Faced with a rise in migrant and refugee asylum seekers, state control within European borders is stronger than ever. The optimism for a more accommodating Europe among migrants and refugees can well be juxtaposed with intensifying public hysteria and anti-immigrant sentiments from within. Foreseeing that migration is an inevitable process in a transnational globalized world opens up the debate on immigration. While globalization has brought upon immense freedoms by creating borderless world with transnationally mobile citizens for a particular subset of countries, it has become a source of precarity, and uncertainty to some. Not everyone has access to this global space, a spatiality that is enabling and yet constraining for some. A globalized world has freed up the western citizen subject who is capable to transverse borders in a protected, safe manner. However movement of the non-western subject remains restrained, thus unable to fully benefit from the globalization process. While it remains impossible to neither discount nor question free movement of financial capital, goods and services in a borderless world, the concept of labor remains to be freed. The depressing incidents of migrant deaths and suffering happening from Libya to coast of Calais only portray the visibilities of structural inequalities of globalization and a rough confrontation between migration and modernity. A system that has done little to ensure regular and safe migration routes nor accord protection to all citizens in equal measure. Bearing in mind that migration is constant and a natural social phenomena, we should not allow suffering of migrants and refugees to be another constant factor.
The definition of problems is a contested process of power among players. How we end up identifying certain aspects of social phenomena as problematic and how we define these problems, has a resulting impact on the choices we make as policy. Europe today has chosen to cast immigration as a problem that needs to be solved. Specifically migrants and refugees coming to Europe have been framed as security and economic threats. Their arrival, which has intensified in the past years, has had to confront identity politics within Europe that has marred the migrants and refugees as posing threats to the welfare state, its nationalism and identity of Europeans. On the forefront of this anti-immigrant discourses has mainly been right wing parties and interest groups who are seeking appeal to voters and legitimacy. These groups have influenced anti-immigrant statements and rhetoric that before seemed impossible to become dominant and mainstream. While the analysis on increased migration flows has often been pegged on the politics happening in origin countries, little scrutiny is undertaken alternatively to show the changing nature of European politics. In particularly the financial economic crisis and resultant welfare cuts has pushed the agenda of anti-immigration on mainstream media. Considering that migration flows to Europe has been a constant factor since the 90’s, it had never been a grave concern as it is now and that is due to current state of financial insecurity. Right wing parties across Europe have pursued strategies of nationalism that scapegoat migrants and refugees as bearing the responsibility of this financial uncertainty. The conflation of the arrival of refugees and migrants with ongoing economic problems in the host nations has failed to discern the shifting dynamics and fundamental issues facing Europe today. Again the public discourses surrounding migration today in Europe has often been dominated by the host nation whose knowledge on migration is often considered truth and authoritative. These discourses have portrayed exclusionary policies on migration as mainstream and thus allowing it to go unchallenged. Often the migrants and refugees have been profiled and excluded on the basis of their ethnicity, language, religion, culture that depicts them as different hence the creation of the ‘Other’. The identity of the migrant today is constructed from discriminatory stereotypes and is seen to occupy a nexus of illegality, criminality and that of an undeserving foreigner. The media and interest groups discourses as well as public opinion of host country citizens has provided further legitimacy to exclusionary politics of migration. It has made possible the criminalization, eviction, vilification and deportation of the migrant subject to be seen as an acceptable practice.
As the debates of the European welfare state continues to rage on amidst the ongoing immigration, it is prudent to shift the political debate from one of exclusionary and negativity to one that is accommodating. The state of welfare systems should be seen as one that is not necessarily being threatened by incoming migrants and refugees rather a more nuanced framework and political discursive debates is needed on the nature of the future welfare state arrangements. Knowing fully that immigration has played a central role in the political economy and growth of Europe it is premature to point out to immigration as the main crisis facing Europe today. In addition increase in migration could be as a result of higher mobility brought about by increasing wealth in Africa and Asia for example and not necessarily as a result of migrants escaping poverty. In the case of Africa the number of migrants leaving the continent to Europe is very minimal compared to the population who prefer living in Africa thus painting a bleak image of Africa as one of misery and loss is humiliating.
