Seeking refuge in South Africa: Challenges facing a group of Congolese and Burundian refugees

Abstract

The existence of a relatively large refugee population in South Africa has stimulated important research in the field of forced migration studies. This paper is based on the findings of a qualitative study among refugees living in Sunnyside, Pretoria, who originally came from central African countries. The study sheds light on the refugees' perceptions and experiences with regard to, inter alia, their daily lives and survival strategies. The findings from focus groups and in-depth structured interviews with a sample of 10 women from the focus group suggest that the refugees are constantly worried about their daily survival. Issues of subsistence, shelter, protection against crime and eviction, and the ongoing threat of xenophobia, weigh heavily on their minds. Recommendations include a more integrative approach by all stakeholders to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers are managed within a human rights based framework.

Keywords:

• refugee
• asylum seeker
• forced migration
• survival strategy
• xenophobia

1. Introduction

World Refugee Day is very important to me and many other foreigners who have come for asylum in South Africa. In our home countries, life was very difficult and we struggled. Here there is hope for us. (Zimbabwean refugee)

The South African Human Rights Commission says these words by Zimbabwean refugee Victoria Manjenga reflect the stories of thousands of refugees in South Africa (Brandon, 2011). In a 2011 keynote address commemorating World Refugee Day, Home Affairs Deputy Minister Fatima Chohan said that ‘as a developing middle income country, South Africa now has more asylum seekers to deal with than all 27 countries of the European Union combined’, and that South Africa had in fact ‘become the largest recipient of individual asylum seekers in the world’. For many individuals and families across the globe, forced migration has become a survival strategy for escaping armed conflict and human rights violations in their countries of origin.

According to the 2009 report published by the United Nations Higher Commission on Refugees (UNHCR), a total of 42 million individuals worldwide were forcibly displaced at the end of 2008. Of this number, 16 million were refugees and asylum seekers. Developing countries in particular have been on the receiving end of applications from asylum seekers. By the end of 2008, 8.4 million forcibly displaced individuals had sought refuge in developing countries. This means that four out of five refugees in the world reside in these countries. Africa in particular has been burdened by armed conflict, resulting in more than 2.1 million people becoming refugees (UNHCR, 2009:3–8). According to Dalton-Greyling, ‘Africa is the continent that hosts the most displaced people as a percentage of its total population’ (2008:3).

More than half of the asylum claims registered in South Africa in 2008 were submitted by Zimbabweans (UNHCR, 2009:15). South Africa's peaceful transition to democracy in 1994, steady economy and relative stability provide hope for asylum seekers not only from neighbouring Zimbabwe but also from countries across the conflict ridden continent (Landau & Jacobsen, 2004; Maharaj, 2004; Kihato, 2007; UNHCR, 2010a).

South African Government statistics show that 207 200 individual asylum claims were registered in 2008 (UNHCR, 2010a) (see Table 1). Polzer (2010a:3) states that from 1994 to the end of 2009 the cumulative figure for recognised refugees in South Africa was 47 596. In 2009 there were 223 324 new applications from recognised asylum seekers. Of these, 46 055 applications were rejected, 4567 were approved and 172 702 were relegated to the logjam of unprocessed cases (Polzer, 2010a:3). In 2010, the figure for registered asylum claims dropped to 180 600, 19% lower than in 2009 (UNHCR, 2010d).

This article concerns a sample of refugees from two of the Great Lakes countries, Burundi and the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo), who currently live in South Africa. Since independence in 1962, Burundi has been ravaged by wide scale ethnic violence. A civil war in 1993 resulted in over 200 000 deaths and created an unparalleled refugee crisis (Insight on Conflict, 2010a). In the DRC between 1997 and 2003 there were 5.4 million war-related deaths, amounting to about 45 000 a month, and 3.4 million people were driven from their homes (Insight on Conflict, 2010b). From 2000 to 2008 the number of Burundian refugees in South Africa increased from 632 to 2155 (UNHCR, 2010c) and Congolese refugees from 4454 to 10 999 (UNHCR, 2010b). Although these two countries have seen voluntary repatriation taking place, renewed human rights violations, especially in the DRC, have circumvented this effort (UNHCR, 2009:8).

Focusing specifically on the daily life experiences of these two refugee populations in South Africa draws attention to the challenges they face in a foreign country and the strategies they use to survive. Few of these refugees (in contrast to those from Zimbabwe) are proficient in English or any of the other official languages spoken in South Africa. Unlike other refugee host countries in Africa, South Africa has no official refugee camps. The refugee population tends to be urban, with many refugees living in inner-city areas (Landau & Jacobsen, 2004:44; Amisi & Ballard, 2005:20; Dalton-Greyling, 2008:13; UNHCR, 2010a). This article reflects the findings of a qualitative study of a group of Burundian and Congolese refugees living in the inner-city area of Sunnyside, Pretoria. The research falls under the umbrella of a broader, joint community engagement initiative by Unisa (University of South Africa) and the community of Sunnyside, entitled ‘The Unisa Bright Site Project in Sunnyside, Pretoria’. Sunnyside is centrally placed, with easily accessible businesses, resources and training institutions. It consists predominantly of residential houses, a high density area with blocks of flats and a business centre. The residential houses are mainly old, with tight security and fencing. The flats range from upmarket townhouses to dilapidated tower blocks. Foreigners from a variety of countries are based in the area (Bright Site Project, Sunnyside, 2008).1

The study corroborates many of the findings of extensive research undertaken by the Southern African Migration Project (SAMP), the African Centre for Migration and Society, the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CoRMSA), the UNHCR, and other independent researchers. Further, it attempts to explore the reasons why so little has changed in South Africa for more than a decade and to offer some possible explanations.

2. Literature review

2.1 Definitions and legislation

Migration is the movement of people from one area to another, either within their own country or across borders. Migration may be voluntary, where people leave of their own free will, or involuntary, where they are forced to flee, either internally or leaving the country altogether. Dalton-Greyling (2008:4) notes that in South Africa the term ‘refugee’ is used broadly to mean ‘migrant, illegal migrant or asylum seeker’. Each of these terms has, however, its own legal conceptualisations and applications. Undocumented migrants are more commonly known as illegal migrants – these are people who have either stayed longer than the time permitted by their visas or been unable to navigate their way through the Home Affairs offices for official documentation (Landau et al., 2005:17). Immigrants are individuals who enter the country for the purpose of making the host country their permanent home. An illegal immigrant is someone who enters the country without the proper legal requirements of that country. It is important to note that in South Africa an asylum seeker is not classified as a refugee until Home Affairs recognises him or her as such. Once asylum is granted and refugee status approved, the refugee is allowed access to certain rights, as described below.

The Refugees Act no. 130 of 1998 states that a person will qualify for refugee status if that person

(a) owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted by reason of his or her race, tribe, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside the country of his or 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 or her former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it; or (b) owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing or disrupting public order in either a part or the whole of his or her country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his or her place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge elsewhere; or (c) is a dependant of a person contemplated in paragraph (a) or (b). (DoH, 1998:6–8)

An asylum seeker is defined as a person who is seeking recognition as a refugee (DoH, 1998). An asylum seeker permit is a permit provided for in section 22 of the Refugees Act, which allows asylum seekers the legal right to stay in South Africa; however, they do not have the right to work or study until their status as a refugee has been determined (Dalton-Greyling, 2008:11).

South Africa is signatory to a number of international conventions and treaties protecting the rights of non-nationals, including the United Nations 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and the 1969 Convention of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).2 The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families has yet to be ratified in South Africa.

Legislation in South Africa is backed up by the Constitution, which pledges to provide for ‘all who live in the country, regardless of citizenship, nationality or country of birth’ (Landau et al., 2005:4). The Refugees Act of 1998 guarantees freedom of movement and provides for the right to work and to access public health care and education services (DoH, 1998; Polzer, 2010a:4), and specifies the procedure for applying for and granting of refugee status. Amendments to the Act promise to provide for better ‘asylum processing and protection’ (UNHCR, 2010a) and Minister Chohan endorses the intention of streamlining the process to make it ‘more efficient and credible’ for asylum seekers (Chohan, 2011). The amendments bring the definition of ‘refugee’ into line with the conventions and treaties mentioned above, which include defining refugees as those persons compelled to leave their countries because of ‘events seriously disturbing or disrupting public order in either a part or the whole of [that] country’ (UNHCR, 2009).

The Immigration Act no. 13 of 2002 (Government Gazette, 2002) effectively ‘criminalises undocumented migrants’ and thus makes it possible for the ‘arrest, detention and deportation’ of people on the assumption that they are illegal immigrants (Landau et al., 2005:14). To avoid deportation, many foreigners apply for asylum seeker status in an attempt to prolong their stay in South Africa. Despite claims that the 1998 Refugees Act is progressive and shows a commitment to protecting refugees, refugees still bear the brunt of police harassment, discrimination and xenophobia (Madsen, 2004; Landau & Jacobsen, 2004; CoRMSA, 2009). As a signatory, the country is obliged to respect the rights of refugees. South Africa promotes the view that refugees and asylum seekers should ‘self-settle’ rather than be confined to refugee camps (Polzer, 2010a; UNHCR, 2010a). A refugee reception office has been established in each of South Africa's six major cities; these have been overwhelmed by the number of asylum seekers (UNHCR, 2010a). It is against this background that the authors sought to understand how refugees from Burundi and the DRC deal with the problems they encounter.

2.2 Problems faced by refugees

In a study on refugees and asylum seekers in Johannesburg, South Africa, Belvedere et al. (cited in Landau et al., 2005:20–1) found that refugees and asylum seekers tended to be urbanised, well educated, with some form of higher level education, and multilingual. A joint study of the Forced Migration Studies Programme at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and the Refugees and Forced Migration Program at Tufts University, Boston, reflected similar findings that non-nationals were better educated than South Africans, predominantly city oriented, and had been either entrepreneurs or in specialist positions back home (Landau & Jacobsen, 2004). This contrasts sharply with the misconceptions many South Africans have that refugees bring disease and despair, perpetuate crime, get involved in smuggling and drug trafficking, pilfer jobs, and compete for basic services. Instead, refugees believe that South Africa is a land of economic opportunity (Maharaj, 2004; Kihato, 2007; CDE, 2010) and the development of informal and foreign owned businesses has created employment opportunities that have breathed new life into inner-city areas (Maharaj, 2004; CDE, 2008; CoRMSA, 2009:23–4).

Nevertheless, refugees face many difficulties in taking advantage of these opportunities. Problems in accessing employment opportunities are compounded by lack of identity documents, employers' ignorance about accepting non-national identity papers, lack of accessible banking services, and failure to recognise non-South African qualifications (Landau et al., 2005:22; Rulashe, 2009; CDE, 2010:3). Any one of these factors can make it difficult for a refugee to obtain formal employment, but a combination of all the factors can make it impossible.

2.3 The Department of Home Affairs

Home Affairs presents a major stumbling block for refugees. Landau et al. (2005:25) observe that under the apartheid regime it was considered one of the most dishonest government departments. The administrative indiscretions seem to have thrived between 1994 and 2004, and it appears that they continue, as evidenced by, for example, the Department's ineptness at handling refugee and asylum seeker applications, and issues of bribery (Amisi & Ballard, 2005:5), applicants sleeping outside its offices for as long as three months waiting to lodge an application, and identity theft (Mawadza, 2008), and its reputation for corruption (CDE, 2010). Asylum seekers, who have rights under international and national law, may be ‘denied the right to even file an asylum claim, unless they are willing to pay bribes’ (Segale, cited in Landau et al., 2005:25). Private security guards control the entry and exit at the Refugee Reception Centres and asylum seekers are known to have paid the guards to access the relevant buildings. Once inside, they sometimes have to pay interpreters or clerks to process their claims, despite the regulations that say this is a free service (Landau et al., 2005). The Refugees Act stipulates that the process of applying for asylum should take six months, but in reality it usually takes much longer (Landau et al., 2005).

