner of a crèche, was able to register her company by getting advice from her Malawian
former boss. She also got R1 million from her Ghanaian Church Bishop in order to get a
business permit which needed R1,2 million. Another entrepreneur was Bernard who moved
from the big security company where he was employed and helped his former supervisor to
start a company. It was at this company that he developed an idea to form his own security
organisation. Paradzayi is another entrepreneur who owns internet cafe shops. He uses his
identity bridging ties with his Nigerian boss to tap into ideas of Nigerians and gather
information on latest computer technologies. He got his recent job (working for his current
Nigerian boss) through casual acquaintances with clients at his former work place. Vivienne
used her relationships with restaurant customers to move from the restaurant where she
worked as a waitress, to a private company where she started as an administrator, eventually
getting enough training to start her own export company. Many migrants were able to use
former bosses and especially customers, to move from one level to the other. They made use

211
of both identity and status bridging ties (Lancee 2012). All these migrants were able to move
ahead because of tapping into relationships that span their cultural, ethnic and status positions
and in the process becoming privy to information that their fellow kinfolk do not access.

As argued earlier, while the first job tended to be facilitated by friends and relatives,
migrants’ subsequent moves from one job to the other are facilitated by former workmates,
employers and customers. Though shallow in emotional involvement these links usher
migrants into new careers and jobs opportunities, thus showing the strength of weak ties
(Granovetter 1973).

8.2.4. Social networks and the facilitation of migration: creation of migration desire

The desire for migration is created by stories that potential migrants receive about
Johannesburg. These stories are brought by visiting migrants on their annual visits to
Zimbabwe. The returning migrants usually come back with new cars (largely borrowed) and
look good enough to create a positive image of where they are coming from. They then go on
to talk at length about how easy life is and how one can move from one job to the other to the
extent of convincing non migrants to make a decision to leave. However, these migrants tend
to sometimes misinform their kin or downplay the realities of difficulties in a foreign country
(Van Nieuwenhuyze 2009). Sometimes the zeal to migrate among potential migrants is too
much that any negative information is ignored and those who pass this information risk being
viewed as jealous and trying to discourage others from being successful through migrating.

In some cases stories of good living are seen through television. This is especially true for
most Zimbabweans in Matabeleland and Midlands who tend to watch free SABC channels
via satellite. As they watch television programmes they create perceptions of how life in
South Africa is and they desire that life (Maphosa 2010, Hungwe 2012a). The television
creates an imaginary but desirable world (Mai 2005). Levitt (2006:50) argues that “non
migrants hear enough stories, look at enough photographs and watch enough videos...to begin
imagining their lives elsewhere”. The migrants themselves create and perpetuate migration
through their stories to non migrants while the mass media also plays a role in creating the
desire to migrate. The perception of Johannesburg that is created is always an exaggerated

212
one such that the reality is a rude awakening for most migrants. This situation is the same as
what was observed by King and Mai (2004) and Mai (2005) concerning Albanian migrants in
Italy who not only perceived that life was easy but also that Italian women were loose. The
reality was rather shocking.

8.2.5. The role of social networks in the settling in and perpetuation of life in
Johannesburg

The most active social networks are those involving family members, friends and the church.
Family relations seem to help more during the initial stages of arrival and settling in. As soon
as an individual finds their way, the church becomes more important, sometimes because of
strained relations with family members. Respondents’ allegations about family members tend
to be related to perceived jealousy and resistance to another migrant’s success or generally
neglect. As Daniel explains:

“Relationships are strained by jealousies and hard times. If you don’t have money you
won’t want visitors and if you have money you will not want any disturbances from
family members”.

As the individual is more and more enmeshed into the web of relations in South Africa,
especially after acquiring the necessary legal documentation, there is a tendency to free
himself or herself from the family connections (or even family relations) thus moving
towards the wider networks. This may sometimes even mean moving a bit away from the
residential area of the family members who helped with settling in. Although migrants may
not necessarily move away from Tembisa or Kempton Park (which is their first place of stay),
they tend to drift from one section to the other. This drifting is a sign of independence of the
individual that must be managed properly, lest one may be labelled defiant. There is
insistence on deference and gratitude to the family members and employers (if they are
Zimbabwean) and lack of this may have economic costs in the long run. Insistence on
deference and expression of gratitude can lead to creation of patron-client relationships.
Family and ethnic networks may be characterised by never ending feelings of indebtedness
(Krissman 2005). This is especially true in situations where one feels obliged to do free

213
printing and typing services (Paradzayi) for an uncle (Bernard) running his own company or
where one must not demand a commission that s/he rightfully deserves.

8.3. Jealousies and tribalism

8.3.1. Introduction

While most Zimbabweans do not trust local South Africans at work, they sometimes distrust
Zimbabweans even more. They fear being exposed, outwitted and out-competed by fellow
Zimbabweans at work, especially when it is Shona versus Ndebele. When jealousy is
combined with tribalism and regionalism this could lead to the social exclusion of
Zimbabweans by Zimbabweans, as stiff competition for survival ensues.

8.3.2. Jealousy and competition among Zimbabweans

For the self employed Zimbabweans, while employing other Zimbabweans might cut costs of
salaries, they argue that these same individuals are stubborn and jealous of their small
businesses. The other problem with employing Zimbabweans, especially relatives, is that
conflicts do not end in Johannesburg. They are carried across the border back home to their
families such that they end up becoming big and complicated affairs. Bernard argues that:

“I tell them that employment at my company is only until they find their feet, I
encourage them to look for other jobs because we might end up hating each other.
They are difficult to correct at work and they spread rumours to their parents. It
causes a lot of problems”.

The other case of a Shona business woman who runs a day-care centre below highlights these
issues:

214
 “I have discovered that the Congolese ladies who work for me are very humble. They
are different from Zimbabweans who think we are fellows. They are nice. You give
them their salary they say thank you very much. But you say it’s nothing...they are
just too grateful. Zimbabweans are too greedy. The moment they see parents coming
to pay they think you have lots of money, they don’t care about the rent you pay.
They want to open crèches for themselves. They will steal your children and open a
crèche next door... I had one case of a Zimbabwean lady who used to work for me.
She would negotiate with parents by the gate as they came dropping their kids. She
would divert them to her house where she had opened a crèche of her own. She nearly
took all my kids. She went away with 40 kids in 2011 ....One parent alerted me and
said why are you keeping a snake in your business? She told me about the activities of
this woman and said please remove her from your business. She did that just after
working for me for three months. Her business didn’t succeed...her place was closed
by inspectors. I don’t know how they realised but it was discovered that the place was
too small and the children were too many. In any case the crèche was located too
close to the health inspectors’ offices.

I had another Zimbabwean woman who also worked for me but left to open her own
crèche. This one left properly with my blessing. She told me of her plans and I
advised her how to do it. Up to now we still communicate and recommend children
for each other. She trained someone before she left. She went nicely and did not steal
my clients. I gave her all the tips to succeed. We are friends. We sometimes join each
other for school trips. I taught her everything I know” (Maureen).

Besides revealing competition for clients and the pressure to succeed at any cost, this case
also shows how the businesswoman wanted to maintain a hierarchy of some sort. She hated
the innovative Zimbabwean woman who left without her consent thus without
acknowledging her seniority in this business. She supported the second woman because the
woman approached her properly with deference rather than defiance. She therefore interprets
the success of the second woman to listening to her advice and allowing her to be her mentor.
The success was also facilitated by the second woman’s knowledge of boundaries in as far as
clients were concerned. Cooperation rather than competition with the business woman led to
her success. This could also have been the recognition of the hierarchy and a difference in

215
knowledge between the two in so far as running crèches is concerned. Innovation and
entrepreneurship are accepted as long as they do not disrupt the power relations which
recognise the original entrepreneur as more innovative and knowledgeable than the newer
one. This lends support to Portes’ (1998) argument about social networks having an
inhibiting factor on certain members. Whether the businesswoman really had nothing to do
with the subsequent closure of the rival business of the first woman that left her, is neither
here nor there. What is clear is that the businesswoman celebrated the failure of the woman
who defied her authority and acted immorally by stealing clients.

Lack of “respect” by Zimbabwean workers was also an issue for Vongai, a Zimbabwean
businesswoman who runs a training company, where most of the times workers do telesales,
marketing the organisation. She narrated how a male employee who did telesales had
attracted a contract of R150 000. Soon after that, he started demanding his commission
rudely. He also went on to say that he needed to pay his rent on the 25th (whereas generally
workers are paid on the 30th). The woman felt that the demands were unjust and motivated by
knowledge that the business had made profit through his efforts and was, therefore, in a
position to pay him anytime. This worker ordinarily got a salary of R1 500 a month without
any benefits such as medical care.

8.3.3. Tribalism

Miriam, who is a Shona female accountant, had this to say about Ndebele-Shona relations at
work:

“The problem is Zimbabwean vs. Zimbabwean. You want to show off that you have
this or that. I get along with South Africans but I have a problem with the Ndebele. I
have clashed with the Ndebele because you come here and communicate in English
and they (Ndebele) have a problem with that... I grew up in Manicaland, I don’t speak
Ndebele and I don’t have any Ndebele relative. When I meet Ndebele speakers and
communicate in English and they get pissed off. Ndebele speakers argue that if they

216
 can speak Shona then why can’t Shona speakers learn Ndebele? I am careful with
Zimbabweans”.

Tribalism seems to have been carried over from Zimbabwe to South Africa. Godfrey had a
very strong negative attitude against the Shona. This stemmed from deep feelings of injustice
that he felt at his previous employment that was dominated by the Shona. For him the Shona
language is a sign of domination. He argues:

“I hate the Shona language. When I trained at the Zimbabwe Prison Services (ZPS)
they discriminated against us and forced us to speak Shona. They addressed us in
Shona. The treatment I received was worse than what I experienced in South Africa.
Even Ndebeles at ZPS would speak Shona and address us in Shona. They would beat
us if we didn’t understand. I learnt Shona in three months. It was forced. I feared
being beaten. So I hated it. Recruitment was also biased. Eighty percent (80%) of
recruits were Shona. Ndebeles have always been sidelined. Out of about 1200 people
Ndebeles were less than 50. When I grew up I was told about Gukurahundi in rural
areas of Matopo and I understood it when I was cruelly treated at work......I have
Ndebele and Shona friends but I won’t speak Shona. My best friend is Ndebele but his
father is originally from Malawi. We grew up together in Bulawayo”.

What is interesting to note is the continuous tense used when he said ‘Ndebele have always
been sidelined’. This means that, for him, the inequality between Ndebele and Shona is a
continuous process. Unfortunately, during the Gukurahundi, the same mechanisms of
domination and control were implemented; for example, where Ndebele people were forced
to dance on the graves of their relatives while singing Shona songs. Their relatives were
killed by the Shona speaking 5th Brigade. Stiff (2002:189) shows how the 5th brigade
introduced “re-education in Matabeleland...The anti-ZAPU or pro-ZANU-PF songs they were
forced to act in were all in Shona, a language most Ndebele did not speak”. While the exact
numbers are unknown there are speculations that the figure of the mass executions that took
place during this time were between 16000 and 20000.

The feelings of anger against Gukurahundi transcend generations among the Ndebele, such
that Godfrey (who is thirty-one and was born in 1981) evaluates his relations with the Shona
from that perspective of anger and sense of injustice. Such feelings were further perpetuated
by the harsh treatment that he received during the 6 months training programme at ZPS.

217
While he might have exaggerated the numbers of trainees, the narrative still indicates the
perceived inequality and injustice between the Shona and Ndebele.

The same argument was put forward by William who is a fifty four year old Ndebele man. He
had problems of accommodation when he came to Johannesburg in 1992. Though he had a
Ndebele friend who offered him accommodation, resistance from other Ndebeles made the
stay unpleasant and he eventually moved out. He argues:

“When I came here I first stayed with friends. It was bad. My friend was from
Plumtree and had many friends from Plumtree. These friends from Plumtree thought
that people from Silobela are not really Ndebele, they are more of Shona. So they
looked down upon me because they said I was related to Shonas even though I am
Ndebele. The treatment was bad. These Plumtree guys hated me. We stayed together
for three months and they chased me away”.

The above story by William shows how regionalism combined with tribalism led to his
exclusion by other Zimbabweans. Silobela is a rural area in the Midlands province. The
Midlands province contains a mixture of Ndebele and Shona speaking people. According to
Williams’ narrative, Ndebele speaking people from Midlands were not deemed as wholly
Ndebele. They were discriminated against by those that called themselves hard-core Ndebele
speakers from Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South.

8.3.4. Crimes of Zimbabweans against other Zimbabweans

In almost all the cases of crime that were reported by participants, Zimbabweans tended to
steal from other Zimbabweans. They tended to know or suspect certain individuals for theft
of their property especially those whose property was stolen when they had visited
Zimbabwe. However, no one was eager to report these cases to the police. This was
especially true for the undocumented migrants, while those that are legal thought that it was
pointless to report to the police.

Lydia provides a narrative of how thieves entered her room the night her husband left for
Zimbabwe:

218
 “Thieves entered the room while I was asleep. My husband had gone to Zimbabwe
and I was alone. They pointed a gun at me and demanded money. I think these people
had information that my husband was not there. They took R200, a radio and my
cellular phone. They did not even hide their faces, but the faces looked unfamiliar. I
did not report the case...It doesn’t help reporting to the police. They never come. They
come only when a woman has been raped or when it is a domestic violence case”.

Lydia suspects that Zimbabweans stole from her since the theft coincided with the absence of
her husband who had gone to Zimbabwe; they are the ones that could have known that she
was alone. Her perception of the police and their ability to help was biased by the fact that
she did not have a permit. Therefore, she could have been afraid to report the theft because of
her status as an undocumented migrant.

In another case, Cindy also narrated how her Zimbabwean neighbour was killed by another
Zimbabwean:

“A Zimbabwean man wanted to buy a car. He approached his friend who had a South
African identity book so that he could take a bank loan and the car in his (the one with
an identity book) name. The friend agreed and got the loan. They had agreed that the
friend without a bank account would pay monthly instalments to the one that had a
bank account. However, the man did not honour the promise. He took the car but
never paid anything. When his friend (the one with a bank loan) realised that he had
been duped, he reported the car as having been stolen since it was registered in his
name. The man with the car got angry and shot and killed his friend”.

8.3.5 Is blood thicker than water? Or: are Zimbabweans easy to manipulate?

“...South African locals are a problem. They suspect that I am a foreigner, so I have
decided to stop hiring them. Again, blood is thicker than water. I treat Zimbabweans
as brothers and sisters. I accommodate them first. South African locals have an
attitude towards you. They say: what would a foreigner tell us. Because I use a fake
South African identity book, I am afraid that they will report me and reveal my
secrets” (Bernard).

219
All self employed entrepreneurs argued that they preferred employing Zimbabweans. This
was not a result of sympathy only, but a fear of being ‘found out” by South African
employees that s/he is not genuinely South African. The other reason could really be a
genuine need to help out fellow Zimbabweans. However, when evaluating the behaviour of
migrant entrepreneurs as employers, they seem to be just as exploitative as any other
employers. They thrive on the ignorance, fear and feelings of obligations, especially of the
newly arrived Zimbabwean migrants. That is why, when these migrants eventually establish
themselves, they move away from Zimbabwean businesses.

8.4. Agents of social exclusion

The following are identified as agents of social exclusion of Zimbabwean migrants in South
Africa: the government through its economic policies such as the BBBEE; employers; banks;
police; hospitals; Schools; South African locals, especially landlords; Churches and
Zimbabweans themselves through tribalism and regionalism (churches and Zimbabwean
family and ethnic networks have already been discussed). These factors are discussed one by
one in the sections to follow.

8.4.1. Government policies

8.4.1.1. Introduction

The macro economic and political environment is designed by the state as it defines who is
welcome to enter through its immigration laws. It also determines who participates in the
labour market by labour laws that afford more rights to certain individuals. When a state
openly and elaborately puts in place laws that make it difficult for foreigners to participate in
the labour market it is essentially telling them that they have no part to play. The Immigration
Act is making it more and more difficult to employ even skilled migrants because South
African employers must demonstrate their inability to get such skills locally. Not only that,
but the South African government has gone on to provide incentives for hiring local South
Africans citizens through its Black Empowerment Policy and Employment Equity provisions.

220
These are laudable moves for correcting past injustices to black South Africans. However,
this does not change the fact that the situation of foreigners becomes more desperate as they
find it difficult to participate in the formal labour market. The macro economic and political
environment narrows their structure of opportunity and may unintentionally channel them
towards illegitimate means of survival. The businesses of Zimbabwean migrant entrepreneurs
are potential sources of employment which could even benefit local South Africans, if they
have adequate financial support.

