Do I look like a refugee? Challenging the passive victim narrative of refugeehood in Tongogara refugee settlement

Refugee protection in Zimbabwe

Under international law, a refugee is defined under the 1951 Refugee Convention as an individual, 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 (Refugee Convention, 1951). Zimbabwe acceded to the Convention and subsequently enacted the Refugee Act in 193, reflecting its legal and political commitments to refugee protection and assistance. This commitment has recently been reinforced by Zimbabwe’s adoption of the Global Compact for Refugees (UN General Assembly, 2018), signalling alignment with global norms on refugee governance and international cooperation.

Although research on refugee movements into Zimbabwe and its experiences as a host state remains limited (Chikanda and Crush, 2016; Matseketsa and Mhlanga, 2020; Sidzumo-Mazibuko, 1998). During the early post-independence period, refugees in Zimbabwe were predominantly from Mozambique, fleeing violent conflict between the Liberation Front of Mozambique (FRELIMO) and the Mozambiquan National Resistance (RENAMO) (Chikanda and Crush, 2016; Emerson, 2014). Between 1983 and 1994, Zimbabwe hosted over 200,000 Mozambiquan refugees (Emerson, 2014; Matseketsa and Mhlanga, 2020).

During the same decade, refugees from South Africa, mainly political activists escaping apartheid-era repression, also sought asylum in Zimbabwe (Chikanda and Crush, 2016). In response to the growing refugee population, Zimbabwe adopted an encampment policy in 1984, establishing several rural refugee camps, including Tongogara, Chambuta, Nyan’ombe and Nyamatiki, followed by the Mazowe River Bridge camp in 1990 (Chikanda and Crush, 2016; Matseketsa and Mhlanga, 2020; Mutsvara, 2015; Sidzumo-Mazibuko, 1998).

The signing of a peace agreement between FRELIMO and RENAMO in 1994 (Emerson, 2014), resulted in large-scale repatriation and the closure of most camps, leaving TRS as the only operational camp to date (Chikanda and Crush, 2016; Matseketsa and Mhlanga, 2020). Subsequent conflicts across Africa led to renewed refugee inflows, particularly from Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) during the 1990s (Matseketsa and Mhlanga, 2020; Mhlanga, 2020; Mutsvara, 2015).

While improved stability in Rwanda and Burundi and Zimbabwe’s economic crisis reduced inflows in the early 2000s, refugees from the DRC continue to arrive due to persistent conflict (Chikanda and Crush, 2016). Despite prolonged macroeconomic challenges, Zimbabwe has continued to host refugees under a multi‑actor protection framework led by the Ministry of Public Service, Labour, and Social Welfare in partnership with UNHCR and other actors. (Maviza and Nzima, 2024).

Study area

The research was conducted at TRS, situated in Chipinge district, 600 km southeast of the Harare Metropolitan Province (Mhlanga and Zengeya, 2016). It has a population of about 15,091 refugees and asylum seekers from DRC, Burundi, Rwanda and Mozambique, among other countries, with the majority coming from DRC (Spiegel and Mhlanga, 2022). Although with a relatively smaller population, the camp presents significant dynamics of displacement and offers an opportunity to understand the lived realities of refugees in protracted displacement and how they exercise their agency.

Data collection methods and population

The research used qualitative participatory and traditional research methods to examine refugee experiences at TRS over 5 days, using transect walks, historical timelines, and focus group discussions (FGDs) with a total of 24 participants of diverse nationalities and age were purposively selected (12 men and 12 women). These were agro-entrepreneurs in a World Vision–supported livelihoods programme. To encourage active engagement and candid dialogue, FGDs were gender-disaggregated, allowing participants to express themselves freely, especially on sensitive, gender-specific issues.

Given that most of the research team members did not speak Swahili, the dominant language at TRS, the researchers engaged young interpreters and note takers drawn from the refugee community, ensuring inclusivity through youth engagement. Their familiarity with the context and participants made communication and engagement easier. Notwithstanding the presence of ‘outsider’ researchers, although mediated through interpreters, may have shaped how participants expressed their agency or neediness during interviews. This reflexivity highlights how power dynamics and positionality can influence research encounters, underscoring the need for critical awareness in interpreting findings.