2.4 Xenophobia

Studies by Maharaj (2004), Landau et al. (2005:6), CoRMSA (2009) and Polzer (2010b) suggest that one of the root causes of xenophobia is the threat the presence of foreigners poses to South Africans in terms of access to employment opportunities and social services. These views have also been expressed by senior members of government. In 1998, for example, the then Minister of Home Affairs, Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi, declared in his first speech in parliament that ‘South Africans are going to compete for scarce resources with millions of aliens who are pouring into South Africa’ (Landau et al., 2005:6). In a national survey of South African citizens conducted by SAMP, participants were asked what they feared most from residents of the neighbouring countries. Crush and Williams (2003) reported that 48% of South Africans viewed foreigners as acting unlawfully. Similarly, Leggett found in his study of a sample of ‘inner-city Johannesburg residents’ that 63% of the residents argued that ‘foreigners’ committed the majority of crime in the area (2003:52). Likewise, Landau and Jacobsen's study on Johannesburg neighbourhoods with high concentrations of refugees, in which a sample of 737 people were interviewed (53% South Africans and 47% migrants and refugees), of the 70% of South Africans who thought that crime had increased, about three quarters pinpointed foreigners as the main perpetrators (2004:45). Besides being the victims of xenophobic views that see foreigners as criminals, a related problem refugees have to cope with is that local criminals see them as easy targets because they will not go to the police. Leggett's research showed that in Johannesburg 81% of foreigners felt unsafe, compared to 38% of South Africans (2003:54).

3. Methodology

This paper reports the findings of a qualitative study which aimed to shed light on the subjective life experiences of refugees from the war-torn countries of Burundi and the DRC who were living in Sunnyside, Pretoria. Since the study was mostly exploratory, qualitative research methods were deemed most appropriate to elicit thick descriptions. Specific attention is paid here to the findings of the first two phases of this study. Initially, three exploratory focus group discussions were held during May 2009. The groups consisted of about 10 members each, clustered together according to commonality of language and country of origin. The researchers facilitating each of the discussions were assisted by interpreters who translated the discussion from either French or Swahili into English and vice versa.

As this was exploratory research, we were not sure what information, if any, we would elicit from the discussion groups. The participants were as curious as we were to see what they could get out of participating, perhaps money or help with Home Affairs. From the outset it was made clear to them that the researchers could not offer them any help in accessing Home Affairs, assist them with asylum papers or make representations on their behalf. Given the sensitive nature of the study, care was taken to explain clearly to the participants that their participation was voluntary and that the research was intended for academic purposes only. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study in the language of their choice and also assured of the confidential use of the data. Particular care was taken to inform the participants that at no stage would any information be divulged to the police or to Home Affairs.

The second phase of the research, towards the end of 2009, consisted of semi-structured in-depth interviews with a sample of women from the focus groups. Themes similar to those discussed in the groups were explored in greater detail in these interviews, which were conducted in either French or Swahili and translated into English for data analysis. Three types of coding procedure were used to analyse the data: open, axial and selective coding (see De Vos et al., 2005:340). In addition, analytic memorandum writing and concept mapping were also used. Bearing in mind the exploratory and qualitative nature of the study, the findings were deemed to be sample specific.

Although a few men took part in the focus group discussions, most of the participants were women. All 10 interviewees were women, however, as the focus of the study was on family, well-being and resilience. Most of the women had children, whereas most of the men did not have their families with them. Table 2 shows that, at the time of the interviews, the interviewees were in their twenties or thirties, apart from one who was 44; four were from Burundi and six from the DRC; they had been in South Africa from two to eight years; eight were married, one divorced and one widowed; all had at least one dependent child; their children ranged in age from two to 21, with most being of pre-school or primary school age; and their education levels ranged from incomplete secondary school education to some form of tertiary qualification. At the time of the study, all were living in the Sunnyside area in overcrowded accommodation and in most cases sharing it with individuals or groups with whom they had no kinship ties.

Table 1: Refugee and asylum seeker figures in South Africa

Recognised refugees: cumulative since 1994 until end of 2009	47 596
Registered asylum claims: 2008	207 200
Registered asylum seekers: 2009	223 324
Approved	4 567
Rejected	46 055
Added to backlog	172 702
Registered asylum claims: 2010	180 600
Source: Polzer (2010a); UNHCR (2010d).

