By Professor Nicky Morgan
Historical solidarity creates a moral obligation to treat people humanely and fairly, but it does not require a state to surrender its responsibility to govern migration, protect public resources, or prioritize the constitutional rights of its citizens. How do we find the balance when faced with the current challenges?
Regarding the comparison with the apartheid era, many South African exiles in countries such as Zambia, Tanzania, Angola and Mozambique were indeed hosted under specific arrangements. Many lived in camps, settlements, educational institutions, or facilities managed by liberation movements and host governments. Their movement, employment opportunities, and legal status were often regulated. The support they received was significant, but it was not generally equivalent to unrestricted settlement or unrestricted access to labour markets.
However, even if that historical comparison is accurate, it does not automatically determine what South Africa should do today. The relevant question is not whether present circumstances exactly mirror the past, but what obligations a modern constitutional state has now.
A government has at least three duties simultaneously:
- To its own citizens
- protect constitutional rights,
- maintain public order,
- manage public finances,
- create opportunities for employment and development.
- To lawful residents and migrants
- apply the law fairly,
- protect basic human rights,
- prevent exploitation and abuse,
- provide due process.
- To the broader region
- cooperate with neighbouring states,
- honour international commitments,
- contribute to regional stability.
None of these duties completely overrides the others.
The principle many democratic states follow is:
Assistance should be provided to the extent reasonably possible, but a government is not required to abandon immigration controls or ignore the effects of unmanaged migration on infrastructure, services, labour markets, and social cohesion.
Likewise, neighbouring governments cannot reasonably expect another country to absorb unlimited numbers of their citizens while they bear no responsibility for the underlying causes of migration or for cooperating on legal migration systems, documentation, border management, and repatriation where necessary.
So if someone says:
“When South Africans needed support, we stood by them.”
A reasonable response is:
“That history deserves recognition and gratitude. It supports a duty of humane treatment and regional solidarity. But solidarity does not mean open-ended obligations, nor does it remove the responsibility of every government to care for its own citizens and to manage migration in an orderly, lawful, and sustainable manner.”
That position acknowledges the historical debt without turning it into an unlimited claim on the resources, institutions, or policy choices of the modern South African state.
No human being should be subjected to violence by their own government or the government of a country they find themselves residing in. By law, South Africa agrees with this. How then will South Africans and the rest of the continent navigate the way forward after this intense week? Or will unity be left in the dustbins of history? Much depends on balancing the eternal Scales of Justice.
Professor Nicky Morgan is an experienced higher education leader who guided institutions through transformation, crisis, restructuring, governance renewal and merger integration. He was shaped in the politics of the turbulent 70’s. He drew on ChatGPT in preparation for the formulation of his thoughts above. Many millions fought for the right for March and March to express their opinion. They did not fight for their leader to turn Africans against Africans and then possibly leave on a scholarship abroad. ZJ
