Economic Inclusion: A paradigm Shift from the Radical Economic Transformation (RET) in the Context of Growing Xenophobia in South Africa

This article analyses the experience of migration in the light of Radical Economic Transformation (RET) program of the SA government and argues that the program has been high jacked by nationalists who are now using transformation to side-line non South Africans in the socio-economic development programmes. Article contends that migrants contribute to regional, national, and global development through networks and (like anywhere in the world) are an integral part of the South African society, playing a “multifaceted role” in various capacities such as workers, business owners, community members/organisers and leaders of social justice and faith based movements. Given the volatility of the South African society, it suggested that use of a term such as “Economic Inclusion” could be less controversial than Radical Economic Transformation which breeds violence. In addition, it is suggested that while acknowledging that the extremes between poverty and wealth require a radical economic paradigm, political and public discourse should be sensitive to the volatility of the South African context and promote the inclusion of migrants in socio-economic development programs.

was resolved that: " [W]e are boldly entering the second phase of the transition from apartheid colonialism to a national democratic society. This phase will be characterised by decisive action to effect economic transformation and democratic consolidation, critical both to improve the quality of life of all South Africans and to promote nationbuilding and social cohesion". In order to advance economic transformation, the ANC resolved, at Mangaung, as follows:

Economic Inclusion as an Alternative Term
What I also find misleading is the use of the term "radical", given the high levels of violence, crime and corruption it would appear like some opportunists are now using it for political and selfish gains, at the expense of national development. As a transformation expert, Oberholzer suggested that terms such as "Economic Inclusion" is a less scary way of talking RET. While acknowledging that the extremes between poverty and wealth require a radical economic paradigm, political and public discourse should be sensitive to the volatility of the South African context and promote peace and stability. For example, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)'s land reform draws it radical approach from this narrative and most landless people have been using this political drive to conduct "unlawful" land invasions. In an article that seeks to conceptualise "radical land reform" Jankielsohn and Duvenhage (2017)  there are radicals who postulate the idea, "I know the good, extend it", while on the other side there are those who postulate, "I know the evil, eliminate it". While the former may promote greater involvement in their approach to politics, the latter may promote greater resistance (Stankiewicz, 2001, p. 217). Those on the extreme left of the radical spectrum are often referred to as hawks, due to the often violent methods employed by them, while those on the right of this spectrum are referred to as doves, due to the often peaceful methods of protest. Within the South African context, the use of the term "radical" provides political justification for leaders who think they "know good from evil" and therefore consider themselves as liberators of the masses, with little or no consideration on of the implications for such rhetoric on peace and stability. In my view, this political discourse is partly responsible for the violent crimes and xenophobia which are prevalent in South African communities.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the RET program has received mixed opinions since it was launched.
For example, the Sunday Times (Note 5) reported that one of South Africa's richest businessmen Johann Rupert described the program as "a code word for theft" to the ire of the political leaders who give assurances that alleged corruption exposed through what is now known as "State Capture" was in the process of formal investigations and had nothing to do with the RAT program. A similar diplomatic intervention from the ANC led government (Note 6) was also displayed after the US President Trump tweeted on South Africa's land reform program after watching news from Fox News who alleged that South Africa's land reform was racist, prompting the Rand to fall as investors reacted negatively. The South African government hit back, tweeting that it "totally rejects this narrow perception which only seeks to divide our nation" and later issued public statements to assure investors that the land reform program will be conducted lawfully and South Africa will not follow the route taken by Zimbabwe.
On the contrary, we have not seen such high level interventions when migrants are attacked. The government continues to downplay violent xenophobia and instead, it has naturalised anti-outsider violence by constantly blaming it on criminality or the natural resentment poor South Africans feel towards those they perceive as "stealing" opportunities from them, ignoring evidence from authoritative studies which have warmed the government of impending attacks. Similarly, civil society efforts have fared little better in arresting the violence as most organisations have also responded in what others (Note 7) call a classic "garbage-can" fashion, matching ready-made solutions to problems through marches, education campaigns, rights awareness symposiums, and social cohesion summits, ignoring documented abuse of migrants. Changing dynamics in South African communities constantly present complex challenges which will require new interventions based on the recognition that migrants are an integral part of the South African society.

