The issue of migrant workers could have serious implications for 2024 elections

Source: Fin24, 17/02/2022

�` 17 Feb 2022

For South African political parties grappling with the idea of
coalition politics ahead of 2024, the issue of migrant workers may be
the most crucial of all deliberations, says Khaya Sithole.
Just over 30 years ago this month during an interview on Larry King
Live, Ross Perot decided to put up his hand and run for the US
presidency.
Perot`s profile as a billionaire who was not part of the Washington
establishment but simply wanted to change the way the establishment
worked, had significant consequences for the 1992 elections and, as it
turned out, for the 2016 US election campaign.
At the heart of Perot`s message, was the idea that the other
contenders �` George HW Bush and Bill Clinton, were too entrenched in
the establishment to actually fix it.
As it turned out, that election campaign coincided with the ongoing
deliberations around the trade agreement between the US, Mexico and
Canada. The most contentious points related to the impact of the
proposed agreement on US jobs.
As the US labour market had evolved over time and offered various
protections and guaranteed to workers, the labour force of Mexico had
little in the way of such protections. The question of whether freeing
up the trade border would create an incentive for US businesses to
shift their operations across the Mexico, was the most polarising
element of the debate.
One the one hand, the view was that globalism and globalisation rather
than protectionism, are always good things that the US needed to
champion. The predicted positive effects of the proposed agreement �`
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) �` included a
turbocharging of trade activity across the three nations.
The unknown variable was whether the integration of trade partners
with such vastly different profiles �` the US and Canada on one side
and Mexico on the other side, would not lead to a one-way exodus of
jobs in the direction of Mexico in pursuit of lower production costs.
The presidential contenders also took a bite at trying to crystallise
the impact of NAFTA. Clinton �` who would eventually emerge as the
winner of the election in November 1992 �` predicted that NAFTA would
result in an export boom for Mexico and that could generate up to 200
000 additional jobs by 1995 and a million jobs within the first five
years of the agreement.
Bush �` dealing with the aftermath of the Gulf War and the declining
economic prospects of the US economy facing increasing unemployment,
was far less decisive on the NAFTA question. Perot used the first
presidential debate to predict that NAFTA would result in a giant
sucking sound of jobs moving southward to Mexico.
The predictions of each of the candidates were not altogether
accurate. As the trade borders opened up, one of the fundamental risks
�` that Mexican wages would remain low rather than rise up to US
standards - became a persistent reality.
That on its own stifled the ability of the Mexican economy to grow.
The automobile sector in particular, which has always been the bedrock
of the North American economies, provided the most granular insights
into the effect of NAFTA.
At the end of 2016, the Centre for Automotive Research estimated that
55% of light vehicles produced in Mexico were for the US market. This
implied that automotive manufacturers had indeed used NAFTA as the
basis for shifting some production capacity across to Mexico.
The Economic Policy Institute predicted that over 700 000 US workers
were displaced by the implementation of the NAFTA agreement �` with
Mexican workers the primary beneficiaries of this displacement.
Regrettably, Mexican wages remained low and hence the predicted rise
in wages for Mexican workers did not materialise.
Such variables were important many years after Perot`s presidential
run, when Donald Trump promised to withdraw from NAFTA if he were to
be elected.
Trump`s narrative centred on the fact that those US workers who had
lost jobs in the automotive sector could simply identify NAFTA as the
original source of their plight and resultant plague of unemployment.
For communities dependent on the automotive sector, such sentiments
resonated strongly and materially influenced the election of Trump.
The crux of Trump`s presidency was using xenophobic overtones
regarding Mexicans in order to push for a revision of NAFTA.
That process consumed the bulk of his presidency and was eventually
finalised at the beginning of 2020, which turned out to be the
valedictory year of his presidency.
The tensions between trade, politics and labour migration have become
a topical issue in South Africa in recent months.
As luck would have it, it was the involvement of a multimillionaire
businessman in national politics that reignited the debate. Herman
Mashaba �` who previously served as mayor of Johannesburg under a DA
ticket, launched a new political party, Action SA, ahead of the local
government elections.
A key message of the campaign, and something Mashaba had championed
during his time at City Hall, was the need to deal with illegal
immigration in South Africa. The profile of immigrants in South Africa
remains a poorly understood picture for various reasons.
Firstly, the porous nature of our borders, where the question of
financial resources is the decisive factor between accessing South
Africa or not, makes it remarkably difficult to get an accurate
assessment of the profile of immigrant citizens.
When former finance minister Tito Mboweni tweeted in April 2020 that
`almost 100% of restaurant workers were foreigners`, it ignited heated
debates across the Twitter sphere. Obviously, his calculation was
completely wrong, but crucially, when Africa Check sough to get a more
accurate picture of the prevalence of foreign workers in that sector,
it concluded that while the number of foreign-born workers in the
restaurant sector had been as high as 11.3% in 2011, that number had
declined to just 6.5% by 2017.
Secondly, the immediate problem with the assessment of foreign workers
in the restaurant industry is that it relies on the type of
disclosures that are not universally practised �` especially in
relation to undocumented workers and migrants.
While Africa Check cites Statistics South Africa as the primary source
of the data, it is unavoidable to note that workers who are not
documented are unlikely to voluntarily participate in any data-
gathering exercise for fear of reprisals.
Similarly for employers who have undocumented immigrants on staff,
such disclosures are likely to be seen as self-defeating. As a result,
we known that the number exists somewhere in the spectrum of Mboweni`s
hyperbole and Africa Check`s conclusions.
The bigger problem in South Africa is the fact that just like in the
US automotive sector, some sectors do indeed experience a higher
prevalence of foreign workers �` both documented and undocumented �`
that participate in the economic value chain. This is where anecdotal
observations and empirical facts intersect �` often with conflicting