Table 2: In-depth interviews: Profile of interviewees at the time of the study

Interviewee number	Age	Country of origin	Arrival in South Africa	Number of children	Marital status	Level of education
1	44	DRC	2004	8	Married	Grade 10
2	32	Burundi	2002	3	Divorced	Grade 8
3	31	DRC	2009	1	Married	B degree
4	37	DRC	2006	5	Married	Grade 12
5	25	DRC	2008	1	Married	B degree
6	30	DRC	2009	5	Widow	Diploma
7	31	DRC	2007	3	Married	Grade 12
8	22	Burundi	2007	1	Married	Grade 12
9	34	Burundi	2007	4	Married	Diploma
10	26	Burundi	2004	4	Married	Grade 12

4. Everyday challenges for refugees

Interviewees were asked to juxtapose life in South Africa with life in their countries of origin prior to the war. Speaking about life in pre-war DRC, one of the interviewees, the 44 year old mother of eight, said: ‘We lived well – children had no problem going to school – we were not even walking when going to places.’ This contrasts vividly with her life in South Africa, which is a constant struggle to ensure the physical well-being of her children. Similarly, the stark simplicity of the view of a 32 year old woman from Burundi captured the despair felt by all the refugees when she said: ‘Life was better than what I have now.’ The lack of security and feeling of being unsafe was a major concern for all the participants. Most of them felt that life had been easier back home, with access to employment opportunities, a sense of security and the support of their family. Only when thinking about the quality of life in her native country since the rise of armed conflict was it possible for a 32 year old Congolese woman to favour South Africa, saying: ‘South Africa is better. At the moment we have no source of income, but here is better.’

Having said this, the refugees highlighted common problems that they all seem to face as a matter of daily concern in South Africa. These included difficulty in obtaining legal papers, insufficient employment opportunities, deplorable living conditions, the prevalence of crime and the threat of xenophobia. These problems are discussed in more detail below.

4.1 Difficulty in obtaining refugee status

The refugees' relationship with Home Affairs, in obtaining their refugee documents, is tenuous at best. All interviewees, except for two, had experienced difficulties in dealing with the Department. The 44 year old Congolese interviewee described her ordeal thus: ‘Really it was [difficult] … it is difficult to meet people in charge. You had to fight to get it [the permit].’ Five of the interviewees had a refugee status permit and a further four had asylum seeker (Section 22) permits. The 22 year old interviewee from Burundi had had to submit a letter of appeal after being rejected for an asylum seeker permit. It was the general view of the refugees that dealing with the bureaucracy of Home Affairs is difficult enough, but being a foreigner with ‘no papers’ compounds this difficulty and leaves them vulnerable to intimidation, bribery and corruption. A 29 year old Congolese participant in one of the discussion groups mentioned for example that it is ‘very difficult to get [permits]’. She said: ‘I had to sleep at Home Affairs – sometimes they gave me false appointments.’ Another participant summarised the views of the group thus: ‘You find someone at Home Affairs – you have to give them money so that they can assist you.’ Yet another said that they were not giving extensions at Home Affairs: ‘You are paying to corrupt the system, and you don't even get the extension letter that is supposed to be free at Home Affairs.’ Similar findings emerged from the study by Landau and Jacobsen, in that many participants said they had to pay bribes to Home Affairs officials ‘just to enter the city's refugee reception centre’ (2004:45). Moreover, not being in possession of legal papers hinders many refugees' rights to any kind of social services such as health care, education and law enforcement protection (e.g. local police services). Comparable findings were reflected in the CoRMSA report (2009:19). This presents a challenge to the South African Government to remedy this situation and guarantee the dignity and safety of refugees and asylum seekers.