Therefore, the prioritization of community-based interpreters combined with participant-led narratives and data triangulation across multiple sources was a critical mitigation measure undertaken by the team to reduce bias and strengthen authenticity. Discussions were conducted in Kiswahili, English, and Shona to ensure inclusivity and address language barriers. Ethnically, participants in our sample were from the Democratic Republic of Congo (17), Mozambique (3), Burundi (2), Uganda (1), and Rwanda (1). This diversity helped to capture different perspectives and experiences.

Ethical considerations

Fieldwork for this article was conducted in accordance with established ethical research standards, recognizing the vulnerabilities and sensitivities of participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants after clearly explaining the voluntary nature of participation and their right to withdraw at any stage. To safeguard confidentiality, pseudonyms were used to anonymize data and protect identities. The research design adhered to the do-no-harm principle and was sensitive to cultural norms and dynamics. In addition, approval was secured from local authorities including UNHCR through the Refugee Commissioner to ensure compliance with community protocols. Formal ethical clearance was granted by the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT’s Institutional Review Board under clearance number 2023-IRB72. Upon the interviewee’s consent, all interviews were conducted at a public community hall in TRS.

Data analysis

Data were analysed using thematic analysis, a systematic approach for identifying and interpreting patterns within qualitative data. Verbatim transcripts were coded, and recurring patterns were organized into themes, which guided the presentation of findings.

Refugee livelihoods as acts of agency and resilience

Findings show that, like other refugee settlements, TRS is not designed for the long-term economic sustainability of refugees. Nonetheless, refugees display significant agency and resilience in creating sustainable livelihoods, especially given that TRS provides relief aid that is insufficient for basic needs, a sentiment echoed in participant account as follows:

The money and food parcels they give us here are not even enough to sustain one person for a month, if you are not industrious, you suffer. (Female FGD, TRS)

One of the men was also on record saying,

Sometimes the assistance they offer here, out of goodwill, is so little that it belittles you as the head of the family if you come back carrying a portion that cannot even sustain the family for a week. (Male FGD, TRS)

These narratives align with some trends observed by Krause and Schmidt (2019) and Easton-Calabria (2020), who have argued that humanitarian assistance, though important, rarely promotes meaningful self-reliance. To counter this, refugees at TRS create alternative approaches to sustain their livelihoods and these align with Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory, which submits that individuals are shaped by and simultaneously shape the structures they exist in.

Due to daily micro practices of refugee agency, TRS has transformed into a dynamic and robust informal economy, which allows refugees to run small businesses whose trade benefits both the camp and host communities (Betts et al., 2017; Hagen-Zanker and Mallett, 2016). These findings reflect Betts et al. (2017) and Hagen-Zanker and Mallett (2016)’s assertions that, when supported, economic agency of refugees can benefit both refugees and host communities. One female refugee proudly expressed how astute refugees were in exploiting economic opportunities; she said,

If you were to pass me in the street, would you ever think that I am a refugee, given the way I am dressed and look? Do I look like a refugee to you? You see, not all refugees are in a terrible state; it is what people think of us anyway, but do you know some of us are better off than the local people? (Female FGD, TRS)

Asked how they were managing to thrive economically, despite the encampment, this participant laughed and responded that

The policy is there yes but we always travel to Harare, to hoard staff to sell here. I want to take you to our shops, and you will see we have everything here, all the hair, fashion, the clothes, the cosmetics. Then we have our relatives abroad, they also help and send us money, so you must be clever and invest. (Female FGD, TRS)

One refugee from the men’s FGD who owns a barber shop that is fully equipped with a solar system narrated it this way:

My friend, the laws are there, but they do not follow us everywhere. You just have to be creative and daring; otherwise, you remain a perpetual beggar. We go as far as Musina to get what we can sell, what matters is that you just do not get caught. (Male FGD, TRS)