8.4.1.2. Legal limbo

Although the Zimbabwe Documentation project (ZDP) was meant to increase the number of
legal migrants in the country, it has created another monster. The process has created a new
group of migrants that are in limbo - they are neither legal nor illegal - at least in the eyes of
the police and it is up to them to define legality on the streets. When the South African
government announced a moratorium on deportations and encouraged Zimbabweans to apply
for permits in 2010, it also removed the legality of others. In the same process, migrants were
encouraged to surrender their asylum and fake identity documents to government officials.
Some migrants surrendered their fake identity books and asylum documents with the hope
that general work permits would be easily available. However, up to now, some still do not
have permits though they have their passports. They have receipts showing that they applied
for permits. To that extent therefore, their legality depends on the government officials’
interpretation of situations.

To some employers, they are illegal and cannot be employed, or if employed cannot be
promoted. To the police, legality is negotiated. In some cases, migrants pay bribes, in others,
the police accept receipts of payment for permit applications. To the banks, these migrants
are illegal. This research shows that banks are the most exclusive of all institutions. There are
cases where migrants opened bank accounts using asylum documents, but now that they no
longer have them, they cannot withdraw their money. Migrants that surrendered their asylum
papers and currently do not have permits, talk about their money being ‘frozen’ in banks.
This means they do not have access to any banking facilities. Social exclusion in one area
could mean exclusion in other areas too; such as access to housing, loans, cars, durable
goods, further education etc. Exclusion in one area could have a domino effect in all other
spheres.

221
8.4.2. Banks and social exclusion

8.4.2.1. Introduction

Banks adhere to international anti-laundering and anti terrorism policies that require that they
have full details of potential clients such as housing and employment details. However, these
requirements expose migrants to social exclusion where some employers refuse to write
letters as proof of employment or where house-owners refuse to provide the needed proof of
residence. The inability to access banking facilities is related to what Atkinson (1998) refers
to as social exclusion in consumption. Migrants whose legality is questionable have no access
to banking facilities. This is in line with the international banking laws. However, even those
that have the necessary documents cannot fully enjoy banking facilities.

8.4.2.2. Access to bank accounts and trapped money

More than half of the migrants (66%) under study have bank accounts in their names while
34% do not have them. Most migrants who held asylum documents were refused by banks
when they applied to open bank accounts. What must be clarified is that, while 34% said they
do not have bank accounts, this does not mean that all of them do not use bank facilities.
They may still access banking facilities using other migrants’ documents, especially ATM
cards. Some of those that do have bank accounts in their names used fake identify documents
to open bank accounts in other people’s names. Migrants also make use of cellular phone
transactions where an individual with a bank account can send money to someone without a
bank account via the cell phone. The recipient can get their money at a nearby ATM using a
temporary pin code designed by the bank. Migrants mentioned FNB as the bank that was
popular in serving them this way.

There was one person (Tendai), whose money can be described as being ‘trapped’ in a bank.
He stated that he was allowed to open a bank account using an asylum permit but after

222
surrendering the asylum documents he no longer has anything to identify himself with at the
bank. I met him one day at the Tembisa Plaza sullen and angry after the bank officials had
refused him access to his money despite the fact that he showed them his application for
permit receipt. He is still waiting for the adjudication results on his application for a general
work permit. In the mean time, he cannot access his funds because his account was ‘frozen’
and since the bank officials insisted that he produces a valid work permit. This means that he
may languish in poverty while his money is in ‘frozen account’ that cannot be withdrawn.
This is another form of social exclusion that Zimbabwean migrants face. The questions to ask
for such cases are: will the account remain open or will it eventually close? Will the account
earn interest and if so, will the migrant have access to it?

8.4.2.3. Access to bank loans

Migrants are not eligible for banking loans no matter how long they have stayed in South
Africa. Some have been told point blank that loans are only available to residents and citizens
of South Africa.

“If you go to a shop they will demand credit history. How will you get the history
when you are not allowed to open an account (credit account)? They will even phone
you and say we see that you have a good bank record or airtime record so you qualify
for certain credit services but when you apply they deny you the moment you tell
them that you are not using a green book, you are using a permit” (Bongani).

“Some banks ask for permanent residence if you don’t have a green book. If you want
to buy a house they will ask you to raise 60-90% cash. I tried and they said I should
raise 60%. I wanted to buy a house. I gave up. I will raise the full amount by myself.
Everything that I have I bought for cash including the car parked outside” (Vongai).

“I tried getting a loan to buy a car and they said because I am a foreigner on a work
permit they couldn’t give me. It’s discrimination. The thing is; you are working in
South Africa that’s where your life is, you cannot get the facilities that everyone else
gets. That we can’t get opportunities to buy cars and other goods on credit is pulling
us down” (Trish).

223
The three cases present similar problems based on lack of access to banking facilities. The
first case of Bongani shows a combination of exclusion which is a self perpetuating cycle;
where lack of citizenship leads to lack of access to credit, and lack of access to credit leads to
lack of credit history, which lessens chances of being given credit. The cases of Vongai and
Trish show how lack of access to loans limits the type of goods and services migrants can
have. Lack of access to loans also means that migrants may have difficulties buying durable
goods and even cars since they have to pay cash for everything. While some migrants are
enjoying access to credit facilities on clothes, they do not have the same access when it
comes to buying bigger material goods such as stoves, refrigerators and cars. They thus
mostly remain property-less. Those that have had access to loans of any kind are those that
use fake South African identity books. To some extent, therefore, the banking requirements
may lead to deviant behaviour on the part of migrants who end up faking identity in order to
benefit from bank facilities.

8.4.3 Employers and social exclusion

8.4.3.1. Introduction

While legality can clearly ease a migrant’s stay, this does not mean that the migrant is free
from social exclusion. This lends support to proposition number two of my analytical
framework. Documented migrants still face exclusion and discrimination in the labour market
as a result of employment practices and the creation of irregular jobs. The employment
environment is also riddled with discrimination and xenophobia where some local South
Africans will approach migrants telling them point blank (like what happened to Alex) that ‘if
it were not for you my son would be occupying this same position that you have’ even if in
reality the son is not as qualified as the migrant. Exclusion at the workplace happens through
poor quality jobs, underpayment (includes long working hours without commensurate
payment), not having a contract (thus not knowing what one works for and for how long),
non provision of benefits (including non provision of protective clothing and generally proper
tools for use in the execution of a task) and sometimes outright non-payment (when the
employer reports the employee to the police).

224
8.4.3.2 Poor quality jobs and abuse by employer

Employment may not necessarily solve social exclusion if the quality of jobs offered is poor.
Migrants may be unfavourably included when they are constantly reminded of their illegality,
as a means of keeping them in check (this is what happened to Paradzayi when he used
asylum papers, before acquiring a permit). This provides room for abuse of employees by
employers. Therefore, employers participate in the social exclusion of migrants. Employers
are also responsible for non- payment of extra hours of work and engaging in verbal contracts
that change anytime (see Scott’s narrative in Chapter Six). Employers tap on the vulnerability
of migrants, knowing that they have no recourse to the law (for the undocumented migrants)
or are afraid to jeopardise their job through legal battles (for the documented migrants). The
narrative concerning Morgan’s cousin (in Chapter Six), who works 18 hours a day further
strengthens the argument about the exploitation of foreign migrant workers. Long hours
prevent social interaction outside the work environment. This means that migrants may be
socially unhealthy as they have no time to socialise with other people outside the work
environment. Some may not even have time to go to church as they work on weekends, while
others may not have time to visit the hospital when they are sick. Their health and social ties
may end up weak, because, they simply do not have time.

8.4.4. The police as a source of social exclusion

According to Kabeer (2000) social exclusion is a product of processes of interaction. Social

exclusion by the police is created by the way they interact with migrants. Therefore social
exclusion is an everyday product of how the police deal with migrants. Vigneswaran (2012)
views the South African Police as generally insensitive, violent, abusive and corrupt in
dealing with migrants. The following ways of exclusion are discussed in relation to the
police; public embarrassment and name calling; soliciting for bribes and lack of protection
for migrants.

225
8.4.4.1. Use of the Makwerekwere label for foreigners

Although the police have no monopoly over the use of the stigmatising name makwerekwere,
they have used it in dealing with foreigners. This negative labelling stigmatises and devalues
all migrants regardless of whether they are documented or not. All foreigners are
makwerekwere. It also limits their freedom to engage in social activities as migrants become
too self conscious and fear being conspicuous. Devaluing migrants in such ways represent
them as undeserving of humane treatment. Reidpath et al (2005) concur that negative
labelling leads to stigmatisation and devaluing of individuals. Being called makwerekwere
has the effect of setting the foreigners apart, as the ‘other’. Such defamation has led to
xenophobic attacks and murders of foreigners in general and Zimbabweans in particular,
especially in the poor areas of Johannesburg (Morris 1998; Sinclair 1999; Monson and
Misago 2009, Landau and Freemantle 2010; Hungwe 2012b). Mai (2005) observed the same
processes of stigmatisation of Albanian migrants in Italy who were referred to as ‘shitty’
Albanese. This stigmatisation is what motivates some migrants to conceal their Zimbabwean
identity.

8.4.4.2. Police have too much power over migrants

Analysing the role of the police as perceived by the Zimbabwean migrants, one gets the
feeling that police seem to act with impunity and to be the one and only government arm in
so far as migration control is concerned. This is not supposed to be the case in so far as
migration control is outlined in the Immigration Act of 2002. The practice of migration
control has left so much power in the hands of the police who seem to reinterpret the law in
ways that suit them. There is no consistency in treating the cases of migrants. That is why
migrants argue that getting arrested is just a matter of being unfortunate and that every police
officer has a price. They only need to name it. There is rampant corruption in as far as
migrants are concerned, such that Vigneswaran et al (2010) argue that there is informal
immigration law enforcement. They further went on to argue how such informality weakens
state power. One migrant, Norbert argued that:

226
 “The police are a problem with or without identity documents. When they want a
bribe they will tell you that your identity documents are fake. Because you are rushing
and cannot afford to spend a night in police cells, you just give them a bribe and go
away. The bribe can be R100 or R200... My friend was put in a cell and he paid
R1000 to get out after 7 days.....These days police do not deport you, they just put you
in detention until you can pay the bribe”.

The police officers’ love for bribes is also reflected in Worby (2010) who highlights how
Zimbabwean migrants in Johannesburg central have adjusted their lifestyles to avoid police
by limiting their activities in the city centre or by changing the times that they are seen
outdoors. Police seem to be notoriously busy during their lunch hour in Johannesburg central
(ibid: 2010). That is why, even among my research participants, those who claimed they were
once arrested had been arrested in Johannesburg central. By dominating the public spaces
police eventually force migrants into hiding where they live in fear. This does not only refer
to undocumented migrants, but to documented migrants too who will tend to avoid certain
areas for fear of being embarrassed by the police demanding identity books where police
institute ‘border performances’ at any given public place and time. This lends support to
proposition number 4 of my analytical framework which states that the overzealous
application of the law by the police perpetuates the social exclusion of migrants. It also
increases the internalisation of the security gaze such that migrants end up policing
themselves (McDowell and Wonders 2010).

8.4.4.3. Police harassment and reluctance to protect migrants

Migrants generally do not view the police as a source of protection for them. They actually
fear reporting cases to the police as they believe that they might be arrested for something
concerning their legality. A study by Monson and Misago (2009) also revealed how the
police drag their feet in cases concerning the protection of migrants.

There were cases of harassment reported by migrants. There was a common perception that
the police were always after bribes and were not genuinely carrying out their duties as

227
government officials. One female migrant called Trish (an accountant) described how she
was harassed by a group of policemen:

“They asked for my passport. I gave them a photocopy because I don’t move around
with my original copy. I am scared that if I lose it that’s the end of my life. They
shouted at me saying; you come in this country and you want to change the laws.
They said they will put me in prison because I have no documents. So I said take me
to the police station. They said I was being rude to them. They gathered around me.
They were about ten men against one woman. They shouted at me telling me to go
back to Robert Mugabe. I told them that I am not a thief and the fact that I am a
foreigner doesn’t mean I am a thief. I responded because they were abusing me. The
more I responded the more they got frustrated and someone wanted to hit me but
another policeman said this is a woman leave her alone...My policy is that I don’t pay
them bribes. They were being difficult because I did not offer them money”.

There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this row between the police and the
female migrant:

(a) the connection that was drawn between migrants and their political leaders. This is an
exclusionary tactic where that identity serves to distinguish the migrant as different or
‘belonging elsewhere’. This is so rampant in many government offices where if one is
known to be from Zimbabwe one is immediately asked questions such as: How is
Mugabe? How is Tsvangirai? Do you still support Mugabe to rule your country? Such
questions are patronising, because, ordinarily, how many citizens get to see their
president? How would an ordinary person be expected to know how his/her president
is doing without any personal contact with them? To make matters worse, the
questioning is done in public and in a sneering, mocking way, much to the delight of
some local South Africans who may find it amusing. Very few migrants find this
amusing. Reference to political leaders is a position marker which sets the migrant
apart. This increases the extent of social exclusion because, in some cases, the
migrants themselves are not big fans of their political leaders; more so where their
reasons for leaving the country in the first place are linked to their perceptions of the
same political leaders having failed to manage the economy and political factors
properly. Their migration was to some extent their way of expressing a vote of no

228
 confidence in the same leaders, thus they were voting with their feet (Gaidzanwa
1997).

(b) the possibility that male and female migrants could be treated differently with males being
more prone to violent police behaviour than females.

(c) the view that police do not want to be challenged at all. The statement that the migrant
wanted to change the laws could be further interpreted to mean that as far as the police were
concerned, they made the laws; so, rather than implementing and enforcing the law they saw
and interpreted themselves as lawmakers. The police became very angry because the woman
seemed to challenge them as lawmakers, in so far as migrants were concerned.

The discussion of the police is always connected to money. Migrants felt that police officers
could be bribed and thus could not be relied upon to carry out their duties impartially.
Therefore, migrants believed they could negotiate with the police if they offered bribes. It
was only those that were not willing to pay bribes that found the police problematic.

However, the police were not always negatively evaluated by migrants. Among the
participants’ narratives were stories of two migrants who recounted how they were helped by
the SAPS. In one case, a Shona Zimbabwean male migrant, Daniel, was given shelter for
more than three months by a Venda police officer in Musina. The police officer was friends
with the young man’s relatives so he found it easy to house this migrant. In another case,
Aaron was rescued by police officers in Yeoville after being abducted by a Malayitsha who
claimed he would not release him until he paid his full transport fees.

It was generally agreed by migrants that while the police may not necessarily harass
individuals, they are not proactive when it comes to responding to calls for help. Some
migrants perceived the police system as corrupt and disinterested in pursuing migrants’
issues. Migrants were quick to argue that police only responded in cases of rape or domestic
violence (see Lydia’s case in the preceding sections). In some cases, migrants argued that
they were afraid to enlist the help of the police for fear of being arrested themselves as
undocumented migrants. Pastor Lloyd commented:

“If you get your property stolen and once the police know you are Zimbabwean they
don’t do their duties properly. They also have an attitude, they end up asking

229
 questions like where do you come from? Where are your identity papers? You end up
getting arrested. You then have to bribe them to release you”.

8.4.5. Hospitals as institutions of social exclusion

Findings reveal that there are few individuals who have actually experienced discrimination
in hospitals. Most have heard stories of other people. However, the majority tend to use
private doctors rather than public clinics and hospitals. This is not an indicator of wealth but
exclusion in the sense that the ‘self exclusion’ of these migrants is a direct result of fear of
discrimination and xenophobia. It is, therefore, social exclusion. Because migrants are a
closely knit group, if an incident of ill-treatment happens to one person, the news quickly
spreads to others such that even if they have not experienced ill-treatment in hospitals, they
become aware of it and shun public hospitals.

8.4.5.1. The use of foreign documents as exacerbating social exclusion

Hospitals have been viewed as institutions that tend to exclude migrants (Crush and
Tawodzera 2011) especially for holders of foreign documents. Migrants argued that nurses
would angrily claim that they do not know what an asylum is. Mary went to a public hospital
twice. The first time she was received well. The second time:

“...the nurse asked: What is an asylum? They (nurses) started talking about
Tsvangirai. They talked to me in Pedi. They said I am rude and they threatened me
saying since I am going to theatre I should behave myself. They were really
discriminatory”.

Migrants highlighted that they were shouted at while being attended, denied medicines (being
simply given pain killers when one expected more specific forms of treatment) or sometimes
the nurses did not create a personal file for them. This meant that each time they went there
they were treated as new patients, without a treatment record or history. That jeopardized

230
their chances of getting good treatment. Dorothy was a high school teacher in Tembisa. She
narrated how she was treated when she sought medical attention at a local clinic:

“The treatment was ok, but the nurses told me that they don’t open a file (for medical
history) for foreigners because it’s against the law. If you don’t have a medical history
it’s difficult to be treated well. But I know of other foreigners who have files...I didn’t
complain because in the end they will chase you”.
In some cases migrants were not afforded an opportunity to see a doctor.

Perceptions of ill-treatment could be justified by the percentages of those that use private
doctors (31%) and those who neither go to hospitals nor private doctors (17%). Among those
that do not go to hospitals were individuals who said that if they were sick they would just go
and buy medicines they thought would heal them. Alternatively, they would go and describe
their symptoms to a pharmacist and get medicines over the counter. These seemed to be of
much help. The preference for expensive private doctors might not be evidence of wealth but
the fear of being negatively discriminated against, in government clinics and hospitals. This
fear is clearly shown when migrants eventually shun government health facilities.

8.4.5.2. Language barriers in hospitals

Migrants were easily identified and stigmatised by their inability to speak local languages.
Nurses address migrants in local languages like Pedi, Xhosa and Zulu and the moment an
individual expressed inability to speak these languages (by preferring to speak in English)
they became targets of abuse and insults. Vivienne explained:

“They like to speak their own languages. Someone would speak to you in Venda and
you can’t continue with your English. They will tell you that there are 11 official
languages in South Africa”.
Barbara took her cousin to hospital one day and narrated what happened:

“I took a cousin of mine to hospital and I had to interpret everything since she
couldn’t speak any local language. They (nurses) would look at me and then her
(cousin). They asked what my relationship was with her. They would be harsh with

231
 her and easy going with me. They would say tshela lomuntu wakho- (literally
meaning tell your person), this or that. They never tried to accommodate her”.

Barbara has acquired permanent residence through naturalisation because her father has
South African citizenship. She can speak Zulu and Sotho.

8.4.5.3. Gender and social exclusion in hospitals

Women are more socially excluded than men when it comes to hospitals which they naturally
frequent by virtue of their reproductive roles. Female migrants complained of second class
treatment in public hospitals. Nurses engage in unruly practices when they shout “go back
and scream in Zimbabwe” or when they create their own smaller policies of ‘one woman one
child’ (see Vongai and Karen’s stories below). Stories of ill-treatment of Zimbabwean
women in hospitals are also captured by Veary (2008) and Crush and Tawodzera (2011) who
argue that some health institutions have a two tier system - one for the locals and the other for
foreigners. Research participants argued that they could not access proper medical and
hospital care when they identified themselves as Zimbabwean.

“When I gave birth in Hillbrow the nurses were quite horrible. They were shouting;
you foreigners, you Zimbabweans, go back to your country. Why do you come here to
have babies? You are wasting our resources. I didn’t respond” (Vongai).

“I had asked my friend to go with my child to the clinic for immunisation. So she took
her child and mine. The nurses refused saying one mother one child. They said
Zimbabweans have many babies. They refused to attend my child demanding that I
needed to be there. I was tied up at work and could not go with the child. Up to now
my child has not been immunised. I hear that the process can be done at Clicks but it
costs R60 (Karen).

Although it might be argued that even South African women may be shouted at and ill -
treated in hospitals, it seems that Zimbabwean migrants are at a bigger risk. In the two
quotations presented above, the common factor was that migrants were identified as

232
Zimbabwean (which in this case is viewed as a negative label) and as wasting resources by
having many babies.

Contrary to claims by some government officials and South African locals, Zimbabwean
migrants (at least those that I studied) do not have many babies. The table below depicts the
number of children migrants had. Twenty four percent (24%) of the migrants did not have
any children, while 67% had between one and three children. Only 9% had more than three
children. These tended to be over the age of forty and their children mostly stayed with
relatives in Zimbabwe.

TABLE 20: NUMBER OF CHILDREN

Number of children of Frequency Percent

migrants
no children 14 24%
between 1 and 3 39 67%
more than three children 5 9%
Total 58 100%

There were few migrants who stayed with their children in Johannesburg. This was a result of
two main issues: the limited space for accommodation (as migrants mostly stay in single
rooms) and the migrants’ evaluation of the quality of education in South Africa. Again, life
was generally deemed to be very expensive in South Africa. That is why they preferred
sending the children back to Zimbabwe rather than actually staying with them. The other
reason could have been the fact that children of undocumented mothers cannot access birth
certificates in South Africa. When they want the child to acquire a birth certificate, they will
send the child back to Zimbabwe where it is easy to acquire one. The child ends up learning
in Zimbabwe. For example, Eric had a child who was in crèche. He told me that he will send
the child to Zimbabwe for his grade one. The child does not have a birth certificate because
the mother of the child is undocumented. Another migrant whose child did not have a birth
certificate was Ntombi who said that she has asylum documents and thus could not process a
birth certificate for her child. Lydia had already sent her two children back to Zimbabwe
where they were now attending primary school. In Zimbabwe children can attend school

233
without a birth certificate, up to grade seven. By then, Lydia hopes to have come back to
apply for birth certificates for her children.

There were few individuals (36%) who said they were treated properly in hospitals. These
were either in possession of South African identity books or were just among the lucky ones.
What is important to note is that all the cases of ill-treatment by nurses took place in public
clinics and hospitals. These public institutions expose health officials to too much work
pressure and poor working conditions. The health officials could themselves be suffering
from burn- out and thus venting their frustrations on the most vulnerable - the migrants.

8.4.5. Taxis and trains as vehicles of social exclusion

Individuals may be socially excluded if they feel they cannot fully participate even in taxis
and public transport. The inability to speak Shona and Ndebele while in a taxi or train reveals
the extent to which Zimbabwean migrants are not free to express themselves. This applies to
both the legal and undocumented migrants. When they receive phone calls from relatives
speaking in their vernacular they usually switch off their phones or pretend not to understand
until the caller eventually gives up. They argue that they fear being given ‘dirty’ looks by
other people in the taxis.

“You can’t speak Shona in a taxi. It’s like a dog barking in a taxi. They will wonder
where the dog has come from...you are not welcome. You feel inferior and you cannot
answer your phone” (Brian).

Migrants further argued that they do not put Shona or Ndebele ringtones in their cellular
phones for fear of being insulted or ‘bad looks’ by locals. This means that as a coping
mechanism, migrants do not speak Shona in public transport. Those who are free to speak
their language do so in their cars. These constituted 17% of the research participants.

Bongani explains his anger in not being able to express himself in a train:

“They say whatever they want. I remember one incident during the xenophobic
attacks in 2008 I was in a train. We passed through an area where we saw foreigners

234
 trapped in between the police and the locals. One food vendor in the train shouted;
why are the police protecting them, they should leave them to be killed so that they
can go back to their country. I resolved never to buy food from that man. I stopped
that day”.

The majority of migrants (57%) feel safe in taxis and trains. There were migrants who said
they never felt safe (14%), while 12% stated that they sometimes felt safe in public transport.
This was said against the background that the police sometimes stopped taxis to search for
undocumented migrants. In such cases taxi drivers helped the police in apprehending
undocumented migrants. They thus function as vehicles of social exclusion. Migrants can
only speak their mother tongue at home (in their rooms), in their cars or at church. This
discussion and the preceding one on social exclusion in hospitals lend support to proposition
number one about the poor feeling socially excluded in accessing public services.

8.4.6. Schools and xenophobia

This discussion of schools and xenophobia advances the same argument being made through-
out the thesis - that xenophobia largely concerns access to resources and how Zimbabweans
are perceived as threatening the local people’s access. Among the participants were three
parents who complained that their children had experienced xenophobia at school. Vongai
had a son who was in a day care centre. She explained how she had an altercation with one of
the teachers at the day care centre:

“I had one nasty experience with his teacher. He has been through three teachers in
the three years that he has been in day care. The first two teachers were white and
there were no problems. This year his teacher is a black South African. She started
telling me things I had never known about my child from the two white teachers. She
said my child was naughty, this and that and I really think that was a xenophobic
attack. I ignored it and it just died down. There was a time when I really got angry and
I wanted to tell her off but I thought of my son. I could feel that it was because this
child is Shona and Zimbabwean. You can feel the vibe that it’s not really about the
child...the child is a foreigner”.

235
Another case was that of William’s daughter who was called makwerekwere by a fellow
classmate at school. He explains that:

“The girl child was in grade 9 and complained of harassment by other students but
because I was a long serving member of the School Governing Body (SGB) it was
easy to confront school authorities and the problem was solved. I am close to the
principal so I voiced my concern. There was one boy who used to call her
makwerekwere. I lodged a complaint with the head”.

The last case was that of Mary’s seven year old son who was teased at school by being called
Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai is the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. The child did not know who
Tsvangirai was and came home asking “Mama who is Tsvangirai?” Mary and her husband
did not confront the school authorities and preferred to ignore the situation, hoping it would
eventually fizzle out. In the two cases of Mary and Vongai, ignoring the situation was felt as
a better strategy to avoid the escalation of conflict. There was fear that the child would be
further stigmatised. This avoidance could have been a result of the non- existent relationship
between the parents of the migrant children and the school authorities. The situation was
different from William who was well known by school authorities as a member of the SGB.
He could easily approach the headmaster when his child was victimised. Parental
involvement in the affairs of children at school is a form of social capital which helps
decrease social exclusion of children of migrants (Turney and Kao 2009).

However, not all schools presented problems for children of migrants. The situation was
totally different for Maureen’s children who attended a public school in Kempton Park:

“My eldest daughter is in grade 9. She wins awards here. The kids are brighter.
Zimbabwean education was a good foundation for them. The kids catch up so fast.
They write Afrikaans, Zulu etc. they have friends who are Zulu... They did a surprise
birthday party for my child at school”.

While it is difficult to explain the difference in attitudes of both teachers and students at this
public school that Maureen’s child attends, this serves to show differences in socio-economic
positions of people in Kempton Park vis -a- vis those in Tembisa It also serves as a reminder

236
that not all public schools are problematic and therefore we should not make sweeping
generalisations about local teachers and students as xenophobic.

There was one Zimbabwean teacher who had problematic South African students whose
parents also had negative attitudes. She avoided direct confrontation with these parents.
Dorothy argued that:

“parents are full of attitudes. They know you are a foreigner and when dealing with a
problem child they always assume you are wrong. We normally don’t respond to such
cases. We let the principal deal with them”.

8.5. Social class and social exclusion

Having access to higher incomes opens more avenues for freedom in terms of accessing
better housing. This means that better off migrants can move from Tembisa, where they have
everyday encounters with their landlords. They can go and stay in Kempton Park flats, where
they deal with agents rather than landlords. Those that earn more than R10 000 are freer at
home than those earning less. They can have parties in their rooms without necessarily
seeking approval from house owners. They can have visitors anytime and have better privacy.
Social exclusion is not pronounced among individuals staying in Kempton Park in so far as
accommodation is concerned.

However, migrants from all social classes seem to have problems accessing credit facilities in
banks. The most frustrated migrants are the business owners who cannot expand their
businesses because of lack of adequate capital and support from banks and those that cannot
save their money in banks but must keep it at home risking being targeted by criminals.

In terms of health facilities, the better off go for private doctors. They avoid government
clinics and hospitals. The poor bear the brunt of exclusion and xenophobia since they have no
better options than visit the government clinics and hospitals. These are the ones that report
more social exclusion in public hospitals.

237
Some migrants with lower levels of socio-economic status have fewer indirect ties. They are
encapsulated in family and church networks where they marry, find jobs, accommodation and
friends within the same groups. This limits their worldview (Granovetter 1973).

8.6. Effects of social exclusion

The effects of both relational and distributional forms of social exclusion among
Zimbabweans are mainly identified as: creation of habits of secrets and lies, superficial
relationships with locals, engagement in self employment and informal employment and
increasing poverty. The first two factors deal with aspects affecting social cohesion and social
bonds while the last two are about access to economic resources.

The tendency to lie is necessitated by the harsh treatment that migrants see being experienced
by those that disclose their foreign status. For those that would have started friendships,
relationships and marriages based on lies they feel motivated to continue lying in order to
maintain the relationship. Migrants usually lie about who they are and where they come from.
This is especially true for undocumented ones who run the risk of losing jobs, friends and
lovers if they reveal their true selves (Sigona 2012). Disclosing who they truly are could lead
to the painful end of a cherished relationship. That is why most migrants would rather not
have any relationships at all with the locals. The following quotation from Tatenda explains
why she lies to her landlady and local friends.

“My landlady hates foreigners .... She knows that I am Zulu. I speak Zulu. I have local
South African friends. I tell them I am from Mpumalanga. I lie to them. I have many
friends. They never suspect that I am from Zimbabwe. I don’t know what I would do
if they knew I am Zimbabwean....that would be the end of our friendship because
wherever we go they mock Somalis and other foreigners in my face...they say they
need xenophobia (referring to the 2008 mass killings and tortures of foreigners) to
deal with them (foreigners)”.

238
Most migrants have commercial, instrumental and superficial relationships with the locals.
Landau and Freemantle (2010) noted how little migrants were interested in having sustained
relations with locals, preferring self exclusion. This was said to be a deliberate coping
mechanism. In my study, migrants were interested in having deep, meaningful relations with
locals but felt they simply could not trust the local South Africans. They were also afraid of
being ill-treated by the same individuals and thus kept their distance for fear of being violated
in one way or the other. Felix explains how he was let down by his local friend:

“I had this man whom I regarded as my best friend. One day we were visiting another
friend and he introduced me as his kwerekwere friend. I ended the friendship as it
became clear that he didn’t like me. It’s better to hide your identity”.

What irked Felix was the fact that his supposed friend called him kwerekwere in front of
another South African. He blames himself for telling the truth about his foreign status. From
his perspective he would have maintained the relationship as long as he lied about his
identity. Another example is that of Grace who argues:

“I used to have local friends but they talked badly about foreigners so I stopped being
friends with them. They would say; we don’t mean you...you are different from
them”.

In both cases of Grace and Felix, locals were portrayed as openly disregarding the feelings of
migrants by talking badly about foreigners in their presence. Because the migrants could not
physically fight them, they simply ended the friendship.

Engaging in self employment could be taken as an indicator of difficult access into the formal
labour market. This is the perspective of Kloosterman et al (1998:250) who argue that self
employment among migrants is a consequence of strict government employment laws and
restrictive policies in general. They further define an informal economy as “a form of self
employment which is characterised by low entry barriers in terms of skills, capital and
organisation; by family ownership, by a small scale of operation, by labour intensive
production with unsophisticated technology. The ILO (cited in Carr and Chen 2004: 132)
defines informal employment as a situation without secure contracts, worker benefits and
social protection. There are two forms of informal employment: self employment and paid
employment in informal jobs. The majority of Zimbabweans employed as waitresses,

239
hairdressers, security guards, drivers and shop assistants fall within the rubric of informal
employment as they are employed on a short term irregular contract basis without any worker
benefits and social protection. All these individuals cannot afford social protection and they
do not receive any from the South African government.

However, the findings from this study also reveal that self employment could be a result of
opportunities (pull factors) being identified by migrants who would have invested in both
human and social capital over some time. Therefore self employment is not always an
indicator of social exclusion.

In this study poverty is identified as another effect of social exclusion. All Zimbabwean
migrants maintained that they knew and had seen poor Zimbabweans. In most cases these
poor resorted to begging on the streets in order to survive. For them being poor meant lacking
any of the following: accommodation, food, employment and help from relatives and friends.
Poverty and staying on the streets was largely a result of being rejected by relatives and
unemployment. Barbara said:

“People are starving. They can ask for tea bags, mealie meal or sometimes R5. Many
people are poor. Where I stay they eat pap with cabbages everyday. I tell them, ‘Go
back home”.

Migrants were not really inclined to help the poor because they were also hard pressed in
terms of money. They therefore preferred to tell the worse off to:

“Go home and start a different life. Change your life course. People back home will
laugh at you today and it will be all over tomorrow. Don’t stay here and lose your life
because of what you think they will say about you. You tell them, ‘Listen I tried and
failed. I am here to start again ’” (Vongai).

