An Exploration of Refugees’ Perceptions, Agency, and the Structural Conditions Shaping Their Lives in South Africa

Abstract

The study examines refugees’ experiences in South Africa to understand how they perceive the country’s hospitality and the Ubuntu (“I am because you are”) principle that underpins its asylum framework. The study is relevant in light of refugee demonstrations demanding UNHCR resettlement to other countries. Grounded in the Critical Refugee Studies Collective, it employs a literature-based meta-analysis to explore how refugees interpret and respond to South Africa’s asylum environment. The findings show that while many refugees initially view South Africa as a place of safety, humanitarian practices that position them as dependent and passive recipients of aid can erode their sense of dignity and belonging. This tension has led some refugees to protest for recognition, improved living conditions, and respect for their rights. The paper argues that refugees’ perceptions of the South African state are shaped by their livability, meaning the quality and security of their lives within the host country. Those who experience relative stability express a stronger sense of acceptance, whereas those facing exclusion, poverty, or xenophobic violence often express dissatisfaction. The study concludes that improving structural conditions and promoting a rights-based rather than charity-based approach would enhance a more dignified environment for refugees in South Africa.

1. Introduction

This study explores how refugees living in South Africa perceive the country’s hospitality and the Ubuntu (“I am because you are”) principle that informs its approach to asylum and refugee protection. The Ubuntu values involve compassion and passion towards humanity. It reminds human beings about solidarity, survival, respect for individuals, and human dignity (Metz 2011). The research is motivated by recent demonstrations in Cape Town and other cities, where refugees demanded that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) facilitate their resettlement to third countries (Magezi 2021). These protests generated national debate: some viewed them as a rejection of South Africa’s hospitality, while others interpreted them as a legitimate expression of frustration over poor living conditions and limited protection. Drawing on the framework of the Critical Refugee Studies Collective (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022), this study explores how refugees navigate these tensions and how their perceptions reflect broader questions of dignity, rights, and belonging in post-apartheid South Africa.

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol form the cornerstone of the international refugee protection regime. The Convention defines a refugee as any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside their country of nationality and unable or unwilling to return (UNHCR 1951, 2019). It enshrines the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting States from returning a refugee to a territory where their life or freedom would be at risk. The 1967 Protocol later removed the Convention’s original temporal and geographic limits, extending its application to refugee situations worldwide. However, the Convention framework does not fully capture the complex realities of protracted displacement. Individuals whose refugee status has been revoked under the cessation clauses of Article 1C (5) and (6) often remain in precarious situations, excluded from both state and international protection (Omata 2014; Cole 2023; Durodola 2025). Such “post-cessation” refugees continue to experience unresolved displacement in defunct camps or marginal urban settlements. For example, residual Liberian and Sierra Leonean refugees in Nigeria and Ghana (Durodola 2025; Omata 2014) and Rwandan and Eritrean refugees in Uganda (Cole 2023) illustrate how the end of formal refugee status does not necessarily resolve displacement. These cases underscore the limitations of the Convention in addressing long-term protection needs after cessation.

After the end of apartheid, South Africa emerged as a regional leader in peace and security. Guided by the principles of Ubuntu and Batho Pele (“People First”), the country initially adopted an open and humanitarian approach to asylum and refugee protection (Vorvornator and Enaifoghe 2024). This openness attracted refugees from countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022). Over time, however, the realities of limited resources, unemployment, and social tensions have complicated this environment. Refugees’ “personal and economic aims” (Maple 2024), experiences, and perceptions of South Africa’s protection system are therefore shaped less by the notion of gratitude and more by the material conditions and policy constraints that determine their access to safety, rights, and livelihoods.

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees has served as a foundational instrument influencing regional frameworks such as the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees in Latin America. It has been adopted by 193 UN member states as the principal international legal framework for refugee protections, and South Africa is among its signatories (Stojanovic 2022).

This paper argues that the structural conditions in South Africa and refugee’s perceptions contradict each other. Refugees who feel secured and protected in South Africa considered the nation as desirable place to live and express a stronger sense of acceptance, whereas others who experienced xenophobic attacks and structural problems express dissatisfaction, since their perceptions and anticipations were in reality not matched with their expected livability. Do South African residence refugees express a sense of acceptance to the nation and citizens? What are the structural conditions in South Africa that triggered refugees to demand their relocation to third nation?

This paper consists of an introduction which started the article, then research methodology which is based on literature review otherwise known as a ‘meta-study’. Methodology explains how the exclusions and inclusions process were performed under the sub-heading theoretical framework, then a literature review which establishes the findings on refugees’ perceptions and structural realities in SA is presented. The study ends with research findings, a conclusion, recommendations, and general implications. The next section presents methodology of the study.

2. Methodology

This study began with a literature review (LR) that explored whether South African residence refugees’ perceptions and realities for living in the country matched. Information from secondary sources was adopted in this exploration, and these sources involved journals, articles, books, and organisational and non-organisational reports. Secondly, Taherdoost’s definition reveals that LR is desktop research and is not undertaken in the field (Taherdoost 2022). In other words, the literature review is termed as a ‘meta study’. Because it assembles, reviews, and arranges the data coherently presented in existing studies.

Several search engines, such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, Research Gate, and Web of Science, were consulted for this study. Further, search terms such as ‘residence refugees’, ‘perceptions’, ‘structural conditions’, and ‘refugees in South Africa’, were employed.

The study generated 1037 ideal publications; 1025 of these were derived from an electronic search, and 13 were found through forward and backward searches. Eligibility criteria was conducted and a total of 45 articles were selected through the following eligibility processes: (a) publications concentrate on either or both refugees’ perceptions and structural conditions globally; (b) publications focus on refugees’ perceptions and structural conditions and residence refugees in South Africa; (c) publications date in 2012 or later; and (d) publication in English. Thirteen years was chosen because it is unprecedented in refugee history on account of events and conflicts such as the Arab Spring, wars in Syria and Afghanistan creating refugees, and currently, the Russia–Ukraine war creating refugees (ongoing).

Templier and Paré (2015) identify six steps in adopting LR, namely (a) identifying the main research objectives and questions, (b) examining relevant articles, (c) making inclusions, (d) exploring articles relevance and their content, (e) extracting data, and (f) analysing data. All articles considered irrelevant were excluded. After an eligibility check, I proceeded to the information extraction and analysis stage. Data extraction deals with coding important articles related to refugees’ perceptions and realities (Creswell 2024). I adopted ‘framework analysis’, which involves methodological processes. I then analysed and extracted the important literature. The guiding process, which facilitated both analysing and extracting important information, is described by Maxwell (2021) as “sifting, charting and sorting materials according to key themes and issues”. Simply, familiarisation is performed to acquire real knowledge about the article’s importance. Thereafter, I identified the thematic framework concerns with theories and ideas that are derived from reading on South Africa residence refugees’ perceptions and realities. Indexing is performed by sifting through the information related to particular themes; charting the information is performed to ascertain important headings and sub-headings during the thematic framework stages. These were procedures that I followed. Mapping and interpretation, which involve assembling and analysing all criteria features of the dataset and a synthesis of information, were also performed.

Key articles selected for the study adopted a range of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Meta-analysis for the quantitative study was ignored because this research method was different. This means that this research did not share the same variables with a quantitative research methodology. Textual information was mapped and presented accordingly by adoption of a framework-analysis process. The theories and LR were used depict a broad picture, one that forms baseline data and assists in understanding the existing literature on South Africa residence refugees’ perceptions and realities (Maxwell 2021). The LR on residence refugees in South Africa perceptions and realities has assisted to avoid duplication of previous works by other researchers. However, there are disadvantages to this method. For instance, since not all academic search engines were adopted, there could be some existing literature that was left out. The next section presents the theoretical framework of this study.

3. Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in the Critical Refugee Studies Collective (CRSC) propounded by Lê Espiritu et al. (2022). The CRSC concept deviated from Critical Refugee Studies (CRS), which defined refugees as people who are premised on “fear” and “persecution”, instead regarding refugees as “all human beings forcibly displaced within or outside of their land of origin…regardless of their legal status” (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022, p. 72). The CRS definition portrays refugees as hyper-visible and invisible, which erases refugees’ humanity agency and heterogeneity. Instead, the CRSC conceptualises refugees’ lived experiences as a theory-making site. This demands critical reflection for differently positioned and impacted individuals (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022).

The CRSC concept embodies livability, refugees’ perceptions, and the reality of structural conditions. Livability, as a concept, is centred on the refugees’ comfortability, quality of life, and wants and needs for life. This means that, despite the fact that refugees are not in their COOs, they must have and live a dignified life and not suffer as they were in COOs. Refugees must have hope, protection, and prosperity in their lives. However, the realities of the structural conditions that exist in the host states make for differences in refugees’ subjectivity (Ghosh 2024). This implies refugees with better livability in terms of safety and protection will express their desire to remain in the host nation. In other words, refugees who live in resettlement nations where livability in terms of human dignity, freedom of associations, movements, protections and security, and democracy are not curtailed would forever desire to remain and become citizens (Korsi 2022). Conversely, refugees who are located in the resettlement nations where there is migration coercion in the form of harassment, detention, deportation threats, beating, money distortion, and deportability (Thiollet 2022) would desire to leave the host nation and express dissatisfaction.

The CRSC theory reveals that refugees dignified life can be achieved through collaboration between citizens and refugee community members through improvements of structural conditions in host states. The CRSC calls for citizen education to understand refugees’ status as people with human dignity, instead of people living in fear, persecution, and running away from crises in their COOs. It calls for public engagement, mutual respect, community collaboration, and critical interventions. Mediums such as social media, conferences, and symposiums were proposed by the CRSC to be employed for citizen education or for building communities concerned with refugees’ livability and protections.

Relating the CSRS concept to South Africa residence refugees, their perceptions for better life and protections made them to choose South Africa as their host state. However, the structural conditions such as unemployment and xenophobic attacks in some instances forced the refugees to demand their resettlement in another country (Lê Espiritu and Vang 2024). In other words, refugees who might experience migration coercion instead of migration politics cooperation (used as harmony living of citizens and refugees’ communities) would desire relocation into another country. The next section presents the literature review of the study.

4. Literature Review

Arguments and the discourse of refugees’ perceptions which entails personal and economic aims, agency services, and realities on structural conditions are as follows. According to the U.N. Geneva Convention Act of 1951, refugees are the people who move outside their usual COOs because of well-founded security concerns, holding different political opinions, and persecution by the state (UNHCR 1951). This implies that host states, rather than the COOs, protects refugees. Refugees cannot return to their COOs until the conditions are conducive. Refugees’ protections, safety, and security are contained in the CRSC, which outlines that their welfare should be protected by the host states (Vorvornator 2024b; Weissbrodt and De La Vega 2007). Once they return to their COOs, they are no longer protected by the host states, are not integrated into them, and cannot obtain permanent residents’ status in the host states. On humanitarian grounds, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM 2018) defines a refugee as

“anyone who, owing to the well-founded fear of precautions for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country”.

(U.N. Geneva Convention, 1951, Act 1A)

The Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (1984) declaration indicates that “among refugees [are included] persons who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalised violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order”. The definitions indicated that people should be able to submit that they left their COOs due to well founded ‘fears’. This implies there should be evidenced of infliction of harms, and the state intentionally or unintentionally withholding its protection (Tymoshenko and Makarenko 2022).

According to UNHCR (2012), “a convention ground needs not to be the sole or even the dominant cause of the risk of being persecuted, but it must be a contributing cause to the risk”. Exploring the definition, it means there is an element of humanitarian ground. This means refugees are considered as people who suffered from crises and atrocities and are being persecuted by the authorities. It indicates that refugees are portrayed as hyper-invisible and invisible, which eradicates their human dignity, rights, as well as heterogeneity as opposed by the CRSC. For refugees to better their living standards, they envisaged and perceived host states with personal political and economic aims, safety and security, and peace as expressed by the CRSC. This implies host states should have structural policies that would better refugees’ lives. In the case that the realities in host nations, that is, the agency and structural conditions, are less than refugees’ expectations, they become dissatisfied in the host nations (Tymoshenko and Makarenko 2022). The dissatisfaction occurs based on the measurement of their perceived better life and realities in the host states. However, the refugees who are less affected by crime, xenophobic attacks, and whose economic and personal aims are achieved express a stronger sense of acceptance to host states and citizens. What were the perceptions of SA residence refugees? And what are the structural realities on the ground?

4.1. Residence Refugees Grievances Lead to Protest in South Africa in Perspective

According to BBC (2020) and Crush (2022) reports, refugees in South Africa have experienced many grievances despite South Africa’s free settlement in urban areas and community’s policy, otherwise known as refugee reception ‘open policy’ (Maple 2024). SA residence refugees were concerned about the structural conditions such as agency services; xenophobic attacks; lack of access to basic services such as health, education, and housing; and policy implementations. Refugees have protested for better protections from violence and resettlement into other countries and access to legal and social services (Kavuro 2022). As they are contained in the CRSC, the refugees’ safety and protections, as well as personal and economic aims, are being denied. Refugee protestors continue to state that they do not have access to basic human dignities and rights. Further, threats of xenophobic violence in South Africa are challenges which affect their livability and safety. This implies refugees were not able to achieve their personal and economic aims which involve urgent and basic needs as human beings (Maple 2024). Under the services of the agency, the residence refugees described their asylum process and procedure as ‘unbearable conditions’. This means refugees have to spend resources (both cash and time) before they are issued valid document to confirm their refugees’ status. In other instances, their asylum documents are not renewed. Refugees’ political rights and movements are under threats which contradict the CRSC, because the CRSC encourages refugees’ dignity recognition and their ability to experience better lives (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022). One of the protestors said her asylum document are renewed “Every one month, every three months or every six months depending on what Home Affairs (Ministry designated to process refugees’ documents) decides on the day that you go to get your renewal” (italics are mine) (Magezi 2021; BBC 2020). However, the UNHCR maintains by “encouraging [the protesters] to participate in constructive dialogue to address their grievances”. The humanitarian organisation continued that “South Africa is a generous host country with progressive asylum policies and laws” (Ghosh 2024; BBC 2020). This implies, unlike other nations where refugees are camped in settlements, SA refugee reception policy encourages free settlement in the communities and urban areas. Refugee camp settlement is the process where refugees are confined in specific geographical areas as human beings without any political and economic activities (Maple 2024).

Refugee human rights violations captured by the BBC on the 2 February 2020 in South Africa came with the headline “Hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers have been crammed into a church in the centre of the South African city of Cape Town for four months. They are desperate to move to another country. They staged a sit-in protest outside the offices of U.N’s. refugees’ agency (UNCHR) in Cape Town demanding the resettlement” (BBC 2020). “It’s very sad, the situation that is there [in the church],” Ms Nkurukiye, one of the protestors, tells the BBC reporter. She continued “There is no help, there is no-one who can show you the way to go”. South Africa’s afro-phobic tendencies (fear of Africans) and inefficient system where asylum seekers spend several years without getting access to refugees status seems to be a contributing factor (Crush 2022). South Africa residence refugees’ protests can be explained that the anticipations and perceptions of refugees were not in line with the agency services in reality. This could spark the protests because the refugees felt the host state denied them better lives, and they expressed their dissatisfaction through protests. Ms Nkurukiye continued that “What I’m only asking is for the UNHCR to help us, to give us a place where we can be safe. Where they can accept us like human beings, because South Africa doesn’t treat us like human beings”. President Ramaphosa described the accusations that refugees are stealing jobs and resources, as well as committing violent attacks, as “totally unacceptable”, and he continued to say that there is “no justification for any South African to attack people from other countries” (Kavuro 2022; BBC 2020). Refugees felt their living conditions in SA are deplorable, since citizens accused them of ‘taking’ their jobs. As a result, they demanded agencies to uplift the services through protests for their human dignity to be restored, as proposed by the CRSC. On the humanitarian ground of children being denied access to education, the UNHCR says, “And of course from a humanitarian point of view it’s unacceptable that it continues—children don’t go to school. I think it’s irresponsible of leadership to allow for that situation to happen, because there’s an unrealistic expectation and people are sitting there hoping to be resettled”. This implies that refugees’ children are denied basic services such as health and education. These pose threats to childrens’ futures, since they would grow without basic skills. Moreover, they are likely to be a burden on the state rather than to contribute their quota to the host state’s economic growth and development.

On the issue of threats of attack one of the protestors, a refugee who introduced herself as Lillian, said “We can’t go back to our communities where we had lived alongside South African neighbours, because they threatened to kill us and harm our children during the violence”. And she continued that “Our lives are in danger. We are not secure in this country. We are camping here to ask the UNHCR to give us protection” (Kavuro 2022). This implies SA residence refugees’ do not believe in the agencies and structural conditions to provide them safety and security. They perceived the SA agencies as ineffective and inefficient at providing protections for their lives. Hence, the refugees expressed their dissatisfaction in the host state. However, the UNHCR assured the refugees’ protestors that they are doing everything possible to make them safe in South Africa. In the UCHCR’s words, “We are working with authorities and partners to address the issues, and improve the situation of all refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa”, (BBC 2020). Did SA residence refugees express a stronger sense of acceptance or dissatisfaction?

4.2. A Critical Examination of Humanitarianism

The concept of humanitarianism can be traced back to Arendt’s work on totalitarianism. In Arendt’s (1958) book entitled “The Origin of Totalitarianism” written aftermath of the Second World War, she explained the risk posed by the statelessness persons to human rights and humanitarianism. She emphasised, as the CRSC proposes, that for an individual to enjoy rights, namely human, political, civil, and social rights, one needs to be attached to a political community, since the right to be a citizen is enshrined in the juridico-political precondition for protection of individual rights (Tymoshenko and Makarenko 2022). Arendt (1958) and Howard (2024, p. 98) therefore pushed beyond human rights protections, as looked towards a “reimagining of global justice beyond humanitarianism”. This indicates that an individual should have the “right to have rights”; this concept goes beyond rights to belong to a state. In other words, everyone should be allowed to belong to somewhere and not be stateless (Tymoshenko and Makarenko 2022). However, residence refugees are merely considered as human beings, and their basic rights to participate in political and economic affairs of the host states may trigger refugees’ dissatisfaction as explained under the CRSC (Agamben and Sacer 1998). As Agamben and Sacer (1998) put it, refugees are just mere biological beings or mere animals without any political rights to express their political will. Bauman (2002) concurs that refugees are just ‘in’ national spaces, but they are not part ‘of’ these spaces. Owens’ (2009) research reveals that refugees are reduced to ‘bare life’ in host states, because they are denied the right to take part in political, civil, and economic activities.

Arendt (1958) stipulated that the concept of humanitarianism should be re-examined as it depoliticized and propelled the politics of pity and compassion. It takes away human rights and replaces it with charity and differentiates the needy and the givers. This always ‘put’ refugees in difficult situations to express appreciation and a stronger sense of acceptance in host states irrespective of their deplorable conditions in host nations. Protesting or expressing their human rights through other means to have basic human rights to be respected makes community members label them as dissatisfied refugees. In the case of South Africa, deplorable service conditions, short-term permit renewals, and xenophobic tendencies that citizens displayed towards refugees made them demand their human rights through protests (Crush 2022). Such protests were undertaken to express their dissatisfaction about their perceived lives and realities in South Africa’s agency services and structural conditions. Refugees are hyper-aware of the rescue and assistance they received in the host states. They would display sense of belonging and acceptance to any nation that open doors for them to survive (Benhabib 2021).

4.3. Shift from Humanitarianism to Livability Concept

Livability, as a concept explained under the CRST theory, indicates that refugees should have creative, mundane, and fearless possibilities. This implies refugees should have rights to stay in resettlement nations, rights to return, and to move without any restrictions/to be present wherever they want, while the 1951 Convention described refugees as based on ‘fear’, which limits refugees’ rights and interactions with the resettlement communities (Lê Espiritu and Vang 2024). The CRSC theory, which entails livability as a concept, acknowledged the power of law to constitute reality, but it anticipates the situations where refugees live a life that is dignified and not confined or restricted into camps. However, the conditions in host states’ refugee reception policies in both camp and free-settlement denied refugee confinement. During refugee camp settlement the refugees are only confined in specific geographical areas (Maple 2024). They are denied participation in economic, civil, and political activities. Meanwhile, refugees have personal and economic aims, which are basic needs to acquire. In host states such as South Africa and Angola that adopt free settlement through magnanimity, the refugees are scared to move freely due to deportation threats, deportation, threats of bribery, eviction, and detention (Maple 2024). Refugees are often reminded of their origins by the host nations (Mujuzi 2020). The CRSC aims to provide refugees with capacious and bountiful ways of living the lifeworld (Tymoshenko and Makarenko 2022). Livability is the situation where refugees’ lives are not centred on fear but on dignity, humanity, and hope for the future (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022). In situations where demonstrations of law in CODs are contrary to human dignity and futurity of the refugees, and in the settlements where the law confines the freedom and human rights of refugees, refugees who decide to engage in dialogue are critiqued and labelled as dissatisfied refugees (Lê Espiritu and Vang 2024). The conception of refugees is based on the ideologies of humanitarianism which purported refugees to be fearful rather than on the concept of livability as proposed by the CRSC, which asserts that refugees should have human rights and be treated with respect in host nations.

4.4. Refugees Right to Have Rights

Arendt (1958) asserted that the society should move away from the humanitarian concepts and implement the “right to have rights” which forms the basis of this study, as expressed in the CRSC. Benhabib (2021, p. 18) explained that there should be a conducive environment for the stateless to “negotiate the line between being an abject subject of compassion and administrative logic versus being a legal person, as well as a political activist claiming the recognition of his or her international rights”. But these rights are denied even in the host states that practice the free settlement refugee reception policy (Maple 2024). Each day, residence refugees are reminded about their rights in the host states (Urbański 2022). They are denied socio-economic and political rights in their settlements.

Fujita (2020) concurs that humanitarian debates of benevolence still practice the neocolonial and patriarchal relations of power which indicate unequal power between refugees and the humanitarians who claimed to save them. Blazan (2021) argues that humanitarian narratives depict refugees as losers in life and portrays refugees’ resettlement in the Western nations as gains to refugees. Blazan (2021, p. 98) explained that “The trauma discourse and the pathologisation of refugees is the most common reaction to the presence of refugees in Western arrival countries”. In most instances, the refugees’ eligibility for assistance and resettlement depend on their ability to display vulnerability, defenceless, and neediness rather than specific locations of disaster that could trigger relocation (Blazan 2021; Vorvornator 2024c). Regardless, humanitarian assistance is based on language of pity, desperation, and suffering rather than on language of justice and reparation. This is contrary to the CRSC theory which aims to enhance refugees’ rights in the host states. Within the closed and privatised structure of refuge, the refugees’ issue is isolated and belittled. The refugees would forever display the sense of belonging and acceptance to the host states and her citizens for bestowing “gift of freedom” on them (Nguyen et al. 2024). This implies that refugees would forever be indebted to resettlement nations.

4.5. Issues Bother Around Refugees (Dis)satisfation in Host States

For refugees to display their sense of belonging and accept the host state as their country depends on their perceptions and structural conditions, livability, and their safety and security. In situations where their expectations are not met and their livability is lower due to the agency services and structural conditions in host nations, the refugees become dissatisfied (Maple 2024; Lê Espiritu and Vang 2024). I argue that in the absence of the CRSC (involves protection, security, political, civil rights, and economic support), in resettlement nations where refugees from onset expressed their sense of belonging and acceptance, refugees become dissatisfied because they, just like any human beings, have personal and economic aims to meet and desire security, peace, and protections. Refugees sense of belonging and acceptance of host states, as well as their dissatisfaction, depends on their perceptions, agency services, and structural conditions in host nations. For instance, implementation of Acts that prevent refugees from employment, xenophobic tendencies, and harassments from authorities ‘take away’ human rights and dignities from refugees (Crush 2022; Fermi 2021). These types of Acts will make refugees dissatisfied irrespective of refugee reception practices such as free settlement or camp settlement. This is because their basic economic rights and political rights are denied. They are just mere biological beings (Agamben and Sacer 1998). In other words, refugee’s right to have rights is gone. They are instead considered as humanitarian and destitute people rather than as individuals with human rights. Minister (2024) described the refugees’ multifaceted causes of dissatisfaction as follows: “the consequence of the single story is this: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult”.

The humanitarian aid concept of refugees portrays them as people who are largely restricted by crises, fear, and suffering. From the refugees’ perspective, the unequal power relationship is most usually display in which humanitarian organisations and agents expect a display of sense of belonging in the host nation from refugees whom they have ‘rescued’ or ‘saved’ (Nayeri 2024). As a subject of nature and humanitarianism, rescued refugees are conscious to display their appreciation to host nations. This takes away their dignity and agency, and is often the unspoken condition to acceptance, friendship, and hospitality (Nayeri 2024). In this context, the dissatisfaction concept is the willingness to identify one’s humanity and subjectivity beyond the limits of the saviour tropes. Nayeri (2024) asserts that “refugees should not their entire life to spend the rest of our days in grateful ecstasy, atoning for our need”. Nayeri’s (2024) research conceived humanitarian-centred rescue refugee narratives which uphold the purported liberal ideology of freedom, equality, and democracy. Even if refugees appear to indicate and display sense of acceptance and dissatisfaction practices are considered to be performative and strategic, refugees are self-aware as they playact the relationship, aiming to survive and strive in the new settlements. The calculated display of (dis)satisfaction is considered as constituting refugees’ tactics that enable safety and protection, services rendered by the agencies, structural conditions, property, and survival in a sponsorship-based economy act. This portrays refugees being assessed through the colonial and unilateral production of refugees as seen through peace, protections, sense of belonginess, and a lens of precarity (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022).