The narratives presented reject negative stereotypes, emphasizing their identities as agents who act for their own benefit demonstrating that refugee agency can thrive amid prolonged displacement. Similar to findings by Pincock et al. (2020); Krause and Schmidt (2019); Zetter (2007), these entrepreneurial engagements by refugees challenge prevailing narratives that often frame refugees as passive dependents. Also, Betts et al. (2017) and Lindley (2009) similarly show how refugees leverage their skills, transnational social capital, and remittances to exercise economic agency. Similarly, religion also emerged as a critical coping mechanism, with churches providing safe spaces where refugees could exercise their collective agency while challenging normative social frames, as narrated below:

We still gather here to worship God. In there, hope is reassured and we keep strengthened to forge ahead regardless of the challenges we face. We claim our identity in Christ. (KII with a Pastor, TRS, 2024)

The above narrative demonstrates how religious practices emerge as key coping strategies for building resilience and instilling hope in displacement contexts (Chikoko et al., 2024a).

Although restrictive policies prevent refugees from accessing formal employment, they still exercise their agency by participating in the informal economy to exploit opportunities available, aligning with the action of ‘active agency-in waiting’ (Brun, 2015). Here, refugees undertake productive, future-oriented activities while waiting for durable solutions amid precarity, demonstrating that waiting is not merely passive but both active and strategic (Brun, 2015; Khosravi, 2017).

Accordingly, refugees’ engagement in informal entrepreneurial activities at TRS illustrates Giddens’ (1984) duality of structure, where structural constraints, in this case, Zimbabwe’s encampment policy and refugee employment rules, both shape and are reshaped by refugee agency. Although excluded from the formal labour market, refugees respond through everyday micro-level strategies that circumvent the imposed restrictions, mirroring agency-in-waiting (Brun, 2015). This is also similar to findings by Pincock, et al. (2020); Betts et al. (2017) and Triandafyllidou (2019) that challenge the victim, passive and needy labels often ascribed to refugees.

To illustrate active agency in waiting, most participants had been in the camp for several years, supporting our classification of them as refugees in extended states of waiting. Nonetheless, they did not wait passively as expressed through this narrative:

My sister, I came here in 1998, I was very young, and you see now, I am an old woman. I have been here for years. I cannot go back to my country; I am here until I die, so I am doing what I can do here for my children to get a better education and better chances of settling abroad, so I trade and do business for the sake of my children, they will look after me tomorrow. I have accepted that this is now my home, and I will die and get buried here, so I do what I can here, I have nothing to lose. (Female FGD, TRS)

Brun’s concept is particularly relevant in the context of TRS, where ‘waiting’ pertains to the anticipation of significant changes in circumstances, primarily the hope for resettlement abroad, to the United States or Europe. For most participants, this active agency in waiting was intricately linked to aspirations for their children’s future, as one participant expressed her hope to resettle in America if ‘God intervenes’. Consequently, active waiting is based on the idea that individuals utilize multiple strategies to cope with their current circumstances while preparing for their future (Brun, 2015).

These strategies demonstrate Giddens’ framing of agency as the ability of the seemingly powerless individuals to mobilize resources and carve out spaces of control (Giddens, 1984: 197). Significantly, the findings from this context refute several dominant frames assigned to refugees, for example, that they are helpless and reduced to a state of bare life (Agamben, 1998), vulnerable, criminals or security threats. In addition, these findings align with another study in TRS that highlighted the economic benefits refugees derive from their entrepreneurial activities (Mhlanga and Zengeya, 2016).

Overall, the findings align with those of Pincock et al. (2020), Krause and Schmidt (2019), and Mhlanga and Zengeya (2016) that demonstrate refugee agency that challenges stereotypes of dependency and victimhood. Notwithstanding, it is important to recognize that while refugees demonstrate resilience and resourcefulness, their agency often arises in repsonse to systemic shortcomings, such as insufficient aid provision (Chikoko et al., 2024b). Hence, their entrepreneurial strategies should not be romanticized in ways that absolve states and humanitarian actors of their responsibilities for the insufficiency of aid as described by participants.