4.2 The employment predicament

The lack of any kind of employment that could sustain them to feed their children and provide for accommodation was central to the concerns of the refugees. The ability to retain full-time employment is linked to obtaining legal documents, such as refugee or asylum seeker permits, which the refugees need but battle to obtain. At the same time, language barriers pose a huge problem for many refugees. According to the participants, not being proficient in English not only hampers their ability to communicate in general but impedes their ability to find employment in particular. The xenophobic attacks on foreigners in 2008 created a heightened awareness of foreigners. This may have been part of the reason why some of the participants who had had some form of employment had either been dismissed or not re-employed. The participants said that when they tried their hand at informal trading they ran the risk of being victimised by the local police. These findings resonate with the views of participants in Landau and Jacobsen's study (2004) of refugees from Burundi, Somalia and the DRC, and with those in Amisi and Ballard's related study (2005).

4.3 Deplorable living conditions

The issue of accommodation is a serious matter for most refugees, given the high rentals they are charged and their lack of finance to support themselves. To have some kind of a roof over their heads and be able to pay the often exorbitant prices charged to foreigners, most of the participants had to rent room space from other refugees or sub-let their flats.3 As a result, most of the participants shared a dwelling with other families, with cramped space and no privacy. The privilege of having space and privacy is subsumed by the more overt and primary need of having shelter. Yet these living arrangements remain a concern to many of the participants. The 30 year old Congolese interviewee with five children described, for example, how difficult she finds it to afford the room in an apartment she is renting from another refugee for R3000 a month. She said: ‘I am not used to a situation of sharing a flat with so many people.’ The baseline study conducted by Belvedere et al. in South Africa among refugees and asylum seekers (cited in Landau et al., 2005) echoes these views.

4.4 Falling victim to crime

The participants' narratives revealed that many of them, and their loved ones, had fallen victim to crime. These crimes included sexual offences (e.g. rape), kidnapping, burglary, robbery and assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. The following quotes illustrate their experiences:

Yes, my kid was kidnapped. Some people came to fetch her from school and told her that I, her mother, was at Home Affairs in Jo'burg [and that] she must follow them as they [would] take her to me. Because she knew the kidnapper, she went with him. (Congolese woman, 44 years old)

Yes, I can't count the number of times [I have been a victim of crime]. The worst is when they forced my pregnancy out. (Burundian woman who aborted after being assaulted, 32 years old)

My phones were stolen and even my kids' stuff. (Congolese woman, 30 years old)

Yes they stole my property, I was beaten on the street and they nearly raped me until some foreigner came to my rescue. (Burundian woman, 26 years old)

These narratives suggest that far from being the main perpetrators of crime in South Africa, as portrayed in xenophobic accounts, refugees are more likely to be victims. Landau and Jacobsen contend that migrants and refugees are ‘far more likely to be victims of crime or police harassment than South Africans’ (2004:45). They claim that rather than assisting the refugees the police appear to be aggravating the problem. The participants in the studies by Landau and Jacobsen (2004) and Landau et al. (2005) revealed that the police confiscated and sometimes even destroyed refugees' identity documents and papers. Refugees confirmed that they had to stoop to the level of paying bribes to prevent arrests and possible deportation by the police. Their comments highlight the fragile environment they find themselves in, where there seems to be little sense of security and safety at any given moment in their lives.

4.5 The threat of xenophobia

The May 2008 xenophobic attacks threatened the lives of many foreigners in South Africa. Sixty-two people died in the attacks, many more were injured or raped, and 25 000 were displaced from their homes (Dalton-Greyling, 2008:3). It was interesting to hear the views of South Africans expressed by the refugees in our study. Two said they believed South Africans hated foreigners, saying emphatically: ‘They don't like us… they have hatred’ and ‘South Africans are not good people. They show their hatred to us.’ A further view expressed by the 30 year old Congolese interviewee describes South Africans as being ‘selfish and racist – they see no importance in you’. Other participants described their experiences of coming into contact with local South Africans as follows:

In my country we used to like foreigners. Here it is totally the opposite. Now we hear rumours that after the World Cup in 2010 we are not going to stay in peace anymore. (Congolese woman, 44 years old)

Sometimes, we speak to some but by speaking to them, you get their intention. They don't like foreigners here. They say they would rather be alone, they claim there has now been jobs taken and prices have gone up. (Congolese woman, 31 years old)

They call us makwerekwere 4 – they say we bother them in their country. (Burundian woman, 22 years old)

Such comments made it clear that the participants had been on the receiving end of xenophobic sentiments from South Africans.

