Illustration of the isolation of the EU. Sascha Steinach/Press Association. All rights reserved. The so-called European
migration crisis and the populist political backlash that ensued – even if undoubtedly
driven also by a number of other factors – have created all sorts of challenges
for civil society actors. How to respond effectively to the increasingly
hostile societal environment? How to “stay in the game” without giving up on
core principles? What, if any, alternative political agenda should they put
forwards? This text attempts to provide a rather sober reading of the situation
at hand, and hint towards what I believe can be a way forwards.
Shrinking civil space
Not least in Central and
Eastern Europe, we encounter signs of a shrinking space for civil society.[1] While
in certain cases, the evidence remains somewhat anecdotal, there nevertheless seems
to be a general trend towards circumventing the modus operandi of
not-for-profit actors. This includes substantial cuts in funding, increased
bureaucratic burden, as well as a growing disregard for civil actors’ positions.
The key reason for this development is quite straightforward: the increasing
discrepancy between what not-for-profits advocate, and the policies that European
politicians pursue (and that their electorates expect them to pursue). While to
many, the decline of civil society actors is the ultimate worrying trend,
others readily put it right at the core of their politics, denouncing
rights-based NGOs as foreign agents and enemies of the people who shall be
destroyed if they can’t be stopped.
Getting real
In my discussions with
colleagues from the migration not-for-profit sector, I have been repeatedly
astounded by the refusal on the part of some to admit to the political
realities. Others strongly insist on taking radical positions which in their minds
could form the basis of a countermovement to widespread public hatred and
populist politics. Respectfully, I have to disagree.
Let’s face it – history is not
on our side. These are not times of great progress when it comes to human
rights, let alone migrant rights. Rather, these are times for defending key past
achievements, which are in imminent peril. As civil society, we run the risk of
becoming substantially detached from the prevailing public discourse and excluded
from political decision-making. This would be bad for ourselves, and it would
be worse for the many in whose defense we speak. It is crucial that
not-for-profits retain a say in decision-making and influencing the public
discourse. To that end, instead of imagining another world, they have to get
real.
Way forward
This means taking into account
uncomfortable facts, engaging in painful discussions, standing ready to
compromise, reaching out to non-traditional partners such as businesses and
choosing one’s battles wisely.[2] Not-for-profits
must strive to rebuild their credibility using their unique, usually people-centered
expertise. Without any doubt, the work they are doing in so many fields is
fundamental and irreplaceable, even if many would like to forget that. In
addition, civil society actors may want to invest more in data-based work,
producing solid research outcomes that are less likely to be rejected outright by
stakeholders.
Indeed, in the post-truth era, getting
facts across has become a challenging endeavor. I do not go as far as to claim
that data gathering and analysis will transform by itself the emotionally
charged discourse into a rational one – and, sadly, I do not have a definitive
answer to this part of the riddle. Nevertheless, I conclude from experience
that producing these sorts of outputs does boost the not-for-profits’
credibility and impact among political stakeholders and beyond.
Particularly in the field of
migration, it is no longer feasible for civil society actors to vocally
denounce government policies without putting credible alternatives on the
table. And by credible, I mean workable. Not even the most progressive of
European politicians stand ready to consider the notion of “no borders” and of
an unrestricted human right to migrate from one state to another. In practical
terms, it seems much more useful to start the discussion from the standpoint of
human rights-imposed limits to legitimate border protection and migration
control. As the civil sector, we should be prepared to actively engage in the
whole range of migration policy. In practice, apart from asylum, this includes
issues pertaining to labor migration and workers’ protection, integration
measures including language requirements, regularization but also returns. As a
case in point, we should come to terms with the fact that many irregular
migrants will face return in the decades to come, and do our utmost to ensure that
these do not take place to unsafe countries, that they are assisted rather than
forced, and that there is reintegration support.
Admittedly, the menace of the civil sector compromising its principles
and thus losing credibility is also looming. Do not get me wrong. So many out
there are doing a great job against all odds. A plurality of views inherent to
the civil sector forms a basis for an important ongoing discussion on both
values and tactics. And making concessions is, as it ought to be, painful. It
is nonetheless my firm conviction that civil society actors may not simply
limit themselves to discussing and litigating rights while forgetting about
politics. In fact, the gap between formally entrenched rights and the popular resistance
towards their full implementation has become a key issue of our time. We must
avoid falling readily into the trap of what the Harvard professor Yascha Mounk
calls undemocratic liberalism, which forms one of the sources of populist and chauvinistic
politics.[3]
For civil society actors all
around Europe, these are not easy times. We are used to being in the frontline
of social progress. Now, we have to fight for our very relevance and, in some
cases, survival. However, our role is perhaps more important than ever. An increasing
number of politicians, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, refuse to
lend civil society an ear. We must reassert ourselves and keep dialogue open
with all of those who do.
[1] See for instance a speech by Michael O’Flaherty, Director of the EU
Fundamental Rights Agency, from June 2017:
[2] Important food for thought can be found in an article on the US
Democrats’ immigration policy.
[3] For undemocratic liberalism see here.