From the foregoing discussion, l argue that refugees’ (dis)satisfaction and acceptance of host states depend on their political, social, and civil protections and safety, as well as livability, which entails their perceptions and realities about agency services and structural conditions. This implies efficiency and effectiveness of the structural conditions and agency services for the refugees that allow them to be satisfied. As a result, they claim a sense of belonging to host nation whereas, inefficiency and ineffectiveness of structural conditions and agency services make refugees dissatisfied with host nations, hence their desire to protest for resettlement in a third country, as is the case of SA residence refugees. In other words, in situations where host states adopt migration diplomacy such as coercion which embodies harassment, distortion of money, short-term renewal of permits, hassles for jobs, xenophobic attacks, and racism, the refugees would be dissatisfied. The next section presents the findings of the study.

5. Findings

Are Residence Refugees in South Africa (Dis)satisfied?

The study’s findings reveal that unlike other African nations such as Zambia, Namibia, and Kenya that practice refugee reception camp settlement, South Africa adopts refugee reception free settlement through Ubuntu principle and magnanimity where refugees reside in urban areas and communities (Maple 2024). This implies that after refugees are registered they are allowed into the communities and urban spaces as agitated by the CRSC theory. They are not confined in specific geographical areas as in the case of refugee reception camp settlement (Maple 2024). However, despite refugee reception free settlement, they have threats of deportation, eviction, detention, and threats of bribery that prevent their movement from one place to another (Maple 2024).

Further, the study reveals that, for South Africa residence refugees to claim sense of belonging and acceptance in the country, it depends on their measurement of their perceptions to agency services and structural conditions on the ground and their experiences with communities during their stay in the country (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022). The finding reveals that naturally, residence refugees expressed stronger sense of acceptance to South Africa when open arms received them through hospitality and Ubuntu ideology. This saved their lives from crises and atrocities in COOs. South African authority’s kindness made refugees satisfied by rescuing them from crises (Lê Espiritu and Vang 2024). However, the refugees’ perceptions, ineffective agency services, and structural conditions which denied refugee economic rights, civil rights, and political rights make refugees into mere biological animals residing in host state (Owens 2009). Also, the short-term renewal of permits, xenophobic violence, fear of deportation, and detention made refugees express their dissatisfaction through protests. It contradicts with the CRSC concept which aims better dignity for refugees because refugees, just like any human beings, have personal and economic aims, as well as urgent needs to satisfy. Refugees not able to satisfy such basic needs would be dissatisfied in the host nations, whereas refugees that measured their perceptions, agency services, and structural conditions, and came out satisfied would express a stronger sense of acceptance and belonginess to host nation (Maple 2024).

The study’s findings further show that refugees become dissatisfied in South Africa due to humanitarian ideology treatment which is established by the U.N. Convention of 1951 (Adebayo 2023). This means the South Africans and institutions perceived refugees as individuals and group of people who were ‘helpless’ and ‘persecuted’ in their COOs. This leads to differentiation between needy and the givers (Vorvornator 2024a; Blazan 2021). Politics of pity and compassion take away residence refugees’ human rights and dignities and replaced them with charity in South Africa, triggering dissatisfaction among SA residence refugees (Howard 2024; Arendt 1958). The humanitarian ideology practices swing the power to favour natives and create unequal human beings in South Africa. Because of benevolence and hospitability of rescuing refugees from crises in COOs (Fujita 2020), South African humanitarian narratives depict refugees as losers, defenselees, and vulnerable (Blazan 2021). Refugees were belittled and isolated in some instances. These are acts that opposed the CRSC theory which calls for non-discrimination against refugees (Nguyen et al. 2024). These acts were expressed through xenophobic threats and afro-phobic tendencies, harassment, and administrative procedures such as short-term renewal of refugee documents (Crush 2022). The ineffective administrative system and citizens perception of refugees as losers and vulnerable people ‘wiped’ away the stronger sense of acceptance expressed by the South Africa residence refugees during their rescue (Kavuro 2022). South Africa residence refugees’ protested and demanded for human rights and dignities to be respected, sparking community members to label refugees as dissatisfied (Crush 2022).