5. Survival strategies

In spite of their traumatic experiences in South Africa, the refugees had developed survival strategies that enabled them to deal with the hardships of their daily lives. To provide for basic necessities such as food, accommodation and shelter, some of them engaged in various informal work, petty trading or even hawking. These were, however, not a consistent activity. A number of the participants mentioned the lack of some sort of financial capital to set up an informal business. For example, the 44 year old interviewee from the DRC gave the following account:

In Congo you don't need much money to run a business but here in South Africa it is very hard, you need money, and enough money. I tried to open a business but it was very hard. Even to have a space for your business is very difficult.

At least four of the interviewees had previously worked in their countries of origin and eight had either secondary or tertiary educational qualifications. However, most of them found it nearly impossible to get a job in South Africa. Two were engaged in informal jobs on the odd occasion, but most did not appear to have any consistent work, whether formal or informal. It was unclear how these women survived financially. Cohabiting husbands and older children in some case played an important role in strategies to make ends meet. An interesting strategy used by all 10 interviewees was being persistent in appealing for help. There seems to be a dichotomous relationship between the refugees' need for assistance on the one hand and begging for assistance on the other. From the data it seems that the refugees in the study sought assistance from primarily two sources: relief organisations and friends.

Organisations such as the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) and the UNHCR seem to have been first ports of call for assistance for many of the participants. Yet it appears the assistance is short-lived. A 31 year old Congolese woman relayed her experience as follows:

When I first came [to South Africa] I went to the JRS for accommodation and assistance. I have been at the human rights [UNHCR] and here at Unisa for my kids' school. That is where I go. JRS helped with money for rent. The second time, they refused.

The 22 year old Burundian shared a similar experience:

I do nothing at the moment. I just beg from the JRS. At the moment, they are tired of me and don't give me anything.

Not all of the participants were successful in eliciting help from the JSR – as was evident from the following account by a 26 year old Burundian woman:

I have once gone to the UNHCR, they referred me to the JRS but the JRS never helped. I only got assisted at Unisa with free classes for English.

Two of the participants said they asked friends for help – which included both financial and emotional support. For example, one of the Congolese women said: ‘I have close friends who help me in counselling, even spiritual counselling as well’, and another added: ‘We share ideas and even when they have something financially they give.’ This seems to imply a reciprocal relationship of sharing of financial resources, since they all appear to be in the same desperate situation.

Still a fledgling democracy, South Africa continues to battle with its own development agenda. Many of the refugees make their way to South Africa with a clear expectation of a better life, only to be disillusioned. A 30 year old Congolese participant said: ‘I decided to come and stay here because I heard that South Africa is a country where human rights are respected.’ It could be argued that this expectation created a need that was not fulfilled or realised, and in response refugees merely ask for what they need since it is their basic human right.

The above discussion calls for a deeper analysis of the situation. As poignant as the stories are, there seems to be a dichotomy of appearing completely helpless on the one hand and being almost forceful in approaching others for help on the other hand. It appears that some refugees may manipulate the ‘victim’ approach as a tool to achieve compensation. Playing the victim may very well be part of refugees' survival strategy. Rather than being passive victims of their circumstances, these refugees seem to be active agents who, despite (or because of) their dire situation, grab any opportunity to ask for assistance. For example, some participants, especially when first approached to participate in the study, were more than willing to tell their stories but in the same breath asked how they would benefit from the research.

The refugees' engagement in informal activities exposes them to the whims of the police in terms of hounding, accepting bribes and confiscating goods, and since they have difficulty accessing a banking service, this sets them up as easily accessible ‘cash cows’ for thieves and corrupt police (see Landau & Jacobsen, 2004; Madsen, 2004). Madsen captures the essence of the nature of inner-city Mozambican migrants as ‘striving to remain invisible from the state in order to uphold their livelihood practices’ (2004:173).