Negotiating power, legitimacy, and exclusion

Although institutional restrictions dominate refugee settings, findings from this study revealed an interesting dynamic where refugees negotiate power, legitimacy, and inclusion to better their livelihoods. While previous research in similar settings often highlighted the precarity and perpetual dependency due to limited resources (Agamben, 1998; Zetter, 2007), participants in TRS acknowledged the significant efforts made by the Government of Zimbabwe in partnership with UNHCR and other humanitarian and development partners to support their livelihoods. Over time, these actors have introduced livelihood opportunities aligned with the country’s commitments to the Global Compact for Refugees (GCR), ratified in 2018.

While limited in scope due to resource constraints, these interventions demonstrate that structures can facilitate and constrain refugee agency, as also noted by Giddens (1984). For example, all 24 participants received small agricultural plots equipped with irrigation, allowing them to rotate planting maize and beans according to the seasons. Although the programme was not available to all refugees due to limited land, it significantly improved household incomes and food security for those who were selected.

Beneficiaries indicated that they could retain part of their harvest to feed their families and sell some surplus in local markets to boost their income. These findings echo Hagen-Zanker and Mallett (2016) and Betts et al. (2017), who assert that even in protracted contexts, targeted assistance can empower refugees, amplifying their agency and self-reliance. Yet another pertinent example was the goat-rearing project targeting female refugees for income generation and promoting their economic inclusion. The female participants indicated that they were now the ‘proud owners of goats,’ which they could sell and get cash to send their children to school, and use the remainder to diversify their entrepreneurial activities and invest in savings clubs. A female refugee expressed this as follows:

Imagine I started off with a few goats, now I own twenty-five goats. I sell the goats to raise school fees for my children because my children go to boarding schools, then when I feel like slaughtering to eat and enjoy with my family, I can do so at my own will. (Female FGD TRS)

The foregoing demonstrates how structures are not always negative (Giddens, 1984) but may positively enable the agency of people in vulnerable settings. In this case, humanitarian interventions functioned not simply as top-down mechanisms of control but as platforms that some refugees could leverage by initiating entrepreneurial strategies to build self-reliance (see Krause and Schmidt, 2019; Pincock et al., 2020). Thus, when their agency was enabled through the structures they interacted with, refugees did not remain passive but found opportunities to diversify their income while waiting for permanent solutions to their displacement.

Again, this notion challenges the common stereotype of refugees as passive, inactive, and silenced. Furthermore, the findings demonstrated how refugees leveraged their skills and education acquired in their countries of origin and collectively used this human capital to navigate the refugee policy, which did not permit them to fully assimilate and become active in the formal labour market. One male refugee expressed his circumstances this way:

Back in the DRC, I had a respectable job, and my wife ran her business. We were okay at home, and coming here does not mean we are clueless. I have many skills, yet I cannot work here, the rules do not allow us, and this puts us in a very difficult situation, but we have no choice, one has got to survive – by hook or crook. (Male FGD, TRS)

This narrative is reflective of the navigations that refugees must engage in to negotiate the structures (the restrictive and exclusionary legal refugee regime in Zimbabwe), given how state policies exclude them from the mainstream labour market, a reality also proffered by Triandafyllidou (2019) and Krause and Schmidt (2019). Out of necessity, they must navigate around and exercise agency through their everyday micro-activities to pursue some economic activities for survival (Giddens, 1984), thus refusing to be reduced to passive victims and actors. To exercise their economic agency, refugees reported using their skills and abilities to gain finances, even if it meant bending set rules. A Congolese participant explained that

They say we must stay in the camp [. . . ] we are protected, but this protection feels like a cage. We are not allowed to go to town, to work freely, or to build a future. Is that protection? Yet on the other hand my children need to eat. I have no choice but to sell my skills in the nearby villages or in Chipinge town and Harare quietly. It is risky, but it is survival. (Male FGD, TRS)