interpretations.
For a young person unable to access an economic opportunity, observing
non-South Africans occupying those jobs can elicit curiosity that
often mutates to resentment. This is worsened where the country`s
policy around migration and foreign workers is poorly understood.
Industries characterised by lax compliance with labour laws, provide a
fertile ground for both workers and employers who wish to evade the
net of scrutiny, to continuously practice policies that are not
aligned to the laws of the land.
Within the economic value chain, sectors like the hospitality sector,
where the definition of a job may be an ad-hoc assignment that
requires little in the way of formal documentation, are likely to
experience such realities more acutely than highly regulated sectors.
This creates a possibility that the anecdotal experiences of citizens
on the ground �` whether they feel more foreigners are competing with
them for jobs or any other contention �` are unlikely to be validated
by empirical data as evidenced in the case study of the restaurant
sector.
The use of tested data �` which simply suggests that the issue is
exaggerated - does little to quell the tensions of those living with
the daily squeeze of displacement.
The unavoidable effect is the increased tensions across society. At
the end of 2021, Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi announced that
the Zimbabwean exemption permits would be coming to an end.
Naturally, such an announcement generated hysteria and panic among
those affected. To some, the minister seemed to be getting on the
anti-immigration bandwagon that Mashaba was accused of championing.
Surprisingly, that seemed to miss the crucial tenets of Mashaba`s
stance and that of the EFF under Julius Malema. In Mashaba`s
utterances, the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is
the pivot point.
The anecdotal evidence �` which resonates with many property owners
whose buildings may have been hijacked by individuals both foreign and
local; and inner-city citizens who feel that there is a significant
presence of foreigners in their midst - is that there is an
immigration problem.
On the other end of the spectrum, the EFF`s position on open borders
is derided as an invitation to further displacement for South African
workers. Both interpretations seem to be straying from the central
essence of what the two parties �` admittedly led by leaders whose
articulation capacity on the issue are clearly problematic �` are
trying to actually say.
For Action SA, the idea of regularising immigrants is something that
even Motsoaledi has championed since his days as health minister. In
his previous role, Motsoaledi lamented the inability to allocate
resources adequately across the health ecosystem, when one is unable
to predict utilisation of such facilities.
Given the constitutional requirements around access to healthcare and
the Hippocratic oath itself, a health system is likely to suffer the
most acute effects of the impact of undocumented immigrants who cannot
be denied access to healthcare facilities. Similarly, when buildings
are hijacked, both by local and foreign hijackers, steps to correct
that are indeed sensible.
The instinctive reaction to brand the Action SA approach as xenophobic
serves little to advance the debate. Rather, it is seen as a tool for
shutting down the conversation entirely.
The problem with tha, is that there are far too many citizens whose
experiences of the system resonate with the issues Action SA seeks to
raise. Its electoral performance in the 2021 local government
elections indicates what some sections of the electorate are persuaded
by the party`s stance on illegal immigration.
The EFF, on the other hand, suffers from the effects of the disconnect
between its stance and the actual reality of labour migration patterns
and the country`s policy on migration. The idea of opening up borders
among trade partners is not actually an invention of Malema himself.
Rather, it is a reflection of practices across the different trade
blocs in the world. The European Union`s open border policy is an
example of this.
The fundamental flaw in the EFF`s pronouncements is that in the
absence of a clear trade policy across neighbouring states that
defines the purpose and regulations, calling for open borders is
premature.
The African Continental Free Trade Agreement is an example of an
economic policy that seeks to gradually reduce trade barriers across
the continent at large. The idea that the movement of citizens in the
long run will follow the same pattern, is not altogether far-fetched.
But for as long as South Africa has an employment crisis, any idea
that increases possibilities of displacement for local citizens is
simply untenable politically.
A common response to the current crisis is that the deportation of one
does not create a job for another. That of course shifts the debate on
to the known reality that there aren`t enough jobs to begin with.
However, the displacement question �` where those out of the jobs net
feel their chances would be improved if there were fewer foreigners,
particularly undocumented ones, to compete with �` needs to be
addressed rather than dismissed.
Since Motsoaledi`s announcement on Zimbabwe exemption permits (ZEPs),
accusations of xenophobia and Afrophobia have escalated. The point
that seems to have been missed is that the very origination of the
permits was not a result of a committed policy to enable easier labour
migration across the two countries.
Rather, it became yet another cop-out by the government of the day
that found it easier to regularise the many Zimbabwean citizens who
had been displaced by the political turmoil of the late 2000s; rather
than condemn the Mugabe regime for having created the crisis.
The sobering reality is that no clear policy balancing the social,
economic and political considerations of the ZEP regime was cogently
crafted. As a result, the various administrations have perpetually
renewed the permits with the hope that the tension points would
organically disappear.
Unfortunately for South Africa, that model is no longer tenable and
difficult conversations around how to manage to effects of the rising
tensions between disaffected citizens fearing continuous displacement,
and the immigrants seeking a better future for themselves, are now
overdue.
The political implications of getting this conversation right are not
without precedent. At the end of the 1992 US presidential elections,
Perot emerged with the best third-man performance in US elections
since Roosevelt 80 years earlier.
His 19% poll resulted in neither of the main candidates receiving a
majority of the ballot. For South African political parties grappling
with the idea of coalition politics ahead of 2024, this is just one of
the key conversations they need to address.
Given its polarising nature, it may be the most crucial of all
deliberations ahead of 2024, particularly if the current
administration does little to address the jobs crisis.
www,samigration.com