Ethico-political Governmentality of Immigration and Asylum

The Case of Ethiopia

Dilek Karal

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9783030001957
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030001964
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: African Politics
• Index: Social Sciences

Based on content analyses of three international organizations' policy reports and interviews with Somali refugees and refugee organizations, Dilek Karal examines the construction of ethico-political paradigm for immigration and asylum policies in Ethiopia. Departing from an assertion that ethico-political power is an intrinsic part of neo-liberal governmentality (and thus immigration and asylum policy formation), this volume unearths its mechanisms in Ethiopia's current immigration and refugee legislation and in global policy propositions moving forward. Ultimately, the exclusionary character of the propositions for Ethiopian states' governance of migrants is revealed through close interviews, data analysis, and applied analytics of governmentality method.

© The Author(s) 2019

Dilek KaralEthico-political Governmentality of Immigration and Asylumhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00196-4_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Dilek Karal¹

(1)

Bir Dünya Çocuk Derneği, Gaziantep, Turkey

Dilek Karal

End Abstract

African¹ countries hold a significant position in immigration and asylum issues in the world, hosting more than 17.2 million documented immigrants and refugees (UNDP 2013). However, they are relatively underrepresented when current literature on immigration and asylum issues is considered. Ferguson (2006) examines the problematization of Africa in world politics and claims that although the huge continent is composed of numerous cultures, states and languages, which create an extensive heterogeneity, the West approaches Africa in a totalistic manner. This perspective characterizes Africa (especially sub-Saharan, black Africa) “by reference to a series of lacks, failures, problems, and crises” (Ferguson 2006, p. 270). Ferguson contends that definitive characteristic of Africa with “failure” by laying behind what they “supposed to do” indeed refers to African countries’ failure to adopt worldwide capitalist restructuring (p. 280).

Similarly Mamdani (1996) rightfully points out that the common approach to Africa falls under the binary contradiction of weather “exoticizing” Africa, separating its realities from global dynamics, or “banalizing” it without appreciating the distinctive genuine characteristics of the structural dynamics of the continent. African poverty, social issues and push factors for immigration are described in a banal way. Their problems are defamiliarized and these are separated from their structural dynamics as well as the common socioeconomic problems in different parts of the world. African migrants’ poverty becomes a poverty that just belongs to them, as if their illegality is a particular characteristic they inherit from their geography. African migrant as “the agency” dissolve from the scene, we only see him/her as victim or perpetrator of certain problems. This inhuman approach results in differing policy propositions for the problems of this part of the world (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1

Political map of Ethiopia. (https://​d-maps.​com/​carte.​php?​num_​car=​13800&​lang=​en)

Ethiopia is not immune from this general perspective towards Africa. In the literature, Ethiopia is mostly considered within the larger map of Africa or in the Horn of Africa. International reports, in particular, approach the country via its links, ties and shared problems with the rest of the continent, rather than singling out the historical structural or sociological dynamics of the country. In this regard, the definitive characteristics of the country that are detailed in such reports are poverty, inequality, degraded status of women, the millions of forced migrants and undemocratic government. Of course, Ethiopia shares certain similar problems with other African states; however, picturing Ethiopia merely via documented statistics and top-down policy programs would be totally misleading in the understanding of immigration and asylum issues in the country.

As of 2015, Ethiopia was the biggest host country in Africa, hosting 720 000 refugees as a result of ongoing conflicts in South Sudan and Somali. Thousands reside in the country in prolonged situations as documented and undocumented migrants, along with small number of migrants who are provided with official refugee status. As of 2014, Ethiopia was host 645 356 documented migrants from Somali, South Sudan and Eritrea (IOM 2014).² Although being in the position of one of the largest hosts in Africa, the country is underrepresented in immigration and asylum studies literature sharing a similar faith with the rest of the continent.