For the European working class they should be wary of xenophobic political parties contributing towards public hysteria who have geared the policy agenda of their party primarily towards migration control and not the more fundamental issues like economy. Whilst we speak of human rights in relation to migrants and refugees a fundamental concern is the question of power. How does the current juridico-political framing determine which citizen is legitimate, who is acceptable and who posses the right to entry and exit in the global space?. Considering that the current human rights framework that is supposed to offer protection and respite to refugees and migrants is in itself Eurocentric and nationally defined. We need to ask ourselves what are the possibilities of referring to a neutral framework of human rights that is conceived for cosmopolitan humans rather than in inter-state terms.
One of my favorite development blogs is The Stubborn Problem of the ‘Village Elite’, voted a World Bank ‘Top Ten Blog Post’ in 2012.
It’s one of my favorite because it’s honest and speaks of what goes wrong when implementing development projects, and points out a number of critical grassroots issues that aid workers face at the local level. The article also draws attention to some troubling trends in global development, such as the problem of the ‘village elite’, ‘elite capture’ and the issue of ‘participation’ in development.
In most development projects the success or failure of an intervention program is largely dependent on how well one understands a community’s behavior and the planning or design processes of the project you intend implementing. Unfortunately, pertinent decisions such as the location of the project, who to access and how many people to target continue to be made at ‘top-level’ meetings instead of in consultation with the communities we aim to support. This usually comes about because of tight deadlines around proposal submissions and/or budget constraints on the part of the organizations.
More emphasis is usually placed on winning the grant rather than assessing the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the particular intervention on the target communities. Once the grant is secured we in ‘the field’ are tasked with implementing the project. If it’s an advocacy project, we usually focus on ‘theory of change’ which largely entails continuous training and monitoring as opposed to direct service delivery.
The ‘beneficiaries’ usually know very little about our work but are excited to be the targeted community of our intervention. The initial training sessions can take up to four days, starting early in the morning and ending late at night. Of course, we buy lots of stationery which we distribute to our community whilst being fully aware that most of the recipients cannot read or write. However, we just don’t pay much attention to that aspect. Instead we hand out pens and copies of the training agenda, and hang our fancy banners – with our donors’ logos and our logos on them – on the walls hoping the participants will notice them and that somehow the community will appreciate our donors having seen the logos.
Most participants seem bored by training regime
We then bring in a ‘technical consultant’ or a facilitator to train the community members for hours on end with a minimum number of breaks for tea and lunch. Most participants seem to be bored by the training regime, or they see it a waste of time – firstly, because they can’t connect it to their daily lives and, secondly, because it all seems too theoretical.
For decades now most local communities have become used to projects that show immediate results, such as aid workers constructing boreholes, toilets and schools for them. However, the shift from this myopic view of project management to longer term development results that use results-based management has seen an increase in advocacy projects.
This paradigm shift places greater emphasis on addressing the root causes of poverty as opposed to only providing relief food. Importantly, it endeavors to see the community as equals and engages with them to have their say in development through participatory processes. It places community ownership at the heart of development. Furthermore, it envisions an advocacy process that ‘advocates with’ the community as opposed to ‘advocate for’ or ‘advocating on behalf of’ the community.
The thinking behind this shift in development practice is quite brilliant as it has a greater potential for lifting more people out of poverty and closing the ever widening poverty gap. Unfortunately, community understanding and reception of this development shift has so far not been very positive. This is due mainly to the fact that most advocacy projects build capacity through a greater focus on training and dialogue processes – ‘software’ intensive – as opposed to the more popular focus on ‘hardware’ processes of the past.
In one particular community in northern Kenya, I was to implement an advocacy project on water management. The biggest challenge I faced was how to train a farmer on water management when he lacked water on his farm because he lives in a semi-arid region. Or, how is one supposed to train a group of women on how they best to utilize water in their homes when they tell me their children at home are thirsty, so they have to walk more than 30 kilometers to fetch water.
In my opinion, I did not feel like the project was making any tangible impact because we were not addressing the direct need – which was water scarcity – and, as a result, we were not looking for sustainable ways to ensure that this particular community has access to water.