Another man narrated it this way:

Look, I am a qualified plumber, and I was frustrated for a long time because there was very little I could do. I watched construction take place here and I could not be employed because I am a refugee and could only be given a token of appreciation. Now I do plumbing in and outside the settlement. I even did the plumbing for my church’s toilets here and they paid me. (Male FGD, TRS)

These narrations demonstrate acts of self-assertion, quiet resistance, negotiations, and adaptations within the system which defy the normative representations of refugeehood as passive, dependent victimhood. The findings parallel Zetter (2007) on the concept of refugee labelling, and Pincock et al. (2020) on refugee self-reliance using case studies from Greece, Tanzania, Pakistan, Uganda, and Egypt. The findings highlight how refugees adapt to structural exclusions, assert their presence and protect their dignity by engaging in subtle forms of defiance against limiting policies. Consistent with the findings of (Bizri, 2017; Gericke et.al., 2018; Kibreab, 2003; Lindley, 2009), our participants confirmed that they utilized their social and human capital along with their networks to navigate exclusion and assert their dignity by mobilizing crowdfunding for their businesses through savings clubs:

If you are a parent with children looking up to you for provision, you will stand up and do something regardless. We started a women’s saving club here to support each other. It is small, but it makes a difference, it makes us feel alive, like we can do something with and for ourselves. (Female FGD, TRS)

The refugees’ ability to pool resources and engage in collective action reflected Brun (2015)’s ‘active agency in waiting’, illustrating how refugees created a viable camp economy while waiting for permanent solutions. These daily engagements positioned refugees as active economic contributors, thus contesting the dependency or helplessness label (Mhlanga and Zengeya, 2016). One man framed it simply, appealing to both the government and camp partners: ‘Give us a chance to sweat!’ (Male FGD, TRS).

This man was simply expressing his longing for an opportunity to be productive. Nonetheless, refugees still managed to leverage their skills, seizing available opportunities and collectively organizing themselves to subvert structural limitations and assert their role as economic and social actors (see Brun, 2015; Giddens, 1984; Krause and Schmidt, 2019).

Everyday tensions and social cohesion: Refugee–host community dynamics

Dominant narratives on refugee–host community relations are frequently portrayed through the lens of conflict and competition over resources (Ali and Ocha, 2018; Coniglio et al., 2023). However, our findings demonstrated noteworthy patterns of peaceful coexistence. Notwithstanding that initially, host communities perceived refugees as competitors because they were perceived to be favoured by the government and humanitarian based on the assistance they received. However, over time, strong forms of social cohesion have since developed, grounded in shared survival, interdependence, and daily cooperation. Although this article is theoretically underpinned by Giddens’ structuration theory and Brun’s agency-in-waiting concept, the forms of social cohesion identified strongly reflect the philosophy of Ubuntu, an indigenous African ethic of relationality and mutual care based on the recognition that ‘a person is a person through others’ (Samkange and Samkange, 1980). Significantly, the interactions observed in TRS extended beyond instrumental cooperation to reflect deeply embedded communal value systems that emphasized reciprocity, dignity, and collective well-being (Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013).

This was made possible by the government and humanitarian partners who intentionally offered inclusive assistance that benefitted both the refugee and host communities. For instance, agricultural plots were allocated to beneficiaries from both the refugee and host community for irrigation purposes, as one of the participants proudly indicated,

One of my close friends is from the host community, her plot is next to mine, and we farm together and help each other in our fields. We also pray together, and sometimes, she visits me here. (Female FGD, TRS)