This book aims to unearth how discourses and practices of the ethico-political paradigm are embedded and reproduced in global immigration and asylum policy propositions regarding Ethiopia. The research draws from governmentality studies literature (detailed in Chap. 2) to understand the construction of ethico-political discourse and rationalities in international documents issuing Ethiopia. I relied on Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze in examining the genealogy of power. Mitchel Dean, Nicolas Rose and Xavier Inda’s studies on the intertwining of power into developing a critique on modern policymaking processes constituted my roadmaps. Furthering this tradition, Susan Greenhalgh’s research on China’s one-child policy and Barbara Cruikshank’s study on democratic citizens and other subjects were inspiring to me as examples of directed content analysis. Having these studies in mind, ongoing developments on management of immigration and asylum and international political reactions to migrant crises in the recent decades forced me reconsider the liberal approach in today’s policymaking. In the present age, international humanitarian response and political approaches to mass displacement of people surely need multiple inquiries when human tragedy turned into an everyday reality. Today, international migration has shifted into a human tragedy.

When I examined the development of immigration and asylum policies, it became apparent that the evolution of policies in this specific field is in line with the transformation of the understanding of social security and welfare. The rise of the post-social state and the democratic state’s increasing emphasis on ethical paradigms in policymaking is noteworthy. Advanced liberal policymaking strategies promoted self-governance to replace welfare commitments of previous decades. The rise of the post-social state and emphasis on self-responsibility became the defining characteristics of today’s social policies. Transformation of social security and welfare into a self-responsibility paradigm is significant in understanding why post-social/advanced liberal states place an ethical paradigm into policymaking. This perspective affected numerous areas and policymaking strategies from education to crime control. Social policies in different fields put more responsibility on the individual and the community, especially in “problematic” areas like immigration and asylum. Resonating this responsibilization paradigm I argue that immigration and asylum policies called on individual migrants and migrant communities to be active, self-governing and self-helping, justifying these characteristics as a prerequisite for humanitarian support.

At this point the question of power intertwined with the question of ethics for me. In this regard, the book started with two overarching assumptions that are sourced from governmentality studies literature. First, the liberal understanding of equality had two consequences (the principle of double effect), differentiating between obeying, deserving ones and the others. The refugee as the stateless stranger or outcast did not have a solid place in this picture. In calculating a refugee’s possible contribution to the host society, selecting, numbering and lining them up was “normal,” since no one holds responsibility for the ongoing tragedy of mass displacement. Instead of authentic solutions, policies developed a normative approach to refugee flows. Intermingling of ethics with politics is not a genuine perspective. On the other hand, such a clear application of this perspective as a humanitarian response tool is questionable. And whose ethical perspective are these policies proposing? References to this ethical perspective present in social policies is again subject to examination. As stated in the common proverb, immigration and asylum policies were underlining the importance of teaching a refugee how to fish to feed himself for a lifetime instead of just giving him a fish. What is understated in this formula is that the refugee was already in a stormy sea, fighting with multiple issues falling apart from liberal ideal of democratic citizenship.

Teaching people to fish instead of giving them the fish philosophy sounds necessary and innocent within our understanding of modern welfare systems and perception of democratic citizenship. However, when migrants’ degraded or vague social and legal status in the host countries is considered, self-help mentality becomes nothing more than an abandonment policy or justification for drawbacks in international humanitarian mechanisms. Migrants or refugees (as other vulnerable groups in modern society, such as poor, criminal, or dependent) are expected to contribute wholeheartedly to all policies in order to receive the utmost benefit from humanitarian mechanisms. Policies push them to be self-governing, self-helping individuals and from time to time do not hesitate to define them as “agents of development”. Modern aid systems expect them to help each other, take active roles in community and continue their traditional in-community roles, such as caregiving for kids and the elderly, supporting each other financially, and undertaking gender-based roles. Since...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Neoliberal Governmentality and Ethico-politics of Power
• 3. Ethico-political Governmentality of Global Immigration and Asylum
• 4. Ethiopia’s Legislation on Immigration and Asylum
• 5. Ethico-political Governmentality of Immigration and Asylum in Ethiopia
• 6. Conclusion
• Back Matter