Are immigrants facilitating corruption in the public service? Do they have the political power to do that? Or is it South African politicians facilitating corruption?
I'm glad that I'm not an anarchist, and that anarchy will probably only ever be an ideal in the minds of a few individuals.
If we loosened immigration control like you and others have argued elsewhere, we would trigger a crisis of massive proportions not because you're wrong, but because your analysis is overly normative and detached from reality.
What we're dealing with in the broader picture to some degree (I don't condone violence) is not mere bigotry or hatred, but an old tension between nationalism and Pan-Africanism on the African continent. Nyerere termed it the Pan Africanist dilemma when he spoke about it in 1966.
The nationalisms that we have worked to forge (for several plausible reasons) across the continent in the sovereign, nation-states that we inherited from colonialists naturally exist in tension with this push for greater Pan-African unity and consciousness. South Africa, while an important case study, is not unique in this regard.
Our reality is that Africa as a whole is not ready to unite. The continent may not unite for the foreseeable future as nationalism continues to be an enduring force. When I speak of a "crisis", people are going to resist this kind of Pan-Africanist politics as they are right now. They will resist continental integration as they are right now. I doubt there is much anyone can do about it.
The tradeoff with stricter immigration control is that you obviously create more bureaucracy and expand the decision making power of the state, but this is a tradeoff I'm willing to make on this topic. Our borders need to become more fortified. We must concede to nationalism on this one. We are not ready.
To be clear, I am fully with you on condemning violence and taking action against it. I'm perhaps using this piece as a launchpad to engage you on your broader views on immigration.
I have submitted another article arguing that there's no widespread anti-African or anti-integration sentiment in South Africa. I actually just submitted it today.
But on the point that my pan-Africanist views are too normative, I disagree. They're rooted in the practical necessity of building a strong country. I am a nationalist too, in a way, and my nationalism leads me to integration with the continent as the only way we can practically build the prosperity and security required to build South African power (I start from the point of view that the power of a state, relative to other states, is rooted in the size of the population and the economic production).
It is not a new desire, even Rhodes (not a principled pan-Africanist by any stretch) recognised the necessity of this integration. We must not conveniently use the nations given to us by the colonisers as an excuse against pursuing unity, while ignoring the steps taken by them towards continental unity.
SACU, that greatest example of pan-Africanism, responsible for more than half of all intra-African trade, was founded in 1910, it survived both colonialism and apartheid. If there was no SACU and I suggested we start it today, African nationalists (of the narrow nationalism that seeks to preserve colonial borders beyond reason) would argue against this.
Which brings me to agency, what we are really saying is that only the colonialists had the agency to build institutions, including the nations we have inherited. We cannot possibly trust ourselves to build.
SACU free movement of goods or people ? i believe the goods and people are accounted for. I don't see how that solves the fear & problem we have of few countries getting most influx.
It is going to be difficult to have the free movement of goods, services and capital without the free movement of people. That will just add economic friction. Think about if, if I had to apply for a visa to go to Joburg, how hard/easy would it be for me to:
1. Start a business there.
2. Offer a service like accounting or auto repairs?
I'm glad that I'm not an anarchist, and that anarchy will probably only ever be an ideal in the minds of a few individuals.
If we loosened immigration control like you and others have argued elsewhere, we would trigger a crisis of massive proportions not because you're wrong, but because your analysis is overly normative and detached from reality.
What we're dealing with in the broader picture to some degree (I don't condone violence) is not mere bigotry or hatred, but an old tension between nationalism and Pan-Africanism on the African continent. Nyerere termed it the Pan Africanist dilemma when he spoke about it in 1966.
The nationalisms that we have worked to forge (for several plausible reasons) across the continent in the sovereign, nation-states that we inherited from colonialists naturally exist in tension with this push for greater Pan-African unity and consciousness. South Africa, while an important case study, is not unique in this regard.
Our reality is that Africa as a whole is not ready to unite. The continent may not unite for the foreseeable future as nationalism continues to be an enduring force. When I speak of a "crisis", people are going to resist this kind of Pan-Africanist politics as they are right now. They will resist continental integration as they are right now. I doubt there is much anyone can do about it.
The tradeoff with stricter immigration control is that you obviously create more bureaucracy and expand the decision making power of the state, but this is a tradeoff I'm willing to make on this topic. Our borders need to become more fortified. We must concede to nationalism on this one. We are not ready.
To be clear, I am fully with you on condemning violence and taking action against it. I'm perhaps using this piece as a launchpad to engage you on your broader views on immigration.
I have submitted another article arguing that there's no widespread anti-African or anti-integration sentiment in South Africa. I actually just submitted it today.
But on the point that my pan-Africanist views are too normative, I disagree. They're rooted in the practical necessity of building a strong country. I am a nationalist too, in a way, and my nationalism leads me to integration with the continent as the only way we can practically build the prosperity and security required to build South African power (I start from the point of view that the power of a state, relative to other states, is rooted in the size of the population and the economic production).
It is not a new desire, even Rhodes (not a principled pan-Africanist by any stretch) recognised the necessity of this integration. We must not conveniently use the nations given to us by the colonisers as an excuse against pursuing unity, while ignoring the steps taken by them towards continental unity.
SACU, that greatest example of pan-Africanism, responsible for more than half of all intra-African trade, was founded in 1910, it survived both colonialism and apartheid. If there was no SACU and I suggested we start it today, African nationalists (of the narrow nationalism that seeks to preserve colonial borders beyond reason) would argue against this.
Which brings me to agency, what we are really saying is that only the colonialists had the agency to build institutions, including the nations we have inherited. We cannot possibly trust ourselves to build.
I do understand the economic argument against immigration and I have dealt with it here: https://www.news24.com/citypress/voices/mpiyakhe-dhlamini-closed-borders-are-antiubuntu-so-heres-a-better-fix-for-mzansi-20260228-0977
SACU free movement of goods or people ? i believe the goods and people are accounted for. I don't see how that solves the fear & problem we have of few countries getting most influx.
It is going to be difficult to have the free movement of goods, services and capital without the free movement of people. That will just add economic friction. Think about if, if I had to apply for a visa to go to Joburg, how hard/easy would it be for me to:
1. Start a business there.
2. Offer a service like accounting or auto repairs?
3. Sell or take up employment there?
People are the problem, but it’s those in government who are to blame for this nightmare of an economy.
Agreed.