ɬÀï·¬

During my internship at the UNHCR, I made several observations during my daily encounters that shaped my understanding of refugee-related matters in Quebec and subsