Who Represents the Refugees in Domestic Politics?

by Arttu Uuranmäki

The answer to question raised in the title? Unfortunately too often someone else than the refugees themselves directly, it seems.

In Finland, the public is mostly aware of two incidents, in which refugees have participated directly in refugee politics. First was the demonstration in a asylum seeker sorting centre in Oulu in 2015, when a group of 70 refugees expressed their dissatisfaction towards the quality of food served in the centre. The second was the 'Oikeus elää' (Eng. 'Right to Live') demonstration camp erected at the city center of Helsinki, that operated for months until midsummer 2017.

Apart from these two examples, there seems to be no political representation of refugees what so ever. Instead, in media coverage refugees' interests are mainly advanced in politics by different NGOs (i.e. Amnesty International) or certain political parties (i.e. Green Party).

The lack of direct representation seems to be an issue outside of Finland as well. Heath Cabot tries to unveil the fate of the European Refugee Advocacy Network (ERAD)  - an attempt to establish a refugee governed political network in Europe - in her article Refugee Voices: Tragedy, Ghosts, and the Anthropology of Not Knowing. ERAD disappeared in 2007 without much of a trace of the circumstances which led to it's disappearance. Cabot failed to find any reason for the fall of the network.

The problem of the lack of direct political representation is multidimensional. Besides a few powerful individuals, in western democracies one cannot achieve much in politics by oneself. When forming new legislation, institutions like Amnesty International or trade unions have understandably much more political leverage to affect the form of the new policy than an single individual.

One could of course argue that a NGO can do as much as any direct representative political body of refugees. However, the question at hand isn't about the fact how well does Amnesty or other NGOs perform or not. The more pressing concern is about agency.

The legitimacy of democratic societies lies in the principle of self-governance. A people isn't governed upon, but rather governs itself - at least in principle. Unfortunately there are always some minorities in every society who lack the means to meaningfully engage in political processes.  Political institutions are important ways of this engagement. They are often among the most powerful ways to give voice to your cause.

I personally have my doubts on the possibility of NGOs to represent refugees properly. The outcomes aside, the way of representation is too of importance. Do I feel I'm represented correctly in public discourse? Do I feel that the portrait painted of me as a member of group in public discourse is accurate enough? Cabot illustrates multiple ways the NGOs frame refugees in a certain way for not to elaborate the multiplicity of the social group but to their own strategic, even political reasons.

The two demonstration described before invoked two separate public outrages. I argue one reason being the conflict between "the official" image of a refugee and the reality. In NGO depictions refugees are mostly shown as "humble" and "weak" people. Refugees in the demonstrations weren't humble and weak but strong and politically active. This was then perceived by many of the public as arrogance and ungratefulness, not as an admirable internalization of democratic values and forms of  action.

If refugees are to deepen their direct involvement in the Finnish society, more moral and political confrontations can incur. Though, given the liberal democratic context of our society, a more involvement should be praised in the end. Has anyone ever truly called oneself a true democrat, and afterward demanded for a less public involvement in politics? I doubt not.