Radical Transformation, as Exclusion of Migrants
It is a well-documented reality that the response to increased migration in the world has been marked by restrictive regulatory responses to migrations flows especially in Europe where they frame asylum seekers fleeing wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen and other countries as a "security threat" and thereby criminalise the act of seeking safety, including the humanitarian aid workers and organisations. For example, in June this year the world witnessed a "cruel stand-off" (Note 8)  South African political and public discourses on foreign migrants are increasingly oriented towards regimes of exclusion, as opposed to promotion of diversity. Civic and state approach to migration along this trajectory ranges from integration, tolerance, to outright hostile xenophobia which manifests in sporadic waves of xenophobic attacks and a clear distinction between citizens/non-citizens brazenly maintained and now slowly reinforced through legislature which limit rights to non-South African citizens. As the vestiges of apartheid remain intact, neoliberalists resist socio-economic transformation intended to shift the balance of fortunes towards creating more opportunities for the previously disadvantaged black majority. From the early 1990s, which kicks off a particularly neoliberal phase of capitalist globalization which necessitated the surge in migrations flows, the global economy has changed rapidly as migrations shift from significant numbers of highly skilled professionals to ordinary people on the move. To stem this tide, the South African government now prioritises reception of highly skilled labour, neglecting its legal responsibility to provide refuge to asylum seekers.
These restrictive and inhuman policies against the movement of people wane humanitarianism and have led to hospitality fatigue. As Agnes Musonda and Liesbeth Schokaert (Note 9) observed while reflecting on the white paper on immigration by the Department of Home Affairs, the highlight the South African government's subtle move to stifle migration when they observe that: Last year, the Cabinet approved locating the department of home affairs within the security cluster (alongside justice, police, military and correctional services). It repositioned the department towards adopting a new, empowered border management approach and playing a strategic role in South Africa's economic development. Additionally, South Africa's recently adopted white paper on international migration is evidence of a trajectory that will conflate migration legislation and policy with national security and migrants with skills and capital", and shut out unskilled people from the region with more stringent measures, including criminalising the undocumented, who keep entering the country… In crude terms, it proposes introducing interventions to "attract international migrants with skills and capital", and shut out unskilled people from the region with more stringent measures, including criminalising the undocumented, who keep entering the country.
In what the authors refer to as a callous policy, they argue that the passing of the Border Management Agency Bill by the National Assembly last year set in motion the creation of a centralised authority with sweeping powers over South Africa's ports of entry, including policing and customs. The Bill is set to be considered by the National Council of Provinces although legal experts and civic organisations that took part in the consultative process of the bill, have raised concerns about extensive powers of search, seizure and arrest with or without a warrant contained in the Bill, which could lead to the abuse of vulnerable people and asylum seekers. Based on the comparisons with the developments in Europe, Musonda and Schokaert conclude that the white paper paved way towards South Africa's eerily path which is reminiscent of some of what we have witnessed in Europe and they warn that South Africans now face a challenge to: stand up to prevent a roll-back of protections that vulnerable people require when they flee persecution and unliveable conditions back home, or witness the institutionalised erosion of humanity and dignity we've seen globally.
Within the South African context, the political and public discourse on transformation seems to be taking another dimension; it means putting South African citizens first and replacing foreigners in employment positions with South African citizens, especially in public institutions managed by the government. As part of ongoing research I have listened to migrants and refugees sharing their experiences of living in South Africa and most of them live in fear, hopelessness as they are not certain if their jobs or economic welfare is guaranteed under the new dispensation of Radical Economic Transformation. Most of the people that I have engaged, have either been directly affected or know of someone who has been exposed to the following: Mashaba, unlike Mary Robinson, draws a stark distinction between citizens and migrants, and he has risen to prominence for his very critical stance against migrants as he announced marking his 100 days in office "I will do everything possible to provide accommodation. But the City of Johannesburg will only provide accommodation to South Africans. Foreigners, whether legal or illegal, are not the responsibility of the city". (Note 12) While many have dismissed Mayor Mashaba as xenophobic nationalist, we observed that a close reading of his speeches suggest that he frames his expulsion of migrants as a socially responsible campaign, invoking the right to exclude migrants in the interest of the citizenry and national development.
In this paper we also discussed recent developments in the field of religion and migration studies and argued that migration of people has untapped resources for development and social transformation, warning that engagements with migration serves as a barometer for social cohesion and social responsibility in South Africa. It is therefore critical to counter and debunk these divisive discourses which unconsciously sustain and reinforce parallel societies through the exclusion or marginalisation of migrants. With migration a part of global life for many societies, there is growing intolerance and the phenomenon of parallel migrant communities living on the margins of society, has emerged as a counter response to nationalism and marginalisation of foreigners in host communities. As Laura Grillo (in Adogame & Spickard, 2010, p. 143) also observes; the "African Diaspora" has been conceived as an epistemological community, a shared consciousness activating a sense of transnational affiliation across political boundaries". Laura further suggest that the consciousness of the African diaspora, and the self-conscious communities it fosters, has its basis in an overarching religious worldview, and more particularly, in the principles and values encoded in and transmitted through the practice of divination and its culminating ritual sacrifice. Religion often binds migrants together as means to sustain and maintain migrant communities.
Migrants contribute to the construction and reconstruction of communities in many ways. For example, a recent publication Migrants and City-Making (Note 13), Caglar and Schliller (2018) demonstrate how migrants contribute to regional, national, and global development through networks and debunk the notion that migrants threaten social cohesion/stability and challenge assumptions that they exist on the periphery of society (and require integration). Instead, as Caglar and Schiller rightly argue, migrants play a "multifaceted role" as City Makers, urban developers, business owners, community organisers and leaders of social justice movements. By reflecting on the role of migrants in City Making in this way, the authors highlight how urban development or city making as they call it, highlights multiple forces at play as people move. It is therefore disturbing to note how the current political and public discourse frame migrants as helpless people who need the sympathy and hospitality of the host communities.
The political and public discourse on transformation seems to be taking another dimension; it means putting South African citizens first and replacing foreigners and changing this situation will also require going against dominant narratives to destabilise the language and approaches used to speak about violence and immigration in South African and the rest of the world.

Conclusion
This article first analysed South Africa's Radical Economic Transformation (RET) program and suggested that a term "Economic Inclusion" is less controversial rather than Radical Economic Transformation which fuels crime and xenophobic violence. Drawing from the global increase in migration, article observed that there has been restrictive regulatory responses to migrations flows and there is a tendency to frame migrants and asylum seekers as a "security threat". In addition, while acknowledging that the extremes between poverty and wealth require a radical economic paradigm, political and public discourse should be sensitive to the volatility of the South African context and promote the inclusion of migrants in socio-economic development programs. This article also argued that the Radical Economic program of the SA government has been high jacked by nationalists who are now using transformation to side-line non South Africans in the socio-economic development programmes and contends that migrants contribute to regional, national, and global development through networks and (like anywhere in the world) are an integral part of the South African society, playing a "multifaceted role" in various capacities such as workers, business owners, community members/organisers and leaders of social justice and faith based movements.