Rules of the Game - ILC

There exists a prevalent saying, currently inscribed on the banner of the President of Czech Republic, which states “the truth prevails”. It asserts the belief that finding and defending the truth is the ultimate, superior goal for resolving conflicts of life. As morally pure and correct this notion may be, ethnography seems to never fully and ably reinterpret the truth about refugees’ livelihood and status. Heath Cabot emphasised this view when she stated ethnographic writing can never deliver “the real lives and voices of the persons we seek to write”.  In many situations, when the absolute truth can’t prevail, in addition to other reasons, a political game naturally develops as a means of resolving the disputes involving the participating players, each with unique strategies and goals. An example of such game affecting refugees is the asylum process, described as a “socio-political process” in which various strategic objectives interface. The players of this game are multitudinous, namely, the refugees, lawyers, experts, and asylum officers. One can boldly attempt to summarise the entire game.

On the refugees’ side, the objective is to achieve legal entry into the country they are seeking asylum in. Regardless of the truth for seeking asylum, the key strategy is to develop a compelling case for well-founded fear of persecution. A vital component to achieve this is a lawyer who can help navigate the legal documents and procedures. A participating anthropologist or expert of the like is also important for strategic essentialisation, which entails contextualising “the movements and claims of refugees and asylum seekers”.

On the judicial and bureaucratic side, the aim is to scrutinise and validate the refugee case. Given the breadth and depth of cases, asylum officers must also rely on experts to quickly understand the conflicts in the refugees’ homeland. Refugee claims must be dissected and asylum officers must answer to the often-harsh restrictions immigration policies enforce.

This is the game. Games create winners and losers. No matter how unfair or unjust the outcome may be, this game will always command the decision-making process. Should we then aspire to make a game that is as fair and objective as possible? Possibly. This entails having players and rules which are fair and objective. Cynthia Mahmhood discusses the importance of objective experts aiding with the refugee claims. One would then expect the same from asylum seekers. This requires they are knowledgeable enough to talk about their case, but also be truthful in what they say for the sake of the asylum officer, something probably unachievable given the desperation to not return to their country of origin. Lawyers must also follow similar restrictions. This is a tough task, yet trivial compared to the fairness expected from legal systems completely influenced by governmental politics of interest. This could only ever change in the long run. The decisions taken by those players are what rule society. Should these changes ever be achieved, then the truth just might prevail.