In some cases, migrants were not inclined to help their fellow poor Zimbabweans because
they thought that the poverty was not genuine. This was especially so for beggars on the
streets. Some migrants believed that beggars were employed to go and beg on the streets;
they were on a payroll. Alex argued:

“I used to help beggars and I stopped when I realised that the ‘beggars’ were
employees on a payroll. I saw them being dropped off by their employer”.

240
This story about beggars seemed to circulate among most migrants. Whether this is actually
true or not is difficult to say but the story certainly served to ease the consciences of migrants.

8.7. Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the major sources of social exclusion identified by migrants.
Xenophobia and discrimination are part and parcel of the everyday lives of migrants as they
manoeuvre in hospitals, schools, taxis and at work. This research highlights that in most cases
there is a deliberate attempt by the police officers, bank workers, nurses, teachers and other
local individuals to stigmatise and deny migrants’ access to certain valued services.

The above discussion reveals that while the police may be viewed as agents of social
exclusion, there are cases where some officers go out of their way to help migrants. There are
also other cases of employers, teachers and house-owners that aid rather than exclude
migrants. This challenges the sweeping generalisation that South Africans are xenophobic. In
some cases extreme work pressure (especially with reference to nurses in public clinics and
hospitals) may lead to negative attitudes which may then be interpreted as xenophobia and
exclusion.

Some migrants themselves are also facilitators of social exclusion when they perpetuate
jealousies, tribalism and regionalism and thus isolate each other in Johannesburg. The
migrant networks sometimes produce unintended consequences: for example, churches that
insist on separation or on praying rather than encouraging their members to be documented.
Social networks help alleviate exclusion but in some cases they expose individuals to
exploitation by fellow kin. Migrant networks may also lead to encapsulation limiting the
opportunities available to network members.

241
CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
POLICY IMPLICATIONS

9.1. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explain and describe how Zimbabweans survive in
Johannesburg despite the exclusionary environment they face every day. I discussed the
coping mechanisms they employ, explaining the consequences of some of these strategies.
The study employed a qualitative methodology in its bid to answer the main question: how do
Zimbabweans survive social exclusion in Tembisa and Kempton Park? The study goes
beyond narration of various stories and attempts to build an explanation of these issues by
proposing an analytical framework comprising ten (10) propositions based on the concepts of
social exclusion and social capital. While I appreciate the complexities (in that there is still no
agreement on what social exclusion is among various authors, for example) of employing the
two concepts in such a study, I still think they are useful in understanding the situation of
Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa. The thesis argues that modern societies are
cosmopolitan. The way forward is acknowledging migration as a permanent feature of
globalisation in modern societies. The challenge becomes that of social solidarity through
incorporating the stranger. This would certainly reduce their social exclusion.

The propositions of the analytical framework are summarised as follows:

Proposition number one states that migrant characteristics (such as being skilled or unskilled,
poor or middle class and documented or undocumented) determine the kinds of social
exclusion they suffer. This is clear when one considers how public institutions are evaluated
by different groups of migrants (see Chapter 8, especially section 8.5). Proposition number
two shows the functions of bonding and bridging social capital, highlighting who is most
likely to use which type of social capital. This proposition is mainly supported by the
discussion in Chapter 6 which shows how migrants acquire their initial and subsequent jobs.
Proposition number three states that migrant networks may lead to the social exclusion of

242
network members. This is validated by the discussion in Chapters 7 and 8 concerning the role
of migrant religious networks.

Proposition number four maintains that social exclusion is facilitated by institutional bias and
unruly practices of public officials. This finds resonance in Chapter 8 which identifies the
major agents of social exclusion as government structures and public officials. Proposition
five reveals how low skilled and undocumented migrants are likely to acquiesce rather than
directly question institutional structures. This proposition finds support in Chapter 7 which
discusses some coping mechanisms that entail obliterating and concealing identity. The
acquiescence is also revealed when migrants trivialise and ignore overt discrimination.
Proposition six argues that some low skilled women who mainly work as domestic workers
are less networked than their fellow male migrants. However, it further states that these
women may have the advantage of being close to their employers thus opening up avenues
for future career shifts and more job opportunities. This is exemplified by the lives of
migrants such as Maureen (discussed in Chapter 6) who climbed the social ladder using their
employers.

Proposition number seven states that desperation leads to deviant behaviour. The coping
strategies on crime and deviance outlined in Chapter 7 render empirical support to this
proposition. Proposition number eight is about self employment and how those with high and
low social capital engage in it. For documented and highly connected migrants self
employment is a sign of success while for undocumented migrants it is an indicator of
blocked opportunities and is the last resort for migrants. This proposition is supported by the
discussion of self employed migrants in section 6.9 of Chapter 6.

Proposition number nine concerns the repellent effects of the migrant family network. This
finds empirical support in the discussion contained in Chapter 5 which outlines the migration
trajectories providing a context for understanding rejection. The same chapter shows the
pressures migrants face, thus increasing the propensity to repel newcomers. The final
proposition concerns the role of malayitsha in migration journeys and how family networks
relate with malayitsha. The element of trust that exists between the malayitsha and migrant
family networks facilitates migrant journeys - even on credit. The malayitsha are both shrewd
and ‘harsh’ businessmen. This is articulated in Chapter 5.

243
9.2. The contribution of this study to social exclusion and social capital
literature

9.2.1. Similarities with existing theories

In my proposed analytical framework I trace social exclusion back to having a devalued

migrant identity of makwerekwere. I argue that the migrant status or foreignness is a bivalent
category because migrants suffer cultural and economic disadvantages. This devalued
identity leads to unfavourable participation in the labour market while public officials and
institutions further exacerbate social exclusion through the way they function. This research
provides empirical confirmation for Kabeer’s (2000) views on bivalent collectivities which
are groups of people that suffer both cultural and economic disadvantage. It also confirms her
argument that social exclusion is an outcome of distributional injustice which leads to
adverse incorporation or participation on disadvantaged terms. The research further confirms
Kabeer’s (ibid) claims that social exclusion is facilitated by institutions.

The study adds to the literature (see Menjivar 1997; Worby 2010) concerning harsh economic
environments that create a narrow structure of opportunity of family networks that end up
repelling and rejecting newcomers. The elasticity of the family networks is determined by the
structure of opportunity prevailing in the host country.

The study also reveals how voluntary social exclusion or social isolation (as identified by
Barry 1998) is a direct outcome of fear of discrimination of the migrants by the host
community. Thus migrants directly withdraw from public hospitals (whose services are
largely free) and opt for private hospitals and doctors in order to avoid ill-treatment.

The study shows that social exclusion is facilitated by both intentional and unintentional
activities of institutions and individuals. This is in line with Atkinson (1998) and Kabeer’s

244
(2000) arguments that social exclusion is an active process facilitated by actors and agents,
especially institutional bias.

The social exclusion literature is incomplete without an appreciation of social capital since
social capital, especially bonding social capital (which seems to be the solution to social
exclusion) can sometimes further exacerbate social exclusion as has been shown in this study.
Bonding social capital must be viewed as both a solution and a source of social exclusion.

The research lends validation to Kabeer’s (2000) claim that no-one is completely excluded
from society, thus a binary view of social exclusion and social inclusion is problematic. What
must be appreciated is that there are different levels of inclusion and exclusion, especially
when considering participation in the labour market. Individuals may be employed in
unfavourable conditions thus participating on disadvantaged terms.

9.2.2. Differences with existing theories

The research in Tembisa and Kempton Park reveals a lack of spatial social exclusion of
Zimbabwean migrants. In Tembisa migrants live among locals, in the backyards of locals’
houses. So while migrants cluster in certain areas, these are not strictly migrant dominated
areas because locals also stay there as house-owners. In Kempton Park the ability to pay high
rentals was more likely to determine where one stayed than processes of spatial exclusion.

The findings of this study are to some extent different from those of Portes and
Sensenbrenner (1993) who proffered the argument on bounded solidarity (a type of solidarity
born out of common challenges or adversity). This research has revealed that although the
Ndebele and Shona Zimbabweans may face the same adversities, this does not necessarily
cause them to be united because of deep seated feelings of tribalism and regionalism. This
renders support to Polzer’s (2008) claim that Zimbabweans participate in their social
exclusion through general transfer of conflict and distrust and through tribalism. In such
situations migrants would rather choose to unite with the local strangers and other foreigners
than fellow Zimbabweans. To this extent therefore, the research reveals that the
disadvantaged could cause their own social exclusion through their own small differences of

245
tribalism and regionalism. This relational social exclusion (lack of bonds) is facilitated by
migrants themselves.

The Eurocentric nature of social exclusion literature has been exposed in the study where
conceptualising it from the perspective of social security does not work. This is because it
would mean that almost all societal members are socially excluded since a large majority of
locals do not have social protection. So the migrants’ situation may not necessarily be unique
as locals may face the same situation.

Overall a general criticism that can be levelled against the social exclusion literature is that is
it difficult to distinguish between factors that are actually exclusionary, and others that have a
negative impact but do not flow from social exclusion per se. For example, the fact that some
undocumented migrants are unemployed is surely as much the result of general macro-
economic factors than it is of social exclusion. The same can be said concerning the
casualisation of labour. This is more in line with global economic forces than with social
exclusion.

9.3 Major research conclusions

9.3.1. The low level of integration of Zimbabweans into South African communities

Generally, the level of integration into South Africa is low. While the ZDP facilitated the
regularisation and legalisation for some Zimbabweans, this has not translated into social
acceptance because these migrants are a source of competition (on the labour market) for low
skilled South Africans. For other Zimbabweans, the ZDP created new problems, leaving them
in legal limbo. Social exclusion is facilitated by employers, government officials and local
South African residents. The media perpetuates the negative image and discourse of migrants
as desperate, illegal and an economic threat to locals.

Zimbabwean migrants try as much as possible not to create ‘trouble’ in the taxis, homes and
at work. While almost 1 in every 2 houses in Tembisa (at least those that I saw)

246
accommodates at least two Zimbabweans, this has not really changed the relations between
migrants and locals. Migrants are mainly viewed as sources of money. Their relations only go
as far as they can pay rent. Relations are superficial and have no depth. Although these purely
commercial relationships are products of the modern, capitalist way of relating to those that
are not intimately related to an individual, they lead to loneliness. This explains why most
migrants claim that they have no local friends. Almost all migrants under study do not trust
South Africans, do not wish to marry them and do not want to work with them. Migrants still
attend their own churches carried over from Zimbabwe and relate with locals ‘when
necessary’. Stereotypes abound about South African men as lazy and violent while South
African women are viewed as loose and only interested in money. Such attitudes especially
among the lower classes create barriers of integration.

9.3.2. Zimbabweans are in South Africa for the long haul

This study reveals that Zimbabwean migrants will still be in South Africa for a long time
because they believe the economic opportunities are still far much better than those that exist
in Zimbabwe, even though they participate in the South African labour market on
disadvantaged terms. They have created networks and relationships that help them to survive.
For some migrants, even if they decide to move, they may not necessarily go back to
Zimbabwe. They have become trans-nationals and cosmopolitans who belong to different
countries. While trans-nationality might have its advantages, I concur with Maphosa (2011)
that the situation of most Zimbabweans in South Africa is largely that of multiple exclusions
rather than multiple involvements. Migrants do not enjoy the full benefits of belonging in any
of the countries they find themselves. They belong neither to South Africa nor Zimbabwe.
They are in-between and they feel like strangers everywhere. One migrant argued: “as soon
as you go (from Zimbabwe) it seems like you are immediately replaced”.

9.3.3. The major agents of social exclusion

247
The research revealed the major agents of social exclusion as the hospitals, banks and police
and other Zimbabwean migrants. At home and in public transport, local South Africans are
perceived as discriminatory. The South African government itself has passed strict immigrant
and economic policies that have had the effect of excluding Zimbabweans by limiting their
structure of opportunity. Zimbabweans themselves exclude each other by engaging in
tribalism and regionalism. Petty jealousies create disharmony and disintegration. The
stereotypes that they have as Ndebele vs. Shona and as Zimbabweans vs. South Africans have
not helped the case for inclusion or integration either.

9.3.4. The common coping mechanisms used by Zimbabwean migrants

Social capital lessens social exclusion. Social networks such as family, friendship and
religious ties, help migrants survive social exclusion by aiding such tactics as faking and
changing identities, sourcing accommodation and employment and provision of cash as and
when it is needed. But these have their darker sides. Church networks do not question lack of
documents and some forms of deviance such as the faking of documents by migrant church
members. They seem to ‘understand’ that migrant life is difficult. However, by not
problematising this behaviour, they may be ultimately doing a disservice to their members,
who remain excluded as long as they do not have proper documentation. Some migrant
networks themselves enmesh migrants in patron-client relationships that may be difficult to
escape. The migrant patrons mainly take advantage of newly arrived migrants who are the
most vulnerable. Migrants believe that sometimes relatives are their ‘worst enemies’ in so far
as abusing them is concerned.

9.4. Policy implications and recommendations

9.4.1. Policy implications

248
• South Africa must come up with proper integration mechanisms for migrants since
migrants are there to stay. The covert support that politicians render to locals in their
bid to force Zimbabweans to ‘go back home’ will not solve the Zimbabwean issue.
These actions will only have the negative effect of hardening Zimbabweans and
driving them even further underground where they may even engage in bad
behaviours in order to survive. They already see death in South Africa as part and
parcel of what they have to deal with as foreigners. It is part of the calculated risks of
being a foreigner. Therefore death will not deter them.

• Migrant entrepreneurs are potential sources of employment even for South African
locals. It would be in the interest of the South African government to support these
activities with capital and other resources rather than ignoring them.

• Migrant workers are potential sources of tax. The government must come up with
ways of engaging them in order that they contribute to SARS. That way, their use of
public services can be legitimated. In any case, migrants are mainly of the younger,
hardworking, and self sufficient age groups (below 40); they are not the most
demanding when it comes to using public funds.

• There must be a proper migration management strategy that de-emphasises the power
of the police and curbs corruption.

• The police and nurses as public citizens are undermining South Africa’s constitution
that values equality without regard to a person’s creed or status. They are also
infringing on universal human rights.

• There is a need for a paradigm shift among South African officials whose definition
of a foreigner is that of a black migrant. There is generally no distinction between a
documented and undocumented migrant in terms of the harsh treatment they receive
in the hands of these bureaucrats and locals. More specifically, public officials (for
example nurses) need to be trained in dealing with migrant-specific issues. They are
evaluated by migrants as insensitive.

• The Zimbabwean government must show interest in the migrants’ welfare in South
Africa. An appraisal of newspaper articles reveals that every month at least one
Zimbabwean dies brutally at the hands of South African mobs. The Zimbabwean

249
 government has never protested formally against this behaviour. The Zimbabwean
government officials may be evaluated as vindictive if they lack eagerness to
intervene on behalf of migrants; thus, further entrenching the migrants’ perception of
a home government that does not care about them, thereby abandoning them to their
fate at the hands of South African mobs.

• Even where the Zimbabwean government has tried to show enthusiasm for migrants,
it has mainly concentrated on skilled migrants such as teachers, doctors and engineers
only. But even these complain of strict re-engagement processes for returnees
(Chikanda 2011).

• There still is a need for proper documentation and creation of a database of

Zimbabwean migrants by the Zimbabwean government which currently uses
guesstimates.

• If the strategies of attracting Zimbabweans back to their country are to succeed, then
the salaries of civil servants in Zimbabwe need to be raised. This is especially true for
teachers, who are still lowly paid compared to their counterparts in South Africa. The
Government of Zimbabwe (2010) revealed that 90% of teachers are demoralised by
their poor salaries. The situation is still the same; teachers are among the lowest paid
civil servants.

• The government of Zimbabwe must strongly consider allowing dual citizenship for
those in the Diaspora and create opportunities for the same people to participate in the
economic and political affairs of their country. They are currently not allowed to vote.
Under current circumstances those that acquire foreign citizenship must renounce it if
they want Zimbabwean citizenship.

• In order to facilitate meaningful remittances, the Zimbabwean government must help

Zimbabweans to participate meaningfully in the South African labour market by
brokering relationships and agreements that protect Zimbabwean workers against
abuse and exploitation in employment. Remittances come from meaningful jobs.
Some migrants are not employed in their professional capacity, thus their skills are
not being fully utilised. Zimbabwe could learn from Asian countries like Bangladesh
and India which have administrative structures set to help recruit and protect
migrants. In Bangladesh there is the Bureau of Manpower, Employment and Training

250
 (BMET), while in India there is the India’s office of the Protector of Emigrants which
operated under the Ministry for Indians Overseas (Castles and Miller 2009).