Beyond programmatic inclusion, practices reflected above demonstrate how humanitarian interventions can align with pre-existing indigenous communal systems of support. For instance, shared practices of land cultivation through joint labour and reciprocal exchanges reflected Ubuntu practices of collective production and solidarity (Mugumbate and Nyanguru, 2013; Samkange and Samkange, 1980). These findings are consistent with other studies that have shown that inclusivity and equitability in development initiatives can build cooperation and peaceful coexistence in situations of precarity (see Betts, 2021; Lehmann and Masterson, 2020). However, though beyond the scope of this article, it must be mentioned that some tensions exist among refugees themselves, especially at the waterpoints, often drawn along ethnicity and nationality lines. For example, tensions between refugees from Rwanda and the DRC manifest in TRS as a continuation of the political tensions that exist between their countries. Similar tensions were noted where ethnic minorities such as Sudanese, Somalis, and Ethiopians were victimized at water points. Crucially, resource-based conflicts between refugees and the host communities were not observed in this case., underscoring the need for context-specific studies to understand complexities and realities in-situ so as to refrain from generalizing to dominant trends.

In addition, findings showed that the local trading market, constructed for refugees to trade, was made accessible to host communities who sold their produce in the camp on select days during the week. Members of the host community, therefore, come into the camp freely, selling food and non-food items, a good illustration of positive intergroup relations. This integration created a ready market for local farmers and diversified goods available to refugees.

One of the community leaders stated that

Initially, this was our market, but Zimbabweans are so good to us, we discussed with camp management, and we agreed to allow them to come to TRS every Wednesday and Friday to sell their stuff. We also go to the market when they come to support them. They bring bananas, avocadoes, sweet potatoes pineapples and many other things. But they cannot come every day as we will also be using the market space. We are one family, and we love Zimbabweans; they have welcomed us and are our friends. (Female FGD, TRS)

The practices described reflected an Ubuntu-informed moral economy where shared access and community norms shaped mutual participation in ways that transcended formal humanitarian design in TRS.

Furthermore, the findings also aligned with Lehmann and Masterson (2020) and Betts (2021) who advanced that conflicts between host communities and refugees can be mitigated through mutually beneficial economic activities. Similar results have been observed in Uganda, where the local population near refugee settlements gained from both consumption and public services (Kreibaum, 2016). In addition, the study identifies barter trade, based on the informal exchanges of goods and services as a critical economic strategy between refugees and the host community, closely linked to the humanitarian aid architecture supporting refugees in TRS. For context, the monthly ration of every refugee in TRS, regardless of age or gender, is uniform across the camp and consists of 13 and a half kilogrammes of maize meal (13.5 kg) and cash assistance of seven United States dollars ($7) per month. Therefore, a family with eight members receives 108 kilogrammes of maize meal (108 kg) and 56 dollars ($56) monthly. However, most of them prefer rice, cassava, plantain, and chapati, given that maize meal is not their staple in their countries of origin. This scenario facilitated opportunities for barter trade as refugees were able to exchange surplus maize meal, allowing them to exercise economic agency and gain extra financial resources.

Moreover, the settlement’s large size and layout further facilitated symbiotic economic exchanges as many of the refugee’s residences were far from food distribution points, necessitating transportation of heavy maize meal rations. This situation enabled host community members to transport these rations for refugees using their donkeys and scotch carts, with compensation through barter trading with excess maize meal rations of refugees. Consequently, barter trade emerged as a strategic livelihood strategy benefitting both refugees and surrounding host communities, thus promoting mutual dependency and social cohesion. Beyond economic benefits, barter trade encouraged tolerance and integration by facilitating inter-community relations.

The following excerpt illustrates this:

My husband and I have seven children and all of us combined, we receive 121 kilograms of maize meal monthly. So, imagine the logistics of carrying that weight monthly from the distribution point to our house. So, every month, we hire scotch-carts and donkeys from host communities, and they deliver our load from the distribution point to our house, and we pay them with maize meal. So barter trading here is a huge currency because we have a lot to exchange. (Female FGD, TRS)

Similar findings were found with Congolese refugees in Rwanda, which showed that there were positive economic spillovers for host communities near camps, again challenging assumptions that refugees exacerbate conflict (Fajth et al., 2019). Furthermore, the barter systems described reflect an embodiment of indigenous economic logics rooted in reciprocity and relational exchange which resonates with Ubuntu through trust, obligation and interconnectedness beyond material value.

