Whose Vision is it Anyway?

 

Vision for Change - Whose Vision Is It Anyway? 

There are many problems in the world we would want to see change and the world’s challenges are all interconnected in one way or another. Since 2008 we have been learning and understanding the multitude of challenges faced by people who have been forcibly displaced, and we decided long ago that the vision for change we want to see as an organisation is the change that refugee communities want to see. People affected by forced displacement around the world face very different challenges according to their separate contexts as well as due to their various individual circumstances but there are also commonalities in the challenges and restrictions faced by refugee communities as well as commonalities in the way that refugees are able to imagine a better today and a better tomorrow. 

One commonality is the way that having been a victim of forced displacement, with the upheavals and tragedies that accompany such events, refugees find themselves with reduced rights and reduced freedoms and reduced agency over their lives. These reductions in freedoms and rights can be structurally embedded in national or international law, can be the consequences of social dynamics such as xenophobia, and can be connected to resources and exasperated wealth inequalities around the world. There is really no refugee context around the world where either some or all of these dynamics are not present. From the perspective of justice we do not feel that it is right that someone should have to experience such changes to their lives when they have committed no crimes, especially after experiencing the upheaval of forced displacement.  From a position of compassion and solidarity, we are driven to ensure we do better as a global community in including the most vulnerable. From the perspective of utilitarian ethics we do not believe that the current nature of the refugee response gives maximum benefit to us all as global citizens, not least because refugees are denied the opportunity of contributing in the way that they would like to global peace and prosperity. 

Over the last 15 years we have been a team informed by the visions for change that people who have experienced forced displacement would like to see. Central to visions for change are the ideas that communities of people affected by forced displacement should see a rebalancing of their rights and freedoms and access to the resources that would enable them to take back control of their lives and make decisions about their own futures. 

Needs and opportunities as defined by refugees start from the most basic needs of the most marginalised in their communities including those in need of emergency help in a time of crisis, the need to be safe, to have shelter, a healthy diet, good health and basic education. Refugees define a better future in terms of access to jobs and livelihoods, good learning opportunities, peaceful coexistence in sustainable communities. Definitions extend to the opportunities for future prosperity that refugees see with refugee and hosting communities developing together with integrated progress towards shared dividends, with community members of all backgrounds able to enjoy fulfilled lives. At Cohere we have heard and experienced these expressions of a better future time and time again and indeed we have seen many examples of when these visions for a better future have become a reality. In our sector this success is captured in the sanitised word - IMPACT. 

But what we have also learnt is that it is the communities affected by forced displacement, and only these communities, who can define what success means for their communities. When someone from outside the community frames success on behalf of a refugee community and controls the outcomes and experiences for refugees then there is a key element that directly contradicts the vision for change that refugees want to see - decisions forced or imposed upon communities, even with the best intentions, impedes that same community of their right and their wish to be able to make the decisions themselves that affect their lives. 

A refugee response that is led by people affected by forced displacement (and this includes the immediately hosting community) is the only appropriate means of achieving impact and achieving the individual visions for change for refugees. Also, insofar as the response is refugee-led this shift in power is part of the end itself because in the process of leading the changes in their communities refugees are better able to access the rights and freedom of agency that forced displacement has curtailed. But, it is only an end in itself if upholding the agency of refugee leaders simultaneously serves to shift power to the most marginalised in a refugee community who don’t have a platform to air their voices or stand in a position of leadership. 

We need to recognise that the rights and freedoms of every individual have to be considered in relation to rights and liberties of everyone else around them, and in every community, rights and liberties will clash. Someone’s right to not be offended, for example, will clash with their neighbour’s right to freedom of expression.  It is theoretically possible that a refugee leader’s right to lead and make decisions on behalf of their community will clash with the right of the individuals in their communities to make the decisions over their own lives or their right to be included in refugee-led programmes. In other words it could be possible for an organisation like Cohere to support an objective that seems like an end goal - shifting power to refugee leadership- while at the same time further limiting the rights and freedoms of individual refugees in controlling their own lives. In such a situation we are making a choice to support one person’s vision for change over another’s. 

Why is it Cohere’s responsibility to consider this? Some, including some refugee leaders, would argue that this whole question is not Cohere’s concern because there are enough refugee leaders who have proven that they prioritise the needs and visions of the most marginalised in their communities in the most inclusive way, and indeed there are structures of refugee leadership up to the global level designed to best channel support to inclusive leaders. These entities should be the ones to choose whose rights and visions should be considered as part of the refugee response. We do and will align our work with these initiatives -  but as long as Cohere exists and we have an element of influence to exert, every decision we make must be a decision that takes into account all the people that decision will impact, even if, or especially if, that means deferring day to day decision making to refugee-led decision making structures. 

The good news is that of course many refugee leaders are listening to and making decisions with all their community members and prioritising the needs of the most vulnerable, creating a buy-in for aligned visions within the community and in partnership with hosting communities. To know how to best exert our influence towards bringing about this alignment really depends on Cohere listening to and being led by a broad and diverse array of voices, so that we can be informed by the visions of the most marginalised in any community, whether they have a pre-existing platform for leadership or not. It also means that Cohere cannot shy away from having influence as an ally, we just need to be clearer as to whom we are allies to. Lastly, we need to think about who Cohere is when we say that Cohere is exerting influence and to create clarity on the outwardly rippling rings that make up the concept of Cohere as a “team”.  Exploring these questions will be central to this theory of change process. 

Conclusion 

Individuals, communities and leaders in contexts affected by forced displacement able to communicate and work towards aligned and integrated visions for change. This is what we want to see. This is happening and it would be good to see it happen more. How can community visions for change be more aligned and more inclusive to all voices? How can barriers to this be reduced? How can the communities access the power they need to have this agency so that their futures are not being imposed on them by someone from the outside, who may not have their best interests at heart, or may even have cynical or self-interested motives behind the decisions they impose on refugee populations? We will try to address these questions collectively before contemplating what Cohere’s role could be.