Humanitarianism in Praxis? Probing Power Dynamics around Key Actors in Zimbabwe’s Forced Migration

Abstract

Globally, humanitarian organisations are ideally expected to render expedient and effective assistance to all (indiscriminately) vulnerable populations, ranging from victims of adverse natural hazards to those fleeing from intra-state or inter-state conflicts. Consequently, the role played by international organisations vis-à-vis creating structural justice in these contexts can be equated to restoring the displaced people’s capabilities. Capabilities are entrenched in the ability to do or be what one values in life while entitlements denote the resources that individuals should access through legal channels. Therefore, this paper intends to explore the differences between the application of the capability approach and entitlement approach and the role of international organisations (in praxis) in enhancing or hindering human capabilities. Using qualitative data from participants who work for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Zimbabwe, the paper discusses the assumed, conventional role of humanitarian institutions juxtaposed with the reality of their activities in alleviating challenges faced by the displaced communities in Zimbabwe. The findings of the paper indicate that effective interventions for the displaced communities are adversely affected by power dynamics around key actors in internal displacement. This connotes that the bid to remain politically correct hinders the NGOs from enforcing their mandated roles towards IDPs in Zimbabwe. Therefore, the paper reaches the conclusion that the Zimbabwean context of internal displacement has exposed the gaps created by the polarity between theory on displaced people’s humanitarian assistance and praxis in real-life contexts. This has particularly exposed the forced migrants to increased vulnerabilities as well as reducing the IDPs’ chances of gaining their capabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Operation Murambatsvina was a government program that arbitrarily razed down houses and other buildings which it had condemned as illegal structures. The program led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people in Zimbabwe.

  2. 2.

    Since the Zimbabwean government orchestrated the Operation Murambatsvina, the researchers used archival sources to explore the government’s role in the displaced populations’ protection and welfare. Therefore, no government official could be interviewed.

  3. 3.

    The Capability Approach propounded by Armatya Sen ‘is known for its focus on well-being freedom’, (Claassen 2009).

  4. 4.

    Basic needs are ‘those fundamental requirements that serve as the foundation for survival’, http://www.canatx.org/basicneeds/backup/documents/1999Assessment/basicneeds99whatarebasicneeds.html (Accessed March 12, 2017).

  5. 5.

    http://www.unhcr.org/protection/idps/43ce1cff2/guiding-principles-internal-displacement.html (Accessed October 17, 2017)

  6. 6.

    The researchers acknowledge that there are other displaced communities affected by the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, Operation Chikoroza Chapera, Nuanetsi Range and Chisumbanje among others. However, these were outside the scope of the current study. Minimal references will therefore be made on these.

  7. 7.

    This is due to close affinity between refugees and IDPs (often) fuelled by similar drivers of their migration.

  8. 8.

    A colloquial Shona term for chaos and violence.

  9. 9.

    http://www.unhcr.org/4444afca0.pdf (Accessed October 24, 2017).

References

  1. Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Rodhan, N. R. F., & Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of globalization: A comprehensive overview and proposal definition. Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 1–21.

  3. Amartya, S. (1983). Development: Which way now? The Economic Journal, 93(372), 745–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Asplet, M. (2013). Internal displacement: Responsibility and action. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, pp. 1–138.

  5. Badescu, C. G. (2011). Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beerkens, E. (2006). Globalisation: Definitions and perspectives. www.beerkens.info/files/globalisation.pdf Accessed 21 Nov 2017.

  7. Billing, A. (2010). Humanitarian assistance. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 3(17), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Castle, S., & Miller, M. J. (2007). The age of migration. Palgrave McMillan, pp. 69–175.

  9. Deneulin, S., Nebel, M., & Sagovsky, N. (2006). Transforming the unjust structures: The capability approach. Springer Science and Business Media Inc, 19, pp. 1–205.

  10. Devereux, S. (2001). Sen’s entitlement approach: Critiques and counter-critiques. Oxford Development Studies, 29(3), 245–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Du Plessis, M. (2008). Chinese Arms destined for Zimbabwe over South African territory: The R2P norm and the role of civil society. African Security Review, 17(4), 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dzimiri, P. (2013). Exploring the Nexus between geopolitics and intervention for human protection purposes: Lessons from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) responses to the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 36(3), 269–283.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Etzioni, A. (2005). Sovereignty as responsibility. Foreign Policy Research Institute, 71–85.

  14. Frediani, A. A., & Hansen, J. (2015). The capability approach in development planning and Urban Design. Development Planning Unit, 1–165.

  15. Gounden, V., & Camara, E. (2007). Special focus on refugees and conflict in Africa. ACCORD, pp. 1–55.

  16. Hammar, A. (2008). Reflections on displacement in Zimbabwe. Concerned African Scholars, 80, 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  17. HRW. (2005). Evicted and forsaken: IDPs in the aftermath of operation Murambatsvina. Human Rights Watch, 17(16A), 1–63.

    Google Scholar 

  18. IDMC (2014). Afghanistan: As humanitarian space shrinks, IDP policy must be implemented. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, pp. 1–14.

  19. IDMC (2015). Durable solutions: Principles and process. Displacement Monitoring Centre, pp. 1–5.

  20. Jennings, E. (2007). Internal displacement. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, pp. 1–100.

  21. Kidane, W. (2011). Managing forced displacement by law in Africa: The role of the new African union IDPs convention. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 44(1), 1–82.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lanzer, T. (2013). South Sudan at a crosswords. Humanitarian Practice Network, (57):1–36.

  23. Margesson, R., & Taft-Morales, M. (2010). Haiti earthquake: Crisis and response. Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service.

  24. Martell, L. (2010). The sociology of globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Matondi, P. B. (2012). Zimbabwe’s fast track land reform. Zed Books Ltd.

  26. Mooney, E., & Davies, A. (2016). Durable solutions on displacement. Global Cluster for Early Recovery, pp. 1–44.

  27. Musoni, F. (2010). Operation Murambatsvina and the politics of street vendors in Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies, 36(2), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mutopo, P., & Chiweshe, M. (2014). Large-scale land deals, global capital and the politics of livelihoods: Experiences of women small-holder farmers in Chisumbanje, Zimbabwe. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies - Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity, 9(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Naidu, M., & Benhura, A. (2015). Internal displacement and forced migration within Zimbabwe: An overview. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 30(1), 147–169.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rhoades, A. S. (2010). Displaced futures: Internally displaced persons and the right to education. UN University for Peace, pp. 1–61.

  31. Sarvimaki, M., Uusitalo, R., & Jantti, M. (2009). Long-term effects of forced migration. Institute for the Study of Labour, pp. 1–46.

  32. Schroeder, D., & Gefenas, E. (2009). Vulnerability: Too vague and too broad? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 18(2), 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Spiegel, S. J. (2014). Contested diamond certification: Reconfiguring global and national interests in Zimbabwe’s Marange fields. The Global Diamond Industry (pp. 153-180). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

  34. Stoecklin, D., & Bonvin, J. (2014). Children’s rights and the capability approach: Challenges and prospects. Springer Science and Business Media Inc, 8, pp. 1–297.

  35. Stravropoulou, M. (1998). Displacement and human rights: Reflections on UN practice. Human Rights Quarterly, 20(3), 515–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Thakur, R. (2011). The responsibility to protect. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Traub, J. (2006). The best intentions: Kofi Annan in the area of American world power. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Vietti, F., & Scribner, T. (2013). Human insecurity: Understanding international migration from a human security perspective. JMHS, 1(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zetter, R. (2014). Protecting forced migrants. Federal Commision on Migration, pp. 1–82.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail R. Benhura.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benhura, A.R., Naidu, M. Humanitarianism in Praxis? Probing Power Dynamics around Key Actors in Zimbabwe’s Forced Migration. Int. Migration & Integration 20, 735–749 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-018-0629-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Humanitarian organisations
  • Capabilities
  • Entitlements
  • Operation Murambatsvina
  • Forced migration
  • Internal displacement