• Ultimately a regional macro-economic convergence is recommended since there is no

escaping the fact that problems in one country affect other countries. The reality of
SADC’s existence must begin to be felt. During the economic crisis of Zimbabwe
migrants scattered regionally to Mozambique, Malawi, Botswana, Zambia and South
Africa thus affecting the whole SADC region.

9.4.2 Recommendations for further study

• The cross border transport networks must be further studied to show how potential
migrants use social and migration specific capital, to determine the patterns of
crossing the border used by undocumented migrants. Further research must collect
data from the malayitsha and the impisi (migrant smugglers) themselves to understand
more about their operations.

• There is a need to find out if there are gender specific differences in the routes and
methods used to cross the border by undocumented migrants.

• Further research must be carried out to find out if South Africa is still a destination
country or it is now being used as a transit country as migrants move towards other
countries. In my research some migrants argued that South Africa was not their
ultimate destination as they were aspiring to go elsewhere, for example, the United
Kingdom.

• In terms of the living and sexual practices among migrants, research must determine
how the process of ‘shacking up’ or ‘just living together’ as migrants call it, affects
the marriage and family institutions and the children that result from such
arrangements. Research must be directed towards understanding the quality of life of
children of Zimbabwean migrants both in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

251
 • Coping mechanisms involving the obliteration or disguise of migrant identities are
quite stressful. Research must begin to understand the health impacts of these migrant
strategies.

• Further research needs to be carried out on the self-employed Zimbabwean migrants

and their potential to create employment in the South African labour market. There is
already evidence of entrepreneurship among Zimbabweans (26% of the sample are
entrepreneurs) and research must be directed towards understanding the challenges
and opportunities faced by these individuals and the role they play in the South
African labour market.

9.5. Conclusion

This study of Zimbabwean migrants in Kempton Park and Tembisa reveals their perceptions
on social exclusion in the labour market and the general South African society. The study
proposes an analytical framework with ten propositions that aim to show the causes, agents
and solutions to social exclusion. It shows that migrants have a devalued stigmatised identity.
The study reveals how migrants cope with this situation through several coping mechanisms
that involve use of social capital and social networks with local South Africans and other
Zimbabwean migrants. Migrants use family/kin, friendships and religious networks to
sponsor the migration costs, housing and employment. The structure of opportunity in South
Africa is narrowing, forcing migrant networks to repel new migrants, weaken and terminate
relationships. The majority of Zimbabwean migrants are just ‘getting by’ rather than ‘getting
ahead’ in Johannesburg. The institutions that are largely exclusionary towards Zimbabweans
are hospitals, banks, police and to some extent, schools. Employers capitalise on the
precarious positions of migrants whose legal status is weak and unclear (such as those
waiting for regularisation or using asylum papers) and exploit them, exposing them to poor
working conditions and little pay. Therefore migrants are not totally excluded from the labour
market; they participate on disadvantaged terms. Be that as it may, most migrants still think
that their economic situation is much better in South Africa than it would be in Zimbabwe.
And not all of their struggles can be attributed to social exclusion; some are just
consequences of harsh global economic trends.

252
LIST OF SOURCES

Adepoju, A. 2002. Issues and trends in international migration in Sub-Saharan Africa.

International Social Science Journal 52(165): 383-394.

Adepoju, A. 2006. Leading issues in international migration in Sub Saharan Africa, in Views
on migration in Sub Saharan Africa. Proceedings of an African Migration Alliance Workshop
edited by C Cross, D Gelderblom, N Roux and J Mafukidze. Cape Town: Human Sciences
Research Council and Department of Social Development: 25-47.

Adepoju, A. 2008. Migration and social policy in Sub Saharan Africa. Draft working paper
prepared for UNRISD-IOM-IFS project on social policy and migration in developing
countries. Geneva: UNRISD.

Adler, P & Kwon, S. 2000. Social capital: the good, the bad and the ugly, in Knowledge and
social capital: foundations and applications, edited by EL. Lesser. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann: 89-115.

Akcapar, SK. 2006. Conversion as a migration strategy in a transit country: Iranian Shiites
becoming Christians in Turkey. International Migration Review 40(4), winter: 817-853.

Araia, T. 2009. Report of the human smuggling across the South Africa/ Zimbabwe border.
Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University. MRMP occasional report, Forced Migration
Studies Programme. [O] Available online at http://www.refugeeresearch.net/node/277
(Accessed on 23/11/2011).

Arango, J. 2000. Explaining migration: a critical view. International Social Science Journal
165/2000: 283-296.

Atkinson, AB & Hills, J (eds). 1998. Exclusion, employment and opportunity. London:
London School of Economics. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE Paper/4
January 1998). [O] available online at http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/Paper4.pdf
(Accessed on 5/6/2011).

253
Atkinson, AB. 1998. Social exclusion, poverty and unemployment, in Exclusion, employment
and opportunity, edited by AB Atkinson and J Hills. London: London School of Economics:
9-22. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE Paper/4 January 1998).

Aydin, N, Fischer, P & Frey, D. 2010. Turning to God in the face of ostracism: effects of
social exclusion on religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Volume 36:
742-753. [O] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210367491 (Accessed on
2/2/2012).

Barry, B. 1998. Social exclusion, social isolation and the distribution of income. London:
London School of economics. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, CASE Paper/12
August 1998. [O] Available online at http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/Paper12.pdf
(Accessed on 5/6/2011).

Basok, T. 2004. Post-national citizenship, social exclusion and migrant rights: Mexican
seasonal workers in Canada. Citizenship Studies 8(1): 47-64. [O] Available online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1362102042000178409 (Accessed on 6/12/2011).

Beauchemin, C & Gonzalez-Ferrer, A. 2011. Sampling international migrants with origin

based snowballing method: new evidence on biases and limitations. Demographic Research
25(3): 103-134. [O] Available online at www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol25/3.
doi:10.4054/DemRes.2011.25.3. (Accessed on 30/1/2013).

Beck, U. 2000. The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity.
British Journal of Sociology 5(1), January-March: 79-105.

Beck, U. 2002. The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. Theory, Culture and Society 19(1-
2): 17-44.

Berman, Y & Phillips, D. 2000. Indicators of social quality and social exclusion at national
and community level. Social Indicators Research 50: 329-350.

Berriane, M & de Haas, H (eds). 2012. African migrations research: innovative methods and
methodologies. Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press.

Betts, A & Kaytaz, E. 2009. National and international responses to the Zimbabwean
exodus: implications for the refugee protection regime. Geneva: UNHCR. New issues in
refugee research, research paper number 175.

254
Bhalla, A & Lapeyre, F. 1997. Social exclusion: towards an analytical and operational
framework. Development and Change 28: 413-433.

Bloch, A. 2008. Gaps in protection: undocumented Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa.

Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand. Migration studies working paper series number
38 Forced Migration Studies Programme. [O] Available at http://migration.org.za (Accessed
on 5/6/2011).

Bloch, A. 2010. The right to rights? undocumented migrants from Zimbabwe living in South
Africa. Sociology 44(2): 233-250.

Bloch, A & Schuster, L. 2006. At the extremes of exclusion: deportation, detention and
dispersal. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(3): 491-512. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10:1080/014987042000337858. (Accessed on 7/11/2011).

Bloch, A, Sigona, N & Zetter, R. 2011. Migration routes and strategies of young
undocumented migrants in England: a qualitative perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies
34(8): 1286-1302. [O] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.560276.
(Accessed on 2/3/2012).

Bourke, L, Butcher, S, Chisonga, N, Clarke, J, Davies, F &Thorn, J. 2009. Fieldwork stories:

negotiating positionality, power and purpose. Feminist Africa 13: 95-106.

Brand, LA. 2010. National narratives and migration: discursive strategies of inclusion and
exclusion in Jordan and Lebanon. International Migration Review Volume 44(1), Spring: 78-
110.

Broeders, D. 2009. Breaking down anonymity: digital surveillance of irregular migrants in

Germany and the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Bryman, A. 1984. The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: a question of
method or epistemology. The British Journal of Sociology 35 (1), March: 75-92. [O]
Available at www.jstor.org/stable/590553 (Accessed on 19/3/2012).

Burger, R & Woolard, I. 2005. The state of the labour market in South Africa after the first
decade of democracy. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Centre for Social Sciences
Research (CSSR) working paper No. 133.

255
Burt, RS. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. The American Journal of Sociology 110(2),
September: 349-399. [O] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/356822/ (Accessed on
23/11/2011).

Bustamante, J. 2011. Report of the special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants:
mission to South Africa. Geneva: UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 17th
Session.

Carr, M & Chen, M. 2004. Globalisation, social exclusion and gender. International Labour
Review 143(1-2): 129-160.

Castles, S. 2002. Migration and community formation under conditions of globalisation.

International Migration Review (IMR) 36(4): 1143-1168.

Castles, S. 2004. The factors that make and unmake migration policies. International
Migration Review 38(3): 852-884. [O] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/27645419
(Accessed on 23/11/2011).

Castles, S. 2012. Methodology and methods: conceptual issues, in African migrations

research: innovative methods and methodologies, edited by M Berriane and H De Haas. New
Jersey: African World Press: 15-31.

Castles, S & Miller, MJ. 2009. The age of migration: international population movements in
the modern world. 4th edition. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

Chau, RCM &Yu, SWK. 2001. Social exclusion of Chinese people in Britain. Critical Social
Policy 21(1): 103-125. [O] Available at http://dx.doi/66-0261-1083(200102)21:1. (Accessed
on 2/11/2011).

Cherti, M. 2008. Paradoxes of social capital: a multi-generational study of Moroccans in

London. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Chikanda, A. 2005. Nurse migration from Zimbabwe: analysis of the recent trends and
Impacts. Nursing Inquiry 12(3): 162-174.

Chikanda, A. 2011. The engagement of the Zimbabwean medical diaspora. Cape Town:
SAMP. IDASA, Migration Policy Series No. 55. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2012).

256
Chin, M. 2007. Asian and Latino Immigrants in the New York City garment industry, in
Researching migration: stories from the field, edited by L DeSipio, MGY Griego & S
Kossoudji. New York: The Social Science Research Council. [O] Available at
www.ssrc.org/pubs/researching_migration.pdf: 53-63. (Accessed on 1/11/2012).

Cholewinski, R. 2005. Study on obstacles to effective access of irregular migrants to

minimum social rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, F-67075.

Cockerton, C. 2002. Slipping through their fingers: women’s migration and Tswana
patriarchy. Botswana Notes and Records 34: 37-53. [O] Available online at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40980321 (Accessed on 2/11/2011).

Coleman, JS. 2000. Social capital in the creation of human capital, in Social capital: a
multifaceted perspective, edited by P Dasgupta and I Serageldin. Washington: The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ World Bank: 13-39.

Colley, H & Hodkinson, P. 2001. Problems with bridging the gap: the reversal of structure
and agency in addressing social exclusion. Critical Social Policy 21(3): 335-259. [O]
Available at http://dx.doi.org/680261-0183(200108)21:3 (Accessed on 2/11/2011).

Collyer, M. 2005. When do social networks fail to explain migration? Accounting for the
movement of Algerian asylum seekers to the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
31(4): 699-718.

Cooper, C. 1995. Background paper, for the labour market commission on South Africa's
policy on migration. Johannesburg: Centre for Applied Legal Studies 1995: mimeo.

Creswell, JW. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five
approaches. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

Crush, J. 2000. The dark side of democracy: migration, xenophobia and human rights in
South Africa. International Migration 38(6):103-133.

Crush, J. 2001. Making up the numbers: measuring illegal immigration to South Africa. Cape
Town: SAMP. Migration Policy Brief Number 3. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
5/6/2011).

257
Crush, J. 2008. The perfect storm; the realities of xenophobia in contemporary South Africa.
Cape Town/ Kingston: South African Migration Project (SAMP). [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
5/6/2011).

Crush, J. 2011. Complex movements, confused responses: labour migration in South Africa.
Cape Town: SAMP. SAMP Policy Brief Number 25. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2012).

Crush, J, Campbell, E, Green, T, Nangulah, S & Simelane, H. 2005. States of vulnerability:

the future brain drain of talent to South Africa. Cape Town: SAMP. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
5/6/2011).

Crush, J & Pendleton, W. 2004. Regionalising xenophobia? Citizen attitudes to immigration

and refugee policy in Southern Africa. Cape Town: SAMP Migration Policy Series Number
30. [O] Available at www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries
(Accessed on 5/6/2011).

Crush, J & Tawodzera, G. 2011. Medical xenophobia: Zimbabwean access to health services
in South Africa. Cape Town: SAMP and OSISA. Migration Policy Report Number 54. [O]
Available at www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries
(Accessed on 6/12/2012).

Crush, J & Tevera, D. 2010. Exiting Zimbabwe, in Zimbabwe's exodus: crisis, migration and
survival, edited by J Crush & D Tevera. Ottawa: SAMP in cooperation with IDRC: 1-51.

Crush, J, Ulicki, T, Tseane, T & Van Vuuren, E. 1999. Undermining labour: migrancy and
subcontracting in South African gold mining industry. Cape Town: SAMP. Migration Policy
Series Number 15. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2012).

Crush, J & Williams, V. 2001. The point of no return: evaluating amnesty for Mozambican
refugees in South Africa. Cape Town: SAMP. Migration Policy Brief Number 6. [O]

258
Available at www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries
(Accessed on 6/12/2012).

Crush, J & Williams, V. 2010. Labour migration: trends and policies in southern Africa.
Cape Town: SAMP. Policy Brief Number 23. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2012).

Crush, J, Williams, V & Nicholson, P. 2009. Migrants’ rights after apartheid: South African
response to ICRMW, in Migration and human rights, the United Nations convention on
migrant workers’ rights, edited by P De Guchteneire, A Pecoud and R Cholewinski.
Cambridge: CUP& UNESCO: 248-277.

Crush, J, Williams, V & Perberdy, S. 2005. Migration in southern Africa. A paper prepared
for the policy analysis and research programme of the global commission on internal
migration. [SI]: Global Commission on International Migration.

Daly, M. [Sa]. Social exclusion as concept and policy template in the European Union.
Belfast: Queens University, Centre for European Studies, Working Paper Series #135.

Daly, M & Silver, H. 2008. Social exclusion and social capital: A comparison and critique.
Theory and Society 37:537-566. [O] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9062-
4. (accessed on 23/11/2011).

Danso, R & McDonald, DA. 2000. Writing xenophobia: immigration and the press in post-
apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: SAMP. Migration Policy Series Number 17. [O]
Available at www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries
(Accessed on 6/12/2012).

Davis, SH. 2007. Migration, remittances and ethnic identity: the experience of Guatemalan
Maya in the United States, in Moving out of poverty: cross disciplinary perspectives on
mobility, edited by D Narayan and P Petesch. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan: 333-394.

De Guchteneire, P, Pecoud, A & Cholewinski, R (eds). 2009. Introduction: the UN

convention on migrant workers’ rights, in Migration and human rights, the United Nations
convention on migrant workers’ rights. Cambridge: CUP& UNESCO: 1-46.

259
De Haan, A. 2000. Migrants, livelihoods and rights: the relevance of migration in
development policies. [SI]: Social Development Working Paper Number 4.

De Haan, A. 2007. International migration in an era of globalisation: has it come out of its
marginality?, in Advancing development, edited by G Mavrotas and A Shorrocks. Palgrave:
MacMillan: 273-298.

De Haan, A. [Sa]. DFID and social exclusion: the use and otherwise of a concept in
international aid. [SI]: DFID- China.

De Haas, H. 2008. Migration and development: a theoretical perspective. Oxford: University

of Oxford. Working Paper 9 International Migration Institute.

De Haas, H. 2010. The internal dynamics of migration processes: a theoretical inquiry.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration studies 36(10): 587-1617.

Democracy and Governance Programme Human Sciences Research Council. 2008.

Citizenship, violence and xenophobia in South Africa: perceptions from South African
communities. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council.

Denzin, NK. 2002. The interpretive process, in The qualitative researcher’s companion,
edited by AM Huberman & MB Miles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 349-366.

Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (eds). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

DeSipio, L, Griego, MGY & Kossoudji, S (eds). 2007. Researching migration: Stories from
the field. New York: The Social Science Research Council. [O] Available at
www.ssrc.org/pubs/researching_migration.pdf. (Accessed on 1/11/2012.

Dinovitzer, R. 2006. Social capital and constraints on legal careers. Law and Society Review
40(2), June: 443-478.

Dixon, K. 2005. Welfare policy in Great Britain from 1942 until the present day. [SI: sn]. [O]
Available at www.licencedixon.htm (Accessed 19/4/2013).

Djamba, YK. 2003. Gender differences in motivations and intentions to move: Ethiopia and
South Africa compared. Genus 59(2), April-June: 93-111. [O] Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/297888766 (Accessed 1/3/2012).

260
Dodson, B. 2000. Porous borders: gender and migration in southern Africa. South African
Geographical Journal 82(1): 40-46. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10/1080/03736245.2000.9713683 (Accessed on 23/3/2012).

Dodson, B & Crush, J. 2004. A report on gender discrimination in South Africa’s 2002
Immigration Act: masculinising the migrant. Feminist Review 77: 96-119.

Dodson, B, Simelane, H, Tevera, D, Green, T, Chikanda, A & De Vletter, F. 2008. Gender,

migration and remittances in southern Africa. Cape Town: SAMP. IDASA, Migration Policy
Series No. 49. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2012).

Dolphin, S & Genicot, G. 2010. What do networks do? The role of networks in migration and
‘coyote’ use. Review of Development Economics 14(2): 343-359. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2010.00557.x (Accessed on 2/3/2012).

Donato, KM, Wagner, B & Patterson, E. 2008. The cat and mouse game at the Mexico-US
Border: gendered patterns and recent shifts. International Migration Review 42(2): 330-359.
[O] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.00127.x (Accessed on
23/11/2011).

Dumba, S & Chirisa, I. 2010. The plight of undocumented migrants in South Africa: a case
study of Zimbabweans in Soshanguve extension 4 and 5. International Journal of Politics
and Good Governance 1(1.2), Quarter ii: 0976-1195.

Ellerman, D. 2003. Policy research on migration and development. Washington DC: World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3117.

Ellis, S. 2008. South Africa and international migration: The role of skilled labour, in
Migration in post apartheid South Africa: challenges and questions to policy makers, edited
by A Wa Kabwe-Segatti & L Landau. [SI]: Research Department, AFD: 115-129.

Ellsworth, R. 1985. “The simplicity of the native mind”: black passengers on the South
African railways in the twentieth century, in Resistance and ideology in settler societies,
edited by T Lodge. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Southern African Studies volume, 4: 74-95.

261
Elrick, T. 2008. Networks and their influence on migration policy: conclusions from the
Romanian-Spanish migration space. Focus Migration Policy Brief Number 11 (Oct 2008).
Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International Economics.

Fangen, K. 2010. Social exclusion and inclusion of young immigrants: presentation of an

analytical framework. Journal of Youth Research 18(2), May: 133-156.[O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/11.1177/11033881001800202 (Accessed on 6/12/2011).

Feinstein, CH. 2005. An economic history of South Africa: conquest and discrimination.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, E. 2007. Occupying the margins: labour integration and social exclusion in artisanal
mining in Tanzania. Development and Change 38(4): 735-760.

Fukuyama, F. 1995. Social capital and the global economy. Foreign Affairs 74: 89-103. [O]
Available at http://heinonline.org (Accessed on 19/12/2012).

Gaidzanwa, RB. 1997. Voting with their feet: a study of Zimbabwean nurses and doctors who
migrated from Zimbabwe at the time of structural adjustment. A paper presented at the
structural adjustment and socio-economic change in southern Africa review seminar. Hotel
Ibis- Plateau, Abidjan, 23-25 March. Uppsala : Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.

Galabuzi, G. 2002. Social exclusion. A paper presentation given at the social determinants of
health across the life span conference. Toronto November 2002.[SI: sn].

Gelderblom, D, Martin, R & Mendelsohn, M. 2012. Theorising modernity: classical and

contemporary social theory. Only study guide for SOC3705. Pretoria: University of South
Africa.

Glick Schiller, N, Calgar, A & Goldbrandsen, TC. 2006. Beyond the ethnic lens: locality,
globality and born again incorporation. American Ethnologist 33(4): 612-633.

Gordon, S. 2010. Migrants in a state of exception. Transcience Journal 1(1): 1-19.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ). 2009. Draft national migration Management and diaspora
policy. Harare: GoZ.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ). 2010. Millennium development goals status report. Harare:
GoZ/UN.

262
Gradstein, M & Schiff, M. 2004. The political economy of social exclusion with implications
for immigration policy. IZA Discussion Paper Number 1087. Bonn: Institute of Study of
Labour (IZA).

Granovetter, MS. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6),
May: 1360-1380. [O] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392 (Accessed on
23/11/2011).

Hagan, JM. 1998. Social networks, gender and immigrant incorporation: resources and
constraints. American Sociological Review 63(1), February: 55-67.

Hagan, JM. 2006. Negotiating social membership in the contemporary world. Social Forces
85(2), December: 631-642.

Hagen-Zanker, J. 2008. Why do people migrate? A review of the theoretical literature.

Maastricht: Maastricht University. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) Paper Number
28197 Working Paper MGSoG/2008/WP002. [O] Available at: http://mpra.ub.inu-
muenchen.de/28197/ (Accessed on 25/7/2011).

Hammar, A. 2008. Reflections on displacement in Zimbabwe. Concerned African Scholars

Bulletin 80, winter: 28-35.

Hammersley, M. 2008. Questioning qualitative inquiry. Los Angeles: Sage.

Harris, B. 2001. A foreign experience: violence, crime and xenophobia during South Africa's
transition. Johannesburg: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR)
Violence and Transition. Series Volume 5.

Harris, B. 2002. Xenophobia: a new pathology for a new nation, in Psychopathology and
social prejudice, edited by D Hook & G Eagle. Cape Town: Cape Town University Press:
169-184.

Hatziprokopiou, PA. 2006. Globalisation, migration and socio-economic change in

contemporary Greece, processes of social incorporation of Balkan immigrants in
Thessaloniki. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Hickey, S. 2008. Adverse incorporation and social inclusion. [SI]: Chronic Poverty Research
Centre. Research Summary Number 7, (October 2008). [O] Available at
www.chronicpoverty.org. (Accessed on 23/11/2011).

263
Holdt, KV, Langa, M, Molapo, S, Mogapi, N, Ngubeni, K, Dlamini, J & Kirsten, A. 2011.
The smoke that calls: insurgent citizenship, collective violence and the struggle for a place in
the new South Africa. Johannesburg: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation
(CSVR), Society Work and Development Institute (SWOP).

Hollifield, JF. 2004. The emerging migration state. International Migration Review 38(3):
885-912.

Hollifield, JF. 2010. A public goods approach to managing migration. A paper prepared for
presentation at the joint IOM/ILO seminar Geneva, Switzerland, 13 January 2010. [SI: sn].

Hopkins, TK & Wallerstein, I. 1977. Patterns of development of the modern world system.
Review (Fernand Braudel Centre) 1(2): 111-145.

Huberman, AM & Miles, MB. 2002. The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Human Rights Watch. 1998. “Prohibited persons”: abuse of undocumented migrants, asylum
seekers and refugees in South Africa. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch. 2006. Unprotected migrants: Zimbabweans in South Africa's Limpopo
Province. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Hungwe, C. 2012a. The migration experience and multiple identities of Zimbabwean

migrants in South Africa. Online Journal of Social Sciences Research 1(5), August: 132-138.
[O] Available at www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JSS/cont/2012/aug/htm (Accessed on
15/9/2012).

Hungwe, C. 2012b. Contagion or calculated rationality? Rethinking crowd behaviour in

recent xenophobic outbreaks in South Africa: explaining the killing of Farai Kujirichita in the
Diepsloot township of Johannesburg, South Africa. LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary
Research 9(4):128-142.

International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD). 2003. Migrant, minorities
and employment: exclusion, discrimination and anti-discrimination in 15 member states of
the European Union. [SI]: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC).

264
International Organisation for Migration (IOM). 2008. Towards a national migration and
development strategy for Zimbabwe: an assessment of the readiness of the Zimbabwean
diaspora in South Africa to participate in diaspora driven development initiatives. Harare:
IOM. Workshop Reports and Occasional Papers Number 7. Available at
http://www.iomzimbabwe.org.zw (Accessed 17/8/2011).

International Organisation for Migration (IOM). 2009. Preliminary meeting with

Zimbabwean diaspora in South Africa in preparation for the diaspora engagement workshop.
Harare: IOM. Workshop Reports and Occasional Papers Number 8. [O] Available at
http://www.iomzimbabwe.org.zw (Accessed on 17/8/2011).

International Organisation for Migration (IOM). 2011. IOM first quarter 2011 newsletter.
Harare: IOM. [O] Available at: http://zimbabwe.iom.int. (Accessed on 17/8/11).

Iosifides, T. 2003. Qualitative migration research: some new reflections six years later. The
qualitative report 8(3), September: 435-446. [O] Available at
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR-8/iosifides.pdf (Accessed on 29/5/2012).

Janjuha-Jivraj, S. 2003. The sustainability of social capital within ethnic networks. Journal of
Business Ethics 47(1), September: 31-43.

Kabeer, N. 2000. Social exclusion, poverty and discrimination: towards an analytical

framework. IDS Bulletin 1(4): 83-97.

Kabeer, N. [Sa]. Social exclusion: concepts, findings and implications for the MDGs.
Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Kalitanyi, V & Visser, K. 2010. African immigrants in South Africa: job takers or creators.
South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences New Series 13(4): 376-390.

King, R & Mai, N. 2004. Albanian immigration in Lecce and Modena: narratives of rejection,
survival and integration. Population, Space and Place 10: 455-477.

Kingdon, G & Knight, J. 2002. Quality of schooling and the race gap in the labour market
outcomes in South Africa mimeo. SI: Department of Economics, University of Oxford.

Kingdon, G & Knight, J. 2006. The measurement of unemployment when unemployment is

high. Labour Economics 13(3): 291-315.

265
Kiwanuka, M & Monson, T. 2009. Zimbabwean migration into southern Africa: new trends
and responses. Johannesburg: Wits University. Forced Migration Studies Programme.

Kloosterman, R & Rath, J. 2001. Immigrant entrepreneurs in advanced economies: mixed

embeddedness further explained. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(2): 189-201.
[O] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10/1080/13691830020041561 (Accessed on 20/11/2011).

Kloosterman, R, Van der Leun, J & Rath, J. 1998. Across the border: immigrants’ economic
opportunities, social capital and informal business activities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 24(2): 249-268. [O] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X1998.9976632
(Accessed on 20/11/2011).

Kok, P, Gelderblom, D, Oucho, JO and Van Zyl, J (eds). 2006. Migration in south and
southern Africa: dynamics and determinants. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Korinek, K, Entwisle, B & Jampaklay, A. 2005. Through thick and thin: layers of social ties
and urban settlement among Thai migrants. American Sociological Review Volume 7,
October: 779-800.

Kothari, U. 2002. Migration and chronic poverty. [SI]: Chronic Poverty Centre. Working
Paper Number 16.

Krissman, F. 2005. Sin coyote Ni Patron: why the migrant network fails to explain
international migration. International Migration Review 39(1), spring: 4-44.

Lancee, B. 2012a. The economic returns of bonding and bridging social capital for immigrant
men in Germany. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(4): 664-683. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10/1080/01419870.2011.591405 (Accessed on 6/12/2012).

Lancee, B. 2012b. Immigrant performance in the labour market: bonding and bridging social
capital. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Landau, LB. 2008. Drowning in numbers, in Migration from Zimbabwe: numbers, needs and
policy options, edited by R Leslie, S Johnston, A Bernstein & R de Villiers. Johannesburg:
Centre for Development and Enterprise: 7-13.

Landau, LB. 2010. Taming the demons within: learning to love the alien in contemporary
South Africa. Open Space: On the move: Dynamics of Migration in southern Africa 3(3): 59-

266
64. [O] Available at http://www.osisa.org/resources/docs/PDFs/Openspace-
Oct2010/Taming_theDemons_Withinpdf. (Accessed on 5/6/2011).

Landau, LB & Freemantle, I. 2010. Tactical cosmopolitanism and idioms of belonging:

insertion and self exclusion in Johannesburg. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(3):
375-390.

Landau, LB & Wa Kabwe Segatti, A. 2009. Human development impacts of migration: South
Africa case study. Geneva: UNDP. Human Development Research Paper 2009/05.

Landolt, P. 2001. Salvadoran economic transnationalism: embedded strategies for household

maintenance, immigrant incorporation and entrepreneurial expansion. Global Networks 1(3):
217-241.

Lareau, A & McNamara, E. 1999. Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: race, class and
cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education 72(1), January: 37-53.
[O] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2673185 (Accessed on 23/11/2011).

Lazaridis, G & Koumandraki, M. 2007. Albanian migration to Greece: patterns and processes
of inclusion and exclusion in the labour market. European Societies 9(1): 91-111.

Lefko-Everett, K. 2010. The voices of migrant Zimbabwean women in South Africa, in

Zimbabwe's exodus: crisis, migration and survival, edited by J Crush & D Tevera. Ottawa:
SAMP in cooperation with IDRC: 269- 290.

Leibbrandt, M, Woolard, I, McEwen, H & Koep, C. 2009. Employment and inequality

outcomes in South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape Town, Southern African Research
Unit (SALDRU) and School of Economics.

Lelkes, O. 2006. Social exclusion in Central-eastern Europe: concept, measurement and

policy interventions. Geneva: ILO Working Paper, Strategies and Tools against Social
Exclusion and Poverty (STEP).

Leslie, R, Johnson, S, Bernstein, A & de Villers R (eds). 2008. Migration from Zimbabwe:
numbers, needs and policy options. Johannesburg: The Centre for Development and
Enterprise (CDE).

Levitas, R. 1999. Defining and measuring social exclusion: a critical overview of current
proposals. Radical statistics 71.

267
Levitas, R. 2004. Let’s hear it for humpty: social exclusion, the third way and cultural capital.
Cultural Trends 1312: 41-56. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954896042000267143 (Accessed on 20/11/2011).

Levitas, R, Pantoras, C, Fahmy, E, Gordon, D, Lloyd, E & Patsios D. 2007. The multi-
dimensional analysis of social exclusion. Bristol: University of Bristol.

Levitt, P. 2003. You know, Abraham was really the first immigrant, religion and
transnational migration. International Migration Review 37(3): 847-873.

Levitt, P. 2006. God has no passport: defining the boundaries of belonging. Harvard Divinity
Bulletin: 45-57.

Lewis, A. 1967. Unemployment in developing countries. The World Today 23(1), January:
13-22. [O] Available at www.jstor.org/stable/40393913. (Accessed on 25/7/2011)

Lin, N. 1999. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22(1): 28-51.

Lin, N. 2000. Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology 29(6): 785-795. [O]
Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2654086 (Accessed on 23/11/2011).

Lyberaki, A, Triandafyllindou, A, Petronoti, M & Gropas, R. 2000. Migrants’ strategies and

migration policies: towards a comparative picture. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies
6(3): 475-488.

Machin, S. 1998. Childhood disadvantage and intergenerational transmissions of economic

status, in Exclusion, employment and opportunity, edited by AB Atkinson & J Hills. London:
London School of Economics. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE Paper/4
January 1998): 56-64.

Mafukudze, J. 2006. A discussion of migration and migration patterns and flows in Africa, in
Views on migration in Sub Saharan Africa: proceedings on an African migration alliance
workshop, edited by C Cross, D Gelderblom, N, Roux and J. Mafukidze. Cape Town: HSRC
Press: 103-129.

Mahler, SJ & Pessar, PR. 2006. Gender matters: ethnographers bring gender from periphery
towards the core of migration studies. International Migration Review 40(1): 27-63.

268
Mai, N. 2005. The Albanian diaspora in the making: media, migration and social exclusion.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31(3): 543-561. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691830500058737 (Accessed on 6/12/2011).

Makina, D. 2007. Profile of migrant Zimbabweans in South Africa: a pilot study. [SI: sn]. [O]
Available at
http://www.zimcsoforum.org/index.php?module=PageSetter+function=viewpub+tid=1&pid=
40. (Accessed on 23/11/2011).

Makina, D. 2010. Historical perspective on Zimbabwe’s economic performance. A tale of

five lost decades. Journal of Developing Societies 26(1): 99-123. [O] Available at
http://jds.sagepub.com/content/26/1/99. Doi: 10.1177/0169796X1002600105. (Accessed on
23/11/2011).

Makina, D. 2010. Zimbabwe in Johannesburg, in Zimbabwe's exodus: crisis, migration and

survival, edited by J Crush & D Tevera. Ottawa: SAMP in cooperation with IDRC: 225-243.

Makina, D. 2012. Migration and development: issues and some lessons for Zimbabwe, in
Zimbabwe: mired in transition, edited by EV Masunungure and JM Shumba. Harare: Weaver
Press: 174-204.

Mamdani, M. 1996. Citizen and subject: contemporary Africa and the legacy of late
colonialism. Kampala: Fountain.

Maphosa, F. 2007. Remittances and development: the impact of migration to South Africa on
rural livelihoods in southern Zimbabwe. Development Southern Africa 24(1):123-135.

Maphosa, F. 2010. Transnationalism and undocumented migration between rural Zimbabwe

and South Africa, in Zimbabwe's exodus: crisis, migration and survival, edited by J Crush &
D Tevera. Ottawa: SAMP in cooperation with IDRC: 345-362.

Maphosa, F. 2011. Multiple involvements or multiple exclusions: trans-national experiences

of communities on the Zimbabwe-South Africa borderlands. Addis Ababa: OSSREA.

Marsh, A & Mullins, D. 1998. Perspective and housing studies: origins, applications and
limitations. Housing studies 13(6): 749-759. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org./10.1080/02673039883047 (Accessed on 23/11/ 2011).

269
Masengwe, G & Machingura, F. 2012. Migration and policymaking initiatives as appeals to
national crises: the Zimbabwean case. International Journal of Peace and Development
Studies 3(2): 13-23.

Massey, DS. 1987. Understanding Mexican migration to the United States. American Journal
of Sociology 92(6): 1372-1403.

Massey, DS. 1990. Social structure, household strategies and the cumulative causation of
migration. Population Index 56(1), spring: 3-26. [O] Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3644186 (Accessed on 12/2/2013)

Massey, DS. 1999. International migration at the dawn of the 21st century: the role of the
state. Population and Development Review 25(2): 303-322. [O] Available at
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10/1111/j.1728-4457.1999.00303.x/pdf. (Accessed on
23/11/2011).

Massey, DS. 2003. Patterns and processes of international migration in the 21st century. A
paper prepared for the conference on African migration in comparative perspective,
Johannesburg, South Africa. [SI: sn].

Massey, DS, Arango, J, Hugo, G, Kauaouci, A, Pellegrino, A & Taylor J. 1993. Theories of
international migration: a review and appraisal. Population and Development Review 19(3),
September: 431-466. [O] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938462 (Accessed on
23/11/2011).

Matshaka, NS. 2010. ‘Marobot nemawaya' - traffic lights and wire: crafting Zimbabwean
migrant masculinities in Cape Town. Feminist Africa 13: 65-85.

Mattes, R, Taylor, DM, McDonald, DA, Poore, A & Richmond, W. 1999. Still waiting for the
barbarians: South African attitudes to immigrants and immigration. Cape Town: SAMP.
Migration Policy Series Number 14. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2012).

Mawadza, A & Crush, J. 2010. Metaphors of migration: Zimbabwean migrants in the South
African media, in Zimbabwe's exodus: crisis, migration and survival, edited by J Crush & D
Tevera. Ottawa: SAMP in cooperation with IDRC: 363-376.

270
Maxwell, JA. 1996. Qualitative research design. Applied Social Science Research Methods
Series Volume 41. London: Sage.

Maxwell, JA. 2002. Understanding validity in qualitative research, in The qualitative

researcher’s companion, edited by AM Huberman and MB Miles. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage:
37-64.

McDonald, DA, Mashike, L & Golden, C. 1999. The lives and times of African migrants and
immigrants in post-apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: SAMP. Migration Policy Series
Number 13. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2011).

McDowell, MG & Wonders, NA. 2010. Keeping migrants in their place: technologies of
control and racialized public space in Arizona. Social Justice 36(2): 54-72.

McGregor, J. 2007. “Joining the BBC (British Bottom Cleaners)”: Zimbabwean migrants and
the UK care industry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33(5):801-824.[O] Available
at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691830701359249 (Accessed on 6/12/2011).

McGregor, J. 2010. Between obligation, profit and shame: Zimbabwean migrants and the UK
care industry, in Zimbabwe's exodus: crisis, migration and survival, edited by J Crush & D
Tevera. Ottawa: SAMP in cooperation with IDRC: 179-201.

Menjivar, C. 1995. Kinship networks among immigrants: lessons from a qualitative

comparative approach. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 36 (3/4), December:
219-232.

Menjivar, C. 1997. Immigrant kinship networks and the impact of the receiving context:
Salvadorans in San Francisco in the early 1990s. Social Problems 44(1), February: 104-123.

Menjivar, C. 2010. Religion and immigration in comparative perspective: Catholic and

Evangelical Salvadorans in San Francisco, Washington DC and Phoenix (2004), in
Perspectives in social research methods and analysis: a reader for Sociology, edited by H
Lune, ES Pumar & R Kappel. Los Angeles: Sage: 246-264.

Mikkelsen, B. 2004. Methods for development work and research: a new guide for
practitioners. New Delhi: Sage.

271
Miles, MB & Huberman, AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Minter, W. 2011. African migration, global inequalities and human rights, connecting the
dots. Current African Issues 46. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.

Mlambo, A. 2010. A history of Zimbabwean migration to 1990, in Zimbabwe's exodus:

crisis, migration and survival, edited by J Crush & D Tevera. Ottawa: SAMP in cooperation
with IDRC: 52-78.

Monson, T& Misago, JP. 2009. Why history has repeated itself: the security risks of
structural xenophobia. South African Quarterly 29, September: 25-35.

Morgan, G & Smircich, L. 1980. The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management
Review 5(4), October: 491-500. [O] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/257453
(Accessed on 23/11/2011).

Morris, A. 1998. “Our fellow Africans make our lives hell”: the lives of Congolese and
Nigerians living in Johannesburg. Ethnic and Racial Studies 21(6): 1116-1136.

Mosala, SMG. 2008. The work experience of Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa. Harare:
ILO Sub Regional Office for Southern Africa. [O] Available at
www.ilo.org/public/englich/region/afpro/harare/.../issues_paper_33.pdf. (Accessed on
5/6/2011).

Motsitsi, N. 2012. Presentation to the Home Affairs portfolio committees on the status of
Home Affairs in Limpopo Province for the period April- June 2012. [SI]: Department of
Home Affairs. [O] Available as a power point presentation (Accessed 29/10/2012).

Mutisi, JP. [Sa]. Missing the point: colonial state efforts to stop clandestine labour migration
from Southern Rhodesia to South Africa, 1937-1942. [SI: sn].

Mutsindikwa, C. 2012. The role of social capital in undocumented migration: the case of
undocumented Zimbabwean migrants in Botswana. [SI]: Unpublished MA thesis, UNISA.

Muzondidya, J. 2008. Majoni-joni: coping mechanisms among Zimbabwean migrants in

South Africa. A Paper presented at the international conference on the political economy of
displacement in Zimbabwe, University of Witwatersrand 9-11 June 2008.[SI: sn].

272
Muzondidya, J. 2009. From buoyancy to crisis, 1980-1997, in Becoming Zimbabwe, edited by
B Raftopolous & AS Mlambo. Harare: Weaver Press: 39-74.

Muzvidziwa, VN. 2001. Zimbabwe’s cross border women traders: multiple identities and
responses to new challenges. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 19(1): 67-80. [O]
Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02589000124044 (Accessed on 23/3/2012).

Muzvidziwa, VN. 2010. Double rootedness and networking among urban migrants in
Zimbabwe. Journal of Sociology Social Anthropology 1(1-2): 81-90.

Nannestad, P, Svendsen, GL & Svendsen, GT. 2008. Bridge over troubled water? Migration
and social capital. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(4), May: 607-631. [O]
Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10/1080/13691830801961621 (Accessed on 5/6/2012).

Nauck, B. 2001. Social capital, intergenerational transmission and intercultural contact in

immigrant families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 32(4): 465-485.

Ncube, S & Hougaard, C. 2010. So near and yet so far? Assessing the 90 day permit for
Zimbabwean migrants as a remittances financial inclusion tool. [SI]: Centre for Financial
Regulation and Inclusion (CENFRI), University of Stellenbosch.

Neocosmos, M. 2008. The politics of fear and the fear of politics: reflections on xenophobic
violence in South Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies 43(6): 586-594. [O].
Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021909608096655 (Accessed on 17/8/ 2011).

Nkau, DJ. 2003. Cross-border migration to South Africa in the 1990s: the case of
Zimbabwean women. [SI]: Unpublished MA (demography) Dissertation, Faculty of
Humanities, University of South Africa.

Nkomo, J. 2001. The story of my life. Harare: SAPES Books.

Osili, UO. 2007. Understanding migrants’ remittances: evidence from the US-Nigerian
Migration Survey, in Researching migration: stories from the field, edited by L DeSipio, G
Manuel, Y Griego & S Kossoudji. New York: the Social Science Research Council. [O]
Available at www.ssrc.org/pubs/researching_migration.pdf:101-116. (Accessed on
01/11/2012).

273
Ostrom, E. 2000. Social capital: a fad or fundamental concept?, in Social capital: a
multifaceted perspective, edited by P Dasgupta & I Serageldin. Washington: The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ World Bank: 172-214.

Palmary, I. 2002. Refugees, safety and xenophobia in South African cities: The role of local
government. Johannesburg: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Paoleti, E. 2010. Deportation, non deportability and ideas of membership. Oxford: Refugees
Studies Centre, University of Oxford. Working Paper Series Number 65.

Pasura, D. 2006. Mapping exercise Zimbabwe. London: IOM.

Patton, MQ. 1990. Qualitative evaluation research methods. 2nd edition. Newbury Park:
Sage.

Peace, R. 2001. Social exclusion: a concept in need of a definition. Social Policy Journal of
New Zealand Issue 16, July: 17-36.

Pendleton, W, Crush, J, Campbell, E, Green, T, Simelane, H, Tevera, D & De Vletter, F.

2006. Migration, remittances and development in southern Africa. Cape Town: SAMP,
IDASA. Migration Policy Series No.44. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2011).

Perberdy, S & Dinat, N. 2005. Migration and domestic work in South Africa: worlds of work,
health and mobility in Johannesburg. Cape Town: SAMP, IDASA. Migration Policy Series
No. 40. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2011).

Percy-Smith, J (ed). 2000. Policy responses to social exclusion towards inclusion?

Buckingham: Oxford University Press.

Pessar, P. 2008. Migration and development: gender matters. New York: Social Sciences
Research Council (SSRC) Conference Paper Number 16.

Pillay, U, Tomlison, R & Du Toit, J. 2006. Introduction, in Democracy and delivery, edited
by U Pillay, R Tomlison & J Du Toit. Cape Town: HSRC: 1-21.

274
Polkinghorne, DE. 2005. Language and meaning: data collection in qualitative research.
Journal of Counselling Psychology 52(2): 137-145. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137. (Accessed on 30/1/2013).

Polzer, T. 2008. South African government and civil society responses to Zimbabwean
migration. Cape Town: SAMP. SAMP Policy Brief Number 22. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2011).

Polzer, T. 2009. Regularising Zimbabwean migration to South Africa. Johannesburg: Wits

University Forced Migration Studies Programme. Migration Policy Brief, May 2009. [O]
Available at www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/sappublications/#policyseries (Accessed
on 6/12/2011). (Accessed on 6/12/2011).

Polzer, T, Kiwanuka, M & Takabvirwa, K. 2010. Regional responses to Zimbabwean

Migration, 2000-2010. Johannesburg: Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. Wits
University Forced Migration Studies Programme.

Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology 24: 1-24.

Portes, A & Landolt, P. 2000. Social capital: promises and pitfalls of its role in development.
Journal of Latin American Studies 3(2), May: 529-547. [O] Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/158574 (Accessed on 20/11/2011).

Portes, A. & Sensenbrenner, J. 1993. Embeddedness and immigration: notes on the social
determinants of economic action. Journal of Sociology 98(6), May: 1320-1350.

Posel, D. 2003. Have migration patterns in post-apartheid South Africa changed? A paper
prepared for the conference on African migration in comparative perspective, Johannesburg,
South Africa 4-7 June 2003.[SI: sn].

Preibisch, K. [Sa]. Patterns of social exclusion and inclusion of migrant workers in rural
Canada. A paper prepared for the North- South Institute, University of Guelph. [SI: sn].

Prothero, RM. 1974. Foreign migrant labour for South Africa. International Migration
Review 8(3): 383-394. [O] Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3002372 (Accessed
on 1/11/2011).

275
Punch, KF. 2005. Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches.
2nd edition. London: Sage.

Punch, M. 1994. Politics and ethics in qualitative research, in Handbook of qualitative

research, edited by NK Denzin & YS Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage: 83-96.

Putnam, R. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in
America. Political Science and Politics Journal 28(4): 664-683.

Radipere, NS. 2012. An analysis of local and immigrant entrepreneurship in the South
African small enterprise sector (Gauteng Province). [SI: sn]. A Doctor of Commerce thesis
submitted at the University of South Africa.

Raftopolous, B. 2009. Crisis in Zimbabwe: 1988-2008, in Becoming Zimbabwe: a history

from the Pre-colonial period to 2008, edited by B Raftopolous & A Mlambo. Harare:
Weaver: 201-232.

Ranis, G & Fei, JCH. 1961. A theory of economic development. The American Economic
Review 51(4), September: 533-565. [O] Available at www.jstor.org/stable/1812785
(Accessed on 25/7/2011).

Ravenstein, EG. 1885. The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London
48(2), June: 167-235. [O] Available at www.jstor.org/stable/2979181 (Accessed on
25/7/2011).

Rawal, N. [Sa] Social inclusion and exclusion: a review. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and
Anthropology 2: 161-180.

Reidpath, DD, Chan, KY, Gifford, SM & Allotey, P. 2005. “He had the French pox”: stigma,
social value and social exclusion. Sociology of Health and Illness 27(4): 468-489.

Riessman, CK. 2002. Narrative analysis, in The qualitative researcher’s companion, edited
by AM Huberman and MB Miles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 217-274.

Riessman, CK. 2008. Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Sage.

Rispel, L, Molamo, B & Dumela, S. 2008. South African case study on social exclusion. Cape
Town: HSRC.

276
Rodgers, G. 1995. What is special about a social exclusion approach, in Social exclusion:
rhetoric, reality, responses, edited by G Rodgers, C Gore & JB Figueiredo. Geneva: ILO: 43-
56.

Room, GJ. 1999. Social exclusion, solidarity and the challenge of globalisation. International
Journal of Social Welfare 8(3): 166-174. [O] Available at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi.1111/1468-2397.00080 (Accessed on 23/11/2011).

Rutherford, B. 2008. Zimbabweans living in the South African border-zone: negotiating,

suffering and surviving. Association of Concerned African Scholars 80: 36-42. [O] Available
at http://concernedafricascholars.org/docs/acasbulletin 80-6.pdf (Accessed on 27/06/2011).

Rutherford, B. 2010. Zimbabweans on the farms of northern South Africa, in Zimbabwe's

exodus: crisis, migration and survival, edited by J Crush & D Tevera. Ottawa: IDRC in
cooperation with SAMP: 244-268.

Sachikonye, LM (ed). 1998. Migration in southern Africa. Harare: SAPES.

SAHA 2012. Entering Tembisa: an oral and photographic exploration of the community by
South African History Archives. [O] Available at: www.establishment_of_tembisa.htm
(Accessed on 1/11 2012).

Saith, R. 2001. Social exclusion: the concept and application to developing countries.
Oxford: Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford. QEH Working Papers Series
QEHWP72.

Sandelowski, M. 1995. Focus on qualitative methods sample size in qualitative research.

Research in Nursing Health 18: 179-183.

Sanders, C. 2010. Ethnography as dangerous and dirty work. New Frontiers in Ethnography,
Studies in Qualitative Methodology 2: 101-124. [O] Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1042-3192(2010)0000011009 (Accessed on 2/3/2012).

Sander, C & Maimbo, SM. 2003. Migrant labour remittances in Africa: reducing obstacle to
developmental contributions. Washington DC: World Bank. Africa Regional Working Paper
Series Number 64.

Saraceno, C. [Sa]. Social exclusion: cultural roots and diversities of a popular concept. [SI:
sn].

277
Scheen, T. 2011. Zimbabwean migrants destabilise the north of South Africa. Focus Rural
21- 01/2011. Johannesburg: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. [O] Available at
www.rural21.com/uploads/media/Zimbabwean_migrants_01.pdf (Accessed on 2/3/2012).

Schmidt, E. 1988. Farmers, hunters and gold-washers: a re-evaluation of women’s roles in

pre-colonial and colonial Zimbabwe. African Economic History 17: 45-80. [O] Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3601334 (Accessed on 2/3/2012).