Like other transient migrant communities, those of Sunnyside provide the practical building blocks of accommodation, work opportunities, safety and security and basic necessities for survival. This strategy works because it draws on the similarity of experiences and hardships experienced by migrants and refugees. Friends and family provide the necessary help in terms of lending money and providing religious counselling and emotional support. The JRS provides what it can, but refuses to create a dependency relationship, given that under the 1998 Refugees Act refugees and asylum seekers are guaranteed extensive rights.

6. Conclusion

This study explored the experiences of a small number of Burundian and Congolese refugees living in the inner-city area of Sunnyside, Pretoria, with the aim of understanding how they cope on a daily basis in a foreign country. The findings showed that the lack of security and the feeling of being unsafe were overriding concerns for most of the participants. Most felt that pre-war life back home, with their family around them and the possibility of employment, was much better than life in South Africa at present. The difficulty in accessing Home Affairs to obtain papers such as refugee or asylum permits was endlessly frustrating for them. Without papers they cannot engage in the formal economy and thus are unable to secure long-term employment. Their constant concerns about survival, daily subsistence and shelter, protection against crime and eviction, and the ongoing threat of xenophobia are just some of the problems they have to deal with on a daily basis.

The study corroborated the findings of previous studies in South Africa on refugees and asylum seekers. The question remains as to why the findings are almost a carbon copy of previous studies and why nothing appears to have changed. South Africa is the world's largest recipient of asylum seekers, and vast numbers of economic migrants are also entering in the guise of asylum seekers (UNHCR, 2010a). Most South Africans are unable to distinguish between legal migrants, refugees, economic migrants and foreign criminals active in the country. Among the tasks of developing a new democracy, the South African Government is working to reduce the high unemployment rate, improve social services and provide better access to them, and reduce the rising crime rate and narrow the income disparities in the country. There is a tendency to paint all refugees and asylum seekers with the same brush, leading to xenophobic sentiments against them. South Africans in general are ignorant of the rights of refugees as stipulated in the amended Refugees and Immigration Acts. To compound this, inefficiencies and corruption on the part of Home Affairs may complicate these issues. Cognisance should also be taken of the government's limited capacity for providing humanitarian aid (CoRMSA, 2009).

As Crush et al. observe, migration is a ‘cross-cutting phenomenon’ and needs to encompass all aspects of state policy-making and planning machinery (2005:1). Deputy Minister Chohan acknowledges the deficiencies of the asylum management system and claims that recent amendments to the Acts are intended to rationalise the process. She is also committed to a complete review of the asylum seeker management process (Chohan, 2011). In this vein, other significant recommendations should be given credence. The UNHCR (2010a) pledges to provide training, advice and backing to Home Affairs. It wishes to reinforce an integrative approach with government departments, NGOs, human rights organisations and refugee communities and engage in intensive capacity building initiatives. Awareness campaigns and information will also be conducted in communities. Polzer argues that proper forecasting of rural-urban migration at provincial and local government level to enhance service delivery, greater awareness of migrants' basic human and socioeconomic rights on the part of service providers, and a more effective and efficient implementation of the asylum system are just some of the policy issues that need to be considered by the state (2010a:5–6). Expanding on these views, the Centre for Development and Enterprise advocates that the most immediate priority is restoring public confidence and the integrity of the state with regard to its immigration policy and its implementation (CDE, 2010:5). Further, the enormous potential that skilled migrants and asylum seekers can bring in to create jobs and uplift the economy needs to be investigated.

The CoRMSA report suggests that migration should not be viewed as a threat to the country's financial security; instead, if managed successfully it could lead to ‘investment, job creation, and a more productive economy’ (2009:9). The above recommendations need to be established within a ‘human rights based framework’ that protects the rights of all refugees, documented and undocumented, in South Africa.

Notes

¹The countries include Afghanistan, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, the DRC, Ghana, Ireland, Lesotho, Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia, Swaziland, Tanzania, the US, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

²See Landau et al. (2005:11) for a detailed list of conventions.

³There is anecdotal evidence that, because some South African landlords are charging refugees high rentals, some refugees resort to subletting rooms in their flats to be used as crèches or restaurants during the day.

⁴ Makwerekwere is a derogatory word used by black South Africans to refer to (usually black) people from other African countries who have migrated to South Africa.