The study’s findings reveal that livability, which entails the purported life refugees aims to live, makes the residence refugees compare their lives through needs and wants. This implies their perceptions are measured with the structural conditions and agency services in South Africa in terms of protections and safety. The residence refugees that realised realities on the ground in terms of services do not meet their expectations would be dissatisfied. However, residence refugees who felt their perceptions are met by the realities such as agency services and structural conditions would forever express their stronger sense of acceptance. Moreover, refugees that realised their human rights and dignities are satisfied in South Africa will express a stronger sense of belonginess and acceptance, whereas if residence refugees who feel their human rights and dignities are ‘worse-off’ become dissatisfied. This means the residence refugees whose perceptions are met in South Africa may feel the sense of belonginess and express stronger acceptance to the nation and citizens. However, residence refugees who feel their perceptions are not met will engage in demonstration to ‘register’ their grievances (Ghosh 2024). This explains the reason why it is not likely that all residence refugees in South Africa might take part in the protests and demonstrations (Lê Espiritu et al. 2022). On that ground, I argue that the ability of residence refugees in South Africa to express a stronger sense of acceptance or dissatisfaction depends on their political rights, civil rights, security and protections, and livability.

Overall, South Africa residence refugees expressed their stronger acceptance to the nation and citizens for being rescued from crises in the COOs. However, in situations where their human rights, security and safety, protection and dignities are encroached upon in host nation, they become dissatisfied. Residence refugees who compared their perceptions to the existing living conditions and are satisfied would express a stronger sense of acceptance, but those who think their living standards are worse-off would be dissatisfied in South Africa.

6. Conclusions and Greater Implications

The study adopts the CRSC theory to explore South Africa residence refugees to establish whether they express a stronger sense of acceptance or dissatisfaction with living in the country. The study’s findings established that, naturally, residence refugees expressed a stronger sense of acceptance to South Africa for rescuing their lives from atrocities in COOs. They are satisfied with South Africa’s refugee reception free settlement policy. This allows refugees to settle in urban areas and in communities as advocated by the CRSC theory, despite the threats of deportability, deportation, detention, and eviction. However, the humanitarian ideology practices where refugees are considered to be vulnerable, helpless, and needy made SA residence refugees feel like ‘less-human beings’. Residence refugees’ denied participation in economic and political activities made some of the refugees dissatisfied with the agency services and structural conditions because the existing conditions in the country regard refugees to be mere biological beings without any political rights, civil rights, and economic activities. This triggered dissatisfaction among some residence refugees in the country and caused them to protest for their human dignities and human rights to be restored. Residence refugees felt their human dignities and rights were taken away from them because they receive charity and benevolence from South Africa. In attempting to express their human dignities and rights, residence refugees are described as dissatisfied by South African authorities.

Overall, the study established that SA residence refugees rescued from their COOs during crises and atrocities are indebted to the South African government for extending Ubuntu to rescue their lives. However, SA residence refugees become dissatisfied because their human rights and dignities are taken away by South Africa’s inefficient system, as well as through harassment and threats of xenophobia. Moreover, the refugees’ livability comes to the equation. Refugees who considered their living standards to be better off in South African express a stronger sense of acceptance, whereas refugees who considered lives to be worse off are dissatisfied. Therefore, the study recommends that there should be a conducive environment for SA residence refugees to negotiate the lines between abject compassion and administrative logic versus being less human. Administrative processes should be improved to process refugees’ documents effectively. There should be mass education about refugees’ status ‘switching’ from humanitarian ideology to accord refugees the human rights and dignities every human being deserves irrespective of status. The general implications for this study are that policy and legal frameworks, social cohesion, and effective support services need to be re-examined. This research exposes structural ineffectiveness that leave refugees in a state of precarity over the years. By understanding refugees’ lived experiences, support services can be provided to address the challenges. This will ensure social cohesion in the country.