Schmidt, E. 1990. Negotiated spaces and contested terrain: men, women and the law in
colonial Zimbabwe, 1890-1939. Journal of Southern African Studies 16(4): 622-648. [O]
Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2637040 (Accessed on 2/3/2012).

Sen, A. 2000. Social exclusion: concept, application and scrutiny. Manila: Asian
Development Bank. Social Development Papers Number 1 June 2000.

Sibanda, A. 2001. State, capital and labour migration in Zimbabwe, in Migration and
development in southern Africa, edited by K Matlosa. Harare: SAPES: 97-125.

Sigona, N. 2012. I have too much baggage: the impacts of legal status on the social worlds of
irregular migrants. Social Anthropology 20(1): 50-65. [O] Available online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2011.00191.x (Accessed on 30/1/2013).

Silver, H. 1994. Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms. International Labour
Review 133: 531-78.

Silver, H. 1995. Reconceptualising social advantage: three paradigms of social exclusion, in

Social exclusion: rhetoric, reality, responses, edited by G Rodgers, C Gore & JB Figueiredo.
Geneva: ILO: 57-80.

Silver, H & Miller, SM. 2003. Social exclusion: the European approach to social
disadvantage. Indicators 2(2), Spring: 1-17.

Silverman, D. 2000. Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. 2nd edition. London:
Sage.

Sinclair, MR. 1999. “I know a place that is softer than this...” emerging migrant communities
in South Africa. International Migration 37(2) 465-81.

278
Skeldon, R. 2010. The current global crisis and migration: policies and practices in origin
and destination. Brighton: The Development Research Centre on Migration Globalisation
and Poverty, University of Sussex. Working Paper T-32.

Solidarity Peace Trust. 2004. No war in Zimbabwe: an account of the exodus of a nation.
[SI]: Solidarity Peace Trust.

Solidarity Peace Trust and PASSOP. 2012. Perils and pitfalls: migrants and deportation in
South Africa, March 2012-May 2012. A report by SPT and PASSOP, 5 June 2012. [O]
Available at http://www.solidaritypeacetrust.org (Accessed 1/11/2012).

South Africa (Republic of), Department of Home Affairs 2010. Documentation of

Zimbabweans. [O] Available at http://www.dha.gov.za (Accessed on 3/12/2011).

South Africa (Republic of), Department of Home Affairs 2011. Media release transcript
copy: interaction with media by the Home Affairs Director General Mkuseli Apleni regarding
documentation of Zimbabweans. [O] Available at www.home-affairs.gov.za (Accessed on
1/11/ 2012).

South Africa (Republic of), Department of Home Affairs 2012. Annual report 2010/2011.
[O] Available at www.home-
affairs.gov.za/PDF/AnnualReports/DHAAnnualreports20102011.pdf. (Accessed on
1/11/2012).

South Africa (Republic of), Department of Labour 2011. Job opportunities and
unemployment in the South African labour market April 2010- March 2011. Pretoria:
Government Printing Works.

South Africa (Republic of). 1994. White paper on reconstruction and development. WPJ/1
994. Cape Town: Government Gazette [O] Available at
www.polity.org.za/polity/govdocs/rdp/rdp1.html. (Accessed on 26/2/2013).

Spicer, N. 2008. Places of exclusion and inclusion: asylum-seeker and refugee experiences of
neighbourhoods in the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(3): 491-510.

Spoonley, P, Peace, R, Butcher, A & O’Neill, D. 2005. Social cohesion: a policy and
indicator framework for assessing immigrant and host outcomes. Social Policy Journal of
New Zealand 24: 85-110.

279
Standing, G, Sender, J & Weeks, J. 1996. Restructuring the labour market: the South African
challenge, an ILO country review. Geneva: ILO.

Stark, O & Bloom, DE. 1985. The new economics of labour migration. The American
Economic Review 75(2), May: 173-178. [O] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1805591
(Accessed on 25/7/2011).

Statistics South Africa. 2010. Quarterly labourforce survey, Quarter 1 2010. Pretoria:
Statistics South Africa. [O] Available at www.statssa.gov.za. (Accessed on 17/8/2011).

Statistics South Africa 2012. Census 2011 statistical release. Available at

www.statssa.gov.za/Publication/Po3014/P030142011.pdf (Accessed on 1/11/ 2012).

Stiff, P. 2002. Cry Zimbabwe. Alberton: Galago.

Swong, S. 2012. Obama immigration reform will win Obama the Hispanic vote. [O]
Available at www.policymic.com/articles/9760/imm (Accessed 23/11/2012).

Taylor, JE. 1999. The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the
migration process. International Migration 37(1): 63-88.

Terreblanche, SJ. 1999. The ideological journey of South Africa: from the RDP to the GEAR
macro-economic plan. [SI: sn]. A paper presented in ME99 workshop on globalisation,
poverty, women and the church in South Africa.

Tevera, D & Chikanda, A. 2009. Migrant remittances and household survival in Zimbabwe.
Cape Town: Southern Africa Migration Project, IDASA. [O] Available at
www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries (Accessed on
6/12/2011).

Tevera, D & Zinyama, L. 2002. Zimbabweans who move: perspectives on international

migration in Zimbabwe. Cape Town: SAMP Migration Policy Series Number 25. [O]
Available at www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/#policyseries
(Accessed on 6/12/2011).

Thadani, VN & Todaro, MP. 1979. Female migration in developing countries: a framework
for analysis. New York: Population Council, Centre for Policy Studies. Working Paper
Number 47.

280
Todaro, MP. 1969. A model of labour migration and urban unemployment in less developed
countries. The American Economic Review 59 (1): 138-148.

Todaro, MP. 1976. Internal migration in developing countries: a survey. Geneva:

International Labour Office.

Todman, L. [Sa]. Reflections on social exclusion: what is it? How is it different from US
conceptualisations of disadvantage? And why Americans might consider integrating it into
US policy discourse. [SI: sn].

Turney, K & Kao, G. 2009. Barriers to school involvement: are migrant parents
disadvantaged? Journal of Educational Research 102(4): 257-271. [O] Available online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.4.257-271 (Accessed on 23/11/2011).

UNDP. 2010. The potential contribution of the Zimbabwean diaspora to economic recovery.
Working Paper II Harare: UNDP-Zimbabwe.

Van Maanen, J. 1979. Reclaiming qualitative methods for organisational research: a preface.
Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 520-526. [O] Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392358 (Accessed on 29/5/2012).

Van Nieuwenhuyze, I. 2009. Getting by in Europe’s urban labour markets: Senegambian

migrants’ strategies for survival, documentation and mobility. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.

Van Onselen, C. 1978. Worker consciousness in black miners, Southern Rhodesia, 1900-
1920, in Studies in the history of African mine labour in colonial Zimbabwe, edited by IR
Phimister & C Van Onselen. Gwelo: Mambo Press. ZAMBEZIANA. VI: 1-22.

Van Onselen, C. 1980. Chibaro: African mine labour in Southern Rhodesia 1900-1933.
Johannesburg: Ravan Press.

Veary, J. 2008. Migration, access to ART and survivalist livelihood strategies in

Johannesburg, African Journal of AIDS Research, 7 (3):361-374. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/AJAR.2008.7.3.660 (Accessed on 23/3/2012).

Vigneswaran, D. 2012. Experimental data collection methods and migration governance, in

African migrations research, edited by M Berriane & H De Haas. New Jersey: Africa World
Press:110-133.

281
Vigneswaran, D, Araia, T, Hoag, C & Tshabalala, X. 2010. Criminality or monopoly?
Informal immigration enforcement in South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies
36(2), June: 465-517. [O] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2010.485797
(Accessed on 23/11/2011).

Wacquant, LJD & Wilson, WJ. 1989. The cost of racial and class exclusion in the inner city.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 501(1), January: 8-25.

Wa Kabwe-Segatti, A & Landau, L (eds). 2008. Migration in post- apartheid South Africa:
challenges and questions to policy makers. [SI]: Research Department, AFD.

Waldinger, R. 2008. Between ‘here’ and ‘there’: immigrant cross border activities and
loyalties. International Migration Review 42(1): 3-29.

Wallerstein, I. 1974. The modern world-system capitalist agriculture and the origins of the
European world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.

Willand, J. 2005. Immigration laws South Africa. Immigration and Consulting South Africa
(IMCOSA): RITZTRADE International Business Exchange. [O] Available at
http://www.ritztrade.com (Accessed on 25/7/2011).

Williams, V. [sa]. Migration and social cohesion. Cape Town: IDASA.

Wilson, L. 2006. Developing a model for the measurement of social inclusion and social
capital in regional Australia. Social Indicators Research 75: 335-360. [O] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-2527-6 (Accessed on 2/3/2012).

Woolcock, M & Narayan, D. 2000. Social capital: implications for development theory,
research and policy. The World Bank Research Observer 15(2), August: 225-249.

Worby, E. 2010. Address unknown: the temporality of displacement and the ethics of
disconnection among Zimbabwean migrants in Johannesburg. Journal of Southern African
Studies 36(2): 417-432. [O] Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0357070.2010.485792
(Accessed on 2/3//2012).

World Bank, The. 2011. Migration and remittances fact book 2011. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.

Yin, RK. 2009. Case study research: design and methods. 4th edition. London: Sage.

282
Zanamwe, L & Devillard, A. 2010. Migration in Zimbabwe: a country profile. [SI]:
ZIMSTAT and IOM.

Zinyama, L. 2002. Cross border movement from Zimbabwe to South Africa, in Zimbabweans
who move: perspectives on international migration in Zimbabwe, edited by D Tevera & L
Zinyama. Cape Town: SAMP. Migration Policy Series Number 25: 26-41.

Zlotnik, H. 2003. Migrants’ rights, forced migration and migration policy in Africa. [SI: sn].
A paper prepared for a conference on Africa migration in comparative perspective,
Johannesburg, South Africa 4-7 June 2003.

ACTS, STATUTES, CASES OR LEGAL PRECEDENTS

Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Act 2002. [O]. Available at

www.acts.co.za/BCE97 Accessed on 1/ 11/ 2011.

Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 2003. [O]. (Accessed 2/12/2012).

Broad Based Economic Empowerment Amendment Bill November 2012. [O]. Available at
www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=68031 (Accessed 2/12/2012).

Employment Equity Act number 55 of 1998 [O] Available at http://www.labour.gov.za

(Accessed on 17/08/2011).

Immigration Act Number 13 of 2002 [O] Available at

http://www.infor.gov.za/gazette/acts/2002/a13-02.pdf. (Accessed on 25 /7/ 2011).

Immigration Amendment Act Number 19 of 2004 [O] Available at

http://www.infor.gov.za/acts/2004/a19-04.pdf. (Accessed on 25 /7/ 2011).

Refugees Act Number 130 of 1998 [O] Available at

www.info.gov.za/View/DownloadFileAction?id=149532 (Accessed on 23 /11/2011)
Government Gazette 2 December, 1998.

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights [O] Available online at

www.UNIVERSAL_DECLATION_OF_HUMAN_RIGHTS.pdf (Accessed on 23/11/11).

283
APPENDICES

10.1. Research questions

The questions mainly revolve around three themes; the individual’s biography; their appraisal
of their situation in South Africa and how they fare in the South African labour market; their
coping mechanisms (these were studied through understanding their participation in social
networks).

10.1.1. Interview questions for Zimbabwean migrants in Johannesburg

The individual’s migration trajectory

1. Demographic characteristics-age, sex, race, religion, educational qualifications,

marital status (are you married to a Zimbabwean or not? If not married would you prefer to
be married to a Zimbabwean?).
2. Length of stay in SA
3. Reason for leaving Zimbabwe and reasons for choosing South Africa
4. Prior to coming to South Africa were you employed? In what sector?
5. Are there any friends/ relatives (both here and back home) that aided your entry in
finding accommodation and jobs and generally settling in? What specific support did you get
and from whom?
6. Did you experience any opposition back home from people who did not want you to
come (especially in the case of female migrants)?

7. Did you move directly to Johannesburg, or did they approach Johannesburg in steps,
that is, did you perhaps first work on farms on Limpopo to earn some money to finance the
last step to Johannesburg (assuming that Johannesburg is indeed their final destination)?
8. Does the migration experience differ for men and women?
9. How often do you return to Zimbabwe? When last have you been back? Any
constraints in returning to South Africa once you have visited home? Are these constraints
perhaps a factor in your not visiting home?

284
10. How do you communicate with friends/family members back home? How, and how
often, do you manage to remit money/goods back home?

The individual’s appraisal of their situation and how they fare in the South African labour
market

11. How many options do you have in terms of places to stay and work in South Africa?
Friends and family elsewhere? Is there a possibility of a place to stay or a job elsewhere?
12. What is your sector of employment in Johannesburg? What proportion of
Zimbabweans is employed at the same organisation?
13. What rights do you enjoy as a worker in this sector?
14. Which areas of employment do you feel you included into or excluded from due to
your being foreign? Why do you think that is so?
15. Do you know of any Zimbabweans that are worse off or better than you?
16. What pressures come with being a foreigner- in the community, at work or any other
area?
17. What is the reaction of SA locals towards you? Other Zimbabwean migrants?
18. Do you have a permanent job, or do you work on an intermittent/piece job basis? Any
other possibility (self-employed, housewife, dependent, student, unemployed and looking for
work).
19. Do you contribute to any social security/social insurance or pension fund?
20. Do you have a bank account in your name? Is it possible to get a bank loan?
21. What do you think of the climate for doing business in South Africa? Do you foresee
any constraints to being self-employed?
22. Would you say that some South African employers prefer Zimbabwean workers?
Why? In which sectors are those employers? Alternatively, do some South African employers
prefer to employ South Africans? Why? In which sectors are these employers?
23. Have you made any use of public services (such as health and education facilities) in
South Africa? What was your experience of that? Any constraints? Hostility?
24. Do you feel the secure situation in South Africa? Do you feel discriminated against?
Have you had any experience of common crime, Xenophobia?
25. What are your future prospects in South Africa?

285
Coping mechanisms
26. How do you try to -fit in, manoeuvre in a foreign land? Do you speak any local South
African language? How does speaking a local language help you?
27. What are the relationships like among Zimbabweans in South Africa? Supportive or
not? Do you trust co-ethnic members? Are these your friends?
28. If you have job now, how did you hear about that job?
29. Where do you sleep at present? How permanent/secure is your access to that place?
Do you own or rent this place/part of the place?
30. Are your neighbours also from Zimbabwe? What proportion of the neighbourhood
where you stay is inhabited by Zimbabweans/other foreign Africans?
31. How do you get to work/place to study from where they sleep? Do you make use of
public transport? What is your perception of it (safe, reliable, cheap, or not)?
32. Are there any other members of your immediate and extended Zimbabwe family
living with you? If you have children do they go to school?
33. Do you belong to any church group? Does that church cater only for Zimbabweans or
also for other groups? How helpful has the church been to you?
34. Have you made any local, South African friends or other foreign non-Zimbabwean
friends? Do you trust them? Do these friends help in dealing with: police officers, Home
Affairs, employers, finding accommodation etc.?
35. Have you joined any local organisations, such as cultural, sporting and political
associations, trade unions/ workers’ association etc.?
36. Are you a member of a local savings club? Is this for Zimbabwean Shona or Ndebele
only? Does it also include local South Africans?
37. If you have a financial or social problem, who would you approach?
38. What is the frequency of your contact with family members/Zimbabwean
friends/relatives in Johannesburg per week?
39. How often do you share meals or have get together activities with your
relatives/friends from Zimbabwe?
40. Have you ever been arrested? What happened?
41. How do you avoid being arrested or deported?
42. Have you ever been deported? What happened?
43. Is your stay in South Africa legal/illegal?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

286
10.2. Consent form

My name is Chipo Hungwe and I am a doctoral student in the department of Sociology at the
University of South Africa. As required by my studies I am conducting a research on
Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa. The aim of the research is to understand the lives of
Zimbabweans and their feelings of inclusion into and exclusion from the South African
society. I would like to interview you asking questions relating to your life history. This
interview will take approximately 1 hour and if you are agreeable I would like to record our
discussion on audiotape.

Since this is a purely academic exercise I guarantee that your information will be treated with
utmost confidentiality and anonymity. Your name will not be used in any part of the report
that will be produced by this research. Your participation in this research is voluntary and
where you feel uncomfortable you may refuse to answer questions and opt out of the
research.

Consent

Researcher: I Chipo Hungwe will not implicate any individuals by discussing the details of
our conversation.

Signed: ..........................................Date

Participant: I understand that the information I provide in the interview will not be linked to
me personally. I agree to take part in the research

I agree that our conversations can be recorded

Signed Date

287