At Xavier Project we are proud that refugees form the core
of our team and our decision making processes... It sounds like a statement from a page on our
website. Which it is. But what does it really mean when we say that? It is
actually untrue that we have more refugees than non-refugees on our payroll, (only
just). But we don’t consider the staff on our payroll to be the only people in
our team. Everything we do relies on the co-operation of the refugee community
and I should go further than that to say that everything we do relies on the inspiration of the refugee communities
we work with.
It still sounds a bit like the website - but then I did
write most of it.
In February on our
annual retreat we decided as a group of 26 that our core value should be ‘solidarity’.
That’s it – just solidarity. I was excited when we settled on this because
everything seemed to click together, but since then I have been trying to work out
how we should express it. I suppose the reason you have a core value (or a set
of values) as an organisation is to try and determine what defines you, and
even what makes you stand out from other organisations. Otherwise it is just
lip-service. What is the point in celebrating a core value of ‘honesty’ as a
charity or an NGO, or even ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’ – isn’t that
what we are all meant to exhibit? What is more, in 2008 there were plenty of
NGO’s who were displaying honourable core values and they were doing a fairly
good job, so why would Xavier Project come along with the same core values and
expect to be an improvement? Therefore, we shouldn’t conceive our core value of
‘solidarity’ in a way that everyone expects – ‘we keep the best interests of
our beneficiaries at heart’, or ‘we do needs assessments to find out exactly
what refugees want’. Instead we need to have a radical interpretation of ‘solidarity’
if it is going to be what defines us and makes us different.
It starts with attitude. Refugees come to Kenya and Uganda
as functioning decision making people who want to control their own lives but
in many cases they are herded like animals with limited freedoms. They have no
democratic representation and as such have minimal influence over sweeping
policies that determine their futures. These policies are often made by very
few people who have little understanding as to what it means to be a refugee
and these people talk about ‘durable solutions’. These durable solutions, which
include repatriation, local integration and third country resettlement, are
elusive – maybe there’s a lack of
will somewhere along the chain of cause and effect. Maybe it’s just a lack of understanding.
(sound-bite alert) In the end the only people who will put into effect these
durable solutions are refugees themselves. What is clear is that if refugees
are left in the dark as to the reality of their situation, and have no voice to
express it from their perspective, they will be no help in finding the durable
solutions that we are all want.
This may sound so
obvious, but why is it that refugees still have almost no say in the policies
that affect them and even worse, do not even understand the realities they face
as refugees? I may sound patronising, but we have put it to the test. In May we
asked over 300 refugees across Kampala and Nairobi whether they expected to be
resettled in a third country and over 90% said yes they would be. But between
Uganda and Kenya less than 1% of refugees are resettled every year. So their
expectations about one of the key durable solutions is wildly inaccurate – can
it be so different for the other two? That
suggests that the interventions carried out by all the agencies here are on thousands
of ‘blind’ beneficiaries who have little idea of what is going on - the herding
metaphor becomes relevant once again.
An attitude of solidarity would not let this happen. Refugees need to be aware of their situation
and need to have a voice to raise their concerns and express their ambitions
both from the perspective of human dignity, but also from the utilitarian
perspective of achieving durable solutions.
But how do we adopt this attitude and display solidarity in
practice? Before we even get onto activities (of which there are many – just look
at our workplan) there is the question of approach. Once you consider refugees
as the owners of their futures the conception of an NGO changes quite drastically.
Rather than being an authority we become simply a vehicle for all of our stake
holders. Primarily, these stake holders are the refugee communities we work
with, but you could also say we are a vehicle for our supporters, whether
donors, volunteers and other aid agencies so that refugees can use their
generosity and energy to their advantage in the most efficient way. If we are
going to be an effective vehicle we must be accessible to all these stake holders. For the donors, this is
where the clichéd values of transparency and accountability come in and for the
refugees this is where the values of visibility and approachability come in. I
was reminded of this no more clearly than the other day in one of our Tamuka
Hubs when one of the members stood up and addressed the group, asking why more
organisations could not be approachable and offer an environment where refugees
could come and ask any questions, share their burdens and share their dreams.
It was relieving to hear that we are succeeding in this approach where many
others apparently aren’t (waiting rooms, security questions, never-ending queues,
computer-says-no etc etc), but we must hold onto it and enhance this quality.
His colleague a few
minutes later commented that it is vital that NGO staff really understand the
challenges of being a refugee -he was hinting that often agency staff don’t
seem to care. This is where our full
time refugee employees have been so helpful (shout-out to Rinaldo, Alex, Anna,
Sandra, Frank, Sam, Patricia, Pascal and all the rest) but the point is that empathy goes beyond hiring refugee
staff. We are all able to empathise with refugees and share their hopes and
fears and this is an approach that must start with the right attitude. Again accessibility
and empathy are vital in working with refugees from the perspective of human
dignity, but also from the utilitarian perspective of achieving durable
solutions.
This attitude and approach may not seem radical but it will
take a culture change for them to be fully adopted. There is another vital
approach though that goes beyond empathy and is more testing to the existing
culture. This is the approach of sharing.
We cannot honestly have an attitude of solidarity, be accessible and
understanding if we do not share our lives with the people we work with. Sharing
resources is difficult and not always possible, but if our lifestyles are
excessively different from the people we are working with our ‘solidarity’ will
not be honest. This idea is best expressed by our staff alumnus Stephen Windsor
in his blog on the same topic (https://muzungualihomba.wordpress.com/) which I would definitely recommend
reading. But the easiest and most effective aspect of sharing, yet surprisingly the most radical, is opening ourselves up
to the people we are working with. We have weaknesses, we have quirks, we are
individual people and we need help from refugees too. We want to learn about and
respect refugees as individuals so we need to reciprocate and not close
ourselves up behind a wall of faux professionalism. Being as open with refugees
as we would wish them to be with us is where we will start a real partnership
of mutual respect and the possible consequences of this are as obvious as they
are numerous.
The next step would be to consider activities that are spawned
and nourished by the attitude of solidarity when coupled with the belief that everyone has the right to equal
opportunities and protection wherever they live and whatever their background
(c’mon - that was taken straight from the first line of the home page...) - but we can leave that for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment