diaspora, 98% of this via black market channels. “Moneylink” attempts to increase the return of foreign earnings via the Reserve Bank. With possibly 50% of voting age adults outside Zimbabwe, the implications for democracy are dire. Half the population will be deprived of its vote in next year’s election. PART TWO: Destination - South Africa: Legal, administrative and social issues involving refugees Part Two is an overview of South Africa’s legal obligations to refugees, together with the authors’ own findings relating to the Johannesburg RRO. Issues of quiet diplomacy and xenophobia are briefly raised. 1. “Asylum seekers” and “refugees”: South Africa’s legal obligations South Africa is signatory to various international conventions and has had a Refugee Act since 1998. In terms of the Act, asylum seekers need to approach a Refugee Reception Office and receive an asylum seeker’s permit. This should entitle them to work and study, but not all RROs are ensuring this. ASPs have to be renewed monthly. If applicants get refugee status, it entitles them to remain in South Africa for two years and to have improved access to social services. The decision of refugee status is future based. It is an assessment of whether returning to your home country is likely to result in persecution. The authors suggest there is a need for a test case in South Africa to establish whether being denied food on political grounds is a “threat to physical safety”, and whether Zimbabweans fleeing politically induced famine or outright discrimination of access to food should be given asylum. 2. The Battle for Zimbabwean refugee rights It is only since June 2002, when the Wits Law Clinic prepared a test case involving 5 Zimbabwean exiles for the Courts, that the Department of Home Affairs conceded that any Zimbabwean had a right to asylum. The attitude before then – and very often since – is that “there is no war in Zimbabwe” and therefore no right to asylum for its people. However, Zimbabweans who entered South Africa prior to the test case ruling are still on occasion being denied the right to seek asylum, although June 2002 is not the time at which human rights violations began. Victimisation is a repeated experience in Zimbabwe. This is significant in terms of eligibility for asylum, and also as Zimbabwe heads into another election phase. Those persecuted before may well be persecuted again and may flee to South Africa. 3. Attitude to Zimbabweans within Home Affairs RROs Refugees International found that Zimbabweans do face more barriers than other asylum seekers, in spite of denials by Home Affairs. A study by Themba Lesizwe reported that only 4 out of 34 tortured Zimbabweans who had tried to access asylum seeker status had managed to do so. RI noted that Home Affairs officials, when interviewed, said that “there is no civil war in Zimbabwe, so there is no reason to apply [for asylum]”. 9