The South African response in dealing with the Corona pandemic needs to speak to the realities of all people living in the country, including migrant and refugee communities. Reflecting on this in light of ongoing research on the political stakes of migration governance, we find that the virus response shows little change in the government agenda when it comes to dealing with refugees and other migrants. Veritably, we see that the pandemic may even be an excuse for pushing through already-aspired to policies. This includes the securitised agenda behind the sudden building of a border fence to close off Zimbabwe and the xenophobic-rhetorical clout behind the lockdown rules about which shops are allowed to remain open. The temporary stay on renewing asylum seekers permits counts as a perfunctory exception. We show that each of these developments very much play into politics as usual.
Current research suggests that negotiations which are more inclusive are more likely to achieve durable peace since they speak to the entire population. One way to ensure public support is through the inclusion of civil society groups, either directly at the negotiation table or indirectly in supportive roles. It is argued that through their inclusion there is a positive effect on the legitimacy of negotiations which in turn leads to more durable peace. Nonetheless, the reasons why and how involving civil society groups improves the legitimacy of negotiations remains little understood. This article considers the gap in research by using original empirical data to look at the peace negotiations held in Liberia in 2003 and Kenya in early 2008. A theoretical model of legitimate negotiations will be used to show in what ways the involvement of civil society groups can in fact make the conduct of negotiations and the outcome of an agreement more legitimate for the aggrieved population.
Though a common EU-African agenda of dealing with migration goes back at least a decade with bilateral, regional and continental approaches, it has gained in visible importance in recent years. But what are the actual approaches and does the rhetoric they evoke speak to their actual practice? Unpacking 76 policy documents relating to the governance of migration from African and European institutions between 2005 and 2016, the paper finds that the rhetoric is diverting in itself (both managing and controlling mobility) but also surprisingly similar. There is however a pronounced difference between a management-orientated discourse and the restriction-orientated practice. This is likely tied to hidden agendas: for the EU moving migration controls away from Europe's borders to the African continent, whilst simultaneously strengthening the rhetorical EU-African partnership. The rhetorical mirroring in African documents may also be an attempt by African states to achieve leverage in an otherwise asymmetric relationship.
In December 2016, Gambian dictator Jammeh was surprisingly ousted through the ballot box by a democratically motivated opposition. With this remarkable change, tables also turned for Gambian migrants. Gambians abroad were called upon to return and help rebuild the nation, while political interests in host states increased to return “irregular” migrants. In what ways can migrant return be politically influential, especially after a critical juncture as in the Gambia? Current studies fail to consider different types of returnees, including those perceived as highly skilled compared to those seen as low‐skilled. We found that in post‐dictatorial Gambia, both types of returnees have political influence on the new regime. Highly skilled diaspora returnees were explicitly invited as contributors to political developments in the country and thus have a direct political influence. In contrast, low‐skilled returned migrants from Libya are considered as receivers of public goods; yet through claims to political representation they managed to carve out political influence, albeit indirectly.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.