In the training sessions which I conducted there was usually very little interest among participants from the community for software projects. In fact, I found that as the day progressed, the participants would, one by one, excuse themselves from the training sessions: for example, mothers would say they had to take their children to the hospital whilst someone else would insist he had to take his camels to graze. Being the liberal project manager I am I feel they have a right to leave. However, I have found that if I continue being lenient all the participants end up asking to be excused. I try therefore to find a happy medium.
Meanwhile, one of my colleagues believes in being strict when conducting training, so he usually locks the door and keeps the participants inside – only allowing them short breaks. He even instructs them to switch off their mobile phones. I don’t agree with his approach to training. However, my colleague says we are giving the participants money to attend the training sessions so they should ‘listen and learn’.
Attendance at training sessions linked to pay
No matter how engaging or uncomplicated I have tried to make the training sessions – even adding visuals and pictures – the participants still find it difficult to relate to the topics of discussion (water policy, for example). They only seem to be interested in proceedings at the end of the day when I hand out a small ‘sitting allowance’ to each one, and they can go and buy a few groceries for their families on their way home. From my experience, participants only attended the training sessions because they were being paid to attend, not because they were learning something, while field officers were only interested in claiming they had successfully completed the training.
On the other hand, community members have never shown any difficulty understanding more tangible projects, such as the building of a school in the area. Community members are definitely more receptive to these kinds of projects and go out of their way to support you in achieving your intended goal.
However, advocacy projects are not that visible because they’re all about changing perceptions and the behavior of a community with regard to a particular issue. Chances are the community will not appreciate what you’re trying to achieve, simply because they don’t see any immediate results.
My experiences have therefore led to me questioning the effectiveness of promoting community empowerment through training, and whether pure advocacy projects can ever achieve the intended impact in a rural village setting. Unfortunately, this is the reality I have faced as a development worker in ‘the field’: beneficiaries who only care about receiving money, and development workers who only think about taking photos and writing fancy reports to donors on how successful the training was while it clearly wasn’t.
- The Godfather by Mario Puzo
- Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nan Graham (Editor)
- Lords of Poverty by Graham Hancock
- Hostages: A Year at Gunpoint with Somali Pirates by Paul Chandler, Rachel Chandler and Sarah Edworthy
- Born in the Big Rains a Memoir of Somalia and Survival by Fadumo Korn
- The Africans by David Lamb
- Dust From our Eyes: An Unblinkered look at Africa by Joan Baxter
- And the Mountains Echoed by Khaled Hosseini
- Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
- Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield by Jeremy Schahill
- Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde, Cheryl Clarke
- Zami, A New Spelling of My Name by Audre Lorde
- How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas by David Bornstein
Other Great Reads,
Kenya Refuses by the New Inquiry
The State of World’s Human Rights Amnesty International Report 2013
“You are All Terrorists” Kenya Police Abuse of Refugees in Nairobi by Human Rights Watch
I read this on an article ‘Development is political. It is not linear, but complex, and we operate in a political minefield’ and got so inspired that nearly jumped on my chair but then I was left asking myself how do we make our voices heard in this ‘political minefield’ we need solutions. I have been working in development since I graduated, it’s all I know and care about and don’t think I ever want to leave this industry. Despite reading so many books by development critics, who continuously question this industry I choose to remain hopeful that things will soon change in development. My journey to love development begun in the spring of 2009 in my sophomore year when my sister’s boyfriend brought me Dambisa Moyo’s ‘Dead Aid’ which had just been published in the U.S. I was taking general courses at the time and had little knowledge of the whole development agenda and its actors. The book was a major turning point in my life (Despite all the critical reviews) that made me to delve more into the subject and I begun reading more on development from Paul Collier, Bill Easterly, Jeffrey Sachs, Leslie Brown, Samir Amin, Walden Bello, Vandana Shiva, Noam Chomsky and countless others. I was basically spending the little pocket money I got to buy all the books I could simply afford. That’s how my love/hate relationship for this industry begun. With my Cum Luade in International Relations degree I could have decided to pursue so many other career paths including academia which I also love or Foreign Service but I decided to work for non profits. I have to say I enjoy the thought of knowing what really development can do to transform communities but I don’t enjoy the fact that development is doing so little to reach it’s potential. I have been implementing mostly