Hence, in TRS, co-dependency and co-existence reinforced social cohesion, rooted in Ubuntu, an enduring community-based practice that operated alongside and sometimes beyond formal humanitarian architecture. Consequently, recognizing these indigenous foundations reflect the need to design humanitarian interventions that work with existing communal systems. A good example was the humanitarian food aid in TRS, which imposed the host country’s staple diet (maize meal) and shaped refugees’ dietary choices. Refugees responded by trading maize meal with hosts to buy preferred foods, a reciprocal practice that also helped food-insecure host households and reflected the Ubuntu practice.

Agency through volunteering in the camp

Yet another way refugees seized economic opportunities and demonstrated their agency was through volunteering. In TRS, similar to other refugee settlements or camps, humanitarian organizations collaborate to implement social protection and development programmes. In doing so, they often organize events, for example, workshops, training sessions, or other activities, providing refugees with opportunities to volunteer as either organizers, translators, or collaborators. As a result, the study found that volunteering was in high demand and motivated many, particularly the youth to learn the English language and maximize their chances of securing translation roles and earn extra incomes/stipends.

Given the restrictions on formal employment for refugees in Zimbabwe, volunteering is not merely about sacrifice or community service but is often a deliberate livelihood strategy that provides both a modest income and a means to leverage skills for other economic pursuits:

I am a qualified ECD teacher. I trained here in the camp. I cannot be employed as a full-time teacher like my Zimbabwean counterparts, but I do teach in the school as a volunteer, and they pay me a token of appreciation. It is not commensurate with the work I do, but it patches a few gaps, as I can send my child to secondary school. (Female FGD, TRS)

Normatively, volunteering stems from passion and compassion. However, in displacement contexts, the driving force primarily financial rather than emotional. Here, volunteering represents a form of active agency-in-waiting (Brun, 2015) and serves as a crucial livelihood strategy to adapt to job market limitations imposed by refugee policies in Zimbabwe. As one female volunteer explained,

In my case, when I came to this camp, I did not know a single word of English. I quickly realised that if I did not work or do anything, I was going to die of stress, so I taught myself English. While my family members were sleeping, I would be awake, studying the English dictionary under a candle. The English I am speaking with you right now, I taught myself, can you believe it? And this is how I am here with you today in your programmes, translating for you. Now I speak English, French and Swahili, and I am learning Shona too. (Female FGD, TRS)

Beyond illustrating agency, this narrative deepens our understanding of how ‘choice’ varies among refugees. Volunteering, in addition to economic incentives, depends on refugees’ willingness and ability to learn English, highlighting the element of choice and the capacity to act on it. It is not just a survival tactic but a pathway to broader social and economic opportunities for improved livelihoods in the settlement, similar to findings of Syrian refugees in Türkiye (Ertorer, 2021). One participant explained why some refugees, including herself, consistently secure paid volunteer positions, while others lack access to these opportunities all the time. She explained that

Some of us are lucky to get different opportunities in the camp. It is not that we are very clever, not at all, but we work hard. Some people have been here longer than I, but they have never taken the initiative to learn even a few words of English. When NGOs come here, they prefer those who understand English, and in this camp, if you take initiative, you can open some doors for yourself, and that is what I did. Now, most NGOs know me, and when they come here for programmes, they contact me. (Female FGD, TRS)

This study noted that while the European refugee crisis has contributed much to framing refugees as passive victims (Lee and Nerghes, 2018) our findings diverged from this common narrative. Further, the study affirmed that structure and agency are mutually constitutive (Giddens, 1984) in relation to the strategies and practices of agency by refugees in TRS. The results mirror previous studies, which similarly acknowledge refugees as agentic (Kanal and Rottmann, 2021). Overall, the study challenges the ‘victim frame’ (Crawley and Jones, 2021) and highlights expressions of agency at the intersection of structural influences and individual survival actions in displacement contexts.