Anyone walking through Johannesburg’s Hillbrow neighborhood today can encounter people from nearly every corner of the African continent. People from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia and Nigeria have been part of the city for years. The same diversity can be seen in Johannesburg’s Yeoville and Berea neighborhoods, as well as in Sunnyside in Pretoria.
Thirty years ago, South Africa’s migration story was one of hope. Today, that same story has become one of the country’s most contentious political debates.
When viewed alongside the influx of Syrian refugees that Turkey has experienced over the past 15 years, South Africa’s experience offers an example that Ankara should examine carefully. The two countries’ histories, legal frameworks and migration dynamics are, of course, different. Yet there are important similarities in the long-term consequences of large-scale migration.
Mandela’s Pan-African Dream
The end of apartheid in 1994 meant more than South Africa’s democratization. It also marked the country’s reintegration with the African continent.
Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, or ANC, did not see themselves merely as a South African political movement. Many ANC leaders had spent the apartheid years in exile in Tanzania, Zambia, Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, receiving political and military support from those countries.
The new government therefore adopted a Pan-African foreign policy.
As Mandela frequently emphasized, South Africa’s freedom was the result not only of its own people’s struggle but also of the struggle of Africa as a whole.
This understanding went beyond rhetoric. South Africa supported economic integration within the Southern African Development Community, or SADC, facilitated labor mobility with neighboring countries and, as the continent’s largest economy, became a magnet for millions of Africans.
The Great Migration from Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe marked the major turning point in this migration story.
Agricultural production declined sharply after Robert Mugabe launched the Fast-Track Land Reform Program in 2000. The economic crisis that followed plunged the country into a historic collapse.
In 2008, Zimbabwe experienced one of the highest rates of hyperinflation ever recorded. Unemployment rose above 80 percent. The healthcare system collapsed, while a cholera outbreak claimed thousands of lives.
Millions of Zimbabweans sought refuge in South Africa.
Although estimates vary, the number of people of Zimbabwean origin living in South Africa today is believed to be between 2 million and 3 million. They have been joined by hundreds of thousands of people from Mozambique, Malawi, Lesotho, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia and Ethiopia.
In the early years, this migration was regarded as a natural consequence of economic growth. Migrant labor filled important gaps in mining, construction, agriculture and the service sector.
However, no long-term strategy was developed to manage permanent migration.
As the Economy Deteriorated, the Rhetoric Changed
South Africa today has one of the world’s highest levels of income inequality.
The official unemployment rate remains above 30 percent, while youth unemployment can exceed 45 percent.
Power outages, sluggish economic growth, high crime rates and inadequate public services have fueled public anger.
Against this backdrop, migration has moved to the center of political debate.
More than 60 people were killed in attacks targeting foreigners in 2008.
Durban and Johannesburg again witnessed violence in 2015.
In 2019, hundreds of foreign-owned businesses were looted.
Over the past two years, anti-immigrant campaigns have become even more visible. Following protests organized by certain groups in June 2026, many undocumented migrants attempted to leave the country, while neighboring states launched evacuation operations to bring their citizens home.
The South African government is now intensifying its crackdown on undocumented migration, tightening border controls and deporting thousands of undocumented migrants every day.
The conclusion should not be that migration alone is responsible for the country’s economic or security problems. Research indicates that South Africa’s difficulties are rooted primarily in unemployment, poverty, inequality and weak public administration. Yet when economic hardship deepens, political actors can turn migration into an increasingly prominent and divisive issue.
Turkey Faces Different but Similar Questions
Turkey’s experience with Syrian refugees began under different historical circumstances.
When the civil war in Syria erupted in 2011, the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government adopted an “open-door” policy. Ahmet Davutoğlu, the foreign minister at the time, said Turkey could not close its doors to civilians. In the early years, the official narrative was that Syrians would return home within a short period, and they were frequently described as “guests.”
At the time, Ankara and Damascus had abolished visa requirements, expanded economic relations and sought to make the border more open. Turkey had also begun clearing a significant portion of the landmines along its border with Syria in accordance with its obligations under the Ottawa Convention. This work had been planned before the war began and was primarily intended to modernize border security and return agricultural land to productive use.
But the war dragged on.
Today, approximately 2.7 million Syrians remain in Turkey under temporary protection. Once those living in the country with residence permits and those who have acquired Turkish citizenship are included, the scale of this social reality becomes considerably larger.
Under the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement, the European Union provided billions of euros in assistance. Turkey, meanwhile, says it has devoted substantial public resources to healthcare, education, housing and social services.
The political debate has also changed over time.
While the government emphasizes safe and voluntary return programs, opposition parties — despite differences over the methods to be used — argue that a significant proportion of Syrians should eventually return to their country. Migration has now become one of the central issues in Turkey’s election campaigns.
The Lesson from South Africa
South Africa and Turkey are not the same. Legal statuses, causes of migration, international obligations and regional conditions differ. It would therefore be misleading to construct a one-to-one scenario for Turkey’s future based on South Africa’s experience.
South Africa’s experience nevertheless offers an important reminder.
Large-scale migration cannot be treated solely as a humanitarian crisis. It also requires long-term public policies encompassing education, housing, the labor market, citizenship law, local government, social integration and economic planning.
When such policies are postponed, the problem does not disappear. It is merely passed on to the future.
South Africa’s experience over the past 30 years demonstrates precisely this.
Turkey likewise needs a realistic, long-term migration strategy tailored to its own circumstances — one grounded in the rule of law and attentive to the rights of both the host society and refugees.
Johannesburg’s story will not determine Ankara’s future.
But if Ankara learns from Johannesburg’s experience, it may be able to write its own story more wisely. If it draws lessons from the migration policies — and mistakes — of Nelson Mandela’s country, Turkey may yet avoid turning the millions of Syrians it hosts today into the center of tomorrow’s crisis.