advocacy projects that range from Gender Based Violence to climate change which I do enjoy yet there are times I feel the impact is so little or non-existent. My frustrations is more on the system of development, how it is framed is really not going to change much even in the next 30 years. From the detached proposal written by consultants in a first world country who have limited knowledge on the real issues facing the ‘community’ the project is being addressed to, the greedy organizations just wanting to win grants, or the donors who come up with ridiculous guidelines and procedures like the log frames, M&E frameworks, results based management yet they know basically well that ‘indicators’ is not an indication that an impact/outcome will be reached. The people who implement these projects just bend the rules to suit their own needs, after the end of the year they will write a beautiful report of how the project achieved its target and manipulate percentages and data to demonstrate that the target was reached. Development works at the high level meetings where our governments and organizations commit to bold statements and agree that development is going to solve world’s needs and with that regard rich countries continue to release billions to channel to this industry. But what is happening at the grassroots levels where the money trickles to, no matter how little. Where the ‘community’ and ‘beneficiaries’ of these commitments are meant to have their poverty levels halved? the ‘Bottom Billion’ Nothing is changing. There you find organizations and individuals those charged with implementing these projects mostly just in for the money and they embezzle thousands of dollars which was meant to ‘solve world problems’. The individuals who are charged with ensuring that the community voice is heard is the same group that is committing fraud and taking the little that is allocated for the community. We can’t continue blaming our governments for not doing enough. We are also to blame. I bet being passionate about development is just not going to be enough to solve world problems neither does being a social activist guarantee that the person is struggling for humanity.
A recent controversial New York Times op-ed ‘drones for human rights’ by Andrew Stoboand and Mark Hanis has been the cause of major debates around human rights circles.The article proposes for a new ‘solution’ in solving systemic human rights abuse in conflict zones. In the article they write ‘A drone would let us count demonstrators, gun barrels and pools of blood. And the evidence could be broadcast for a global audience, including diplomats at the United Nations and prosecutors at the International Criminal Court’ This argument further endeavors to add surveillance as a new course of humanitarian action besides the known customary methods of advocacy and enforcement. The article states ‘We could record the repression in Syria with unprecedented precision and scope. The better the evidence, the clearer the crimes, the higher the likelihood that the world would become as outraged as it should be’ This outlook to solving human rights abuses seems like an attractive solution for those of us interested in preventing human rights abuses. However it is still a pre-mature argument as it ignores other fundamental aspects as there has always been an ubiquitous availability of information on human rights abuses however the problem has been attributed to the lack of political will to solve human rights by states, the inadequate response to these violations as well as the lack of legal framework on use of drones in international law. The article suggest that human rights organizations can now use drones to monitor abuses however it forgets to mention that the same human rights groups have in the past condemned the use of drones as they view it as a violator to human rights itself. The emergence of human rights in international law has placed the rights of man on a pedestal almost equal to the rights of the state after a long progressive battle with the inception of the ICC. Allowing drones to monitor human rights abuses or giving states the carteblanche to use drones against perceived ‘terrorists’ would be a setback to the achievement of rights of the individual as stipulated in the UDHR since it will undermine the role of the Rome Statute as well as eliminates the human value of giving testimony or providing evidence that a human rights violation occurred as drones will solely be providing the imagery satellite account to a human rights abuses. Another nascent issue to this myopic outlook is the violation of a country’s sovereignty during surveillance by drones as well as use of the drones to kill certain individuals of that particular country without the consent of that country. In Africa, the US is leading an aggressive campaign against terror suspects by building up drone bases in Ethiopia, Seychelles and around the Arabian Peninsula. Previously the US has already been known to uses armed drones against Al-Qaida suspects in Yemen and Somalia and also to monitor pirates off the coast of the country. In Sudan a similar project that uses satellite imagery to monitor human rights abuses is already being implemented in Darfur under the ‘Eyes on Darfur project’ however accounts of human rights violations still remain rampant in the region. Africa where most of the conflicts occur will be largely on the recipient side of this form of militaristic adventures and not only will it exacerbate inter and intra conflicts but it will also further alienate the African voice and interests in terms of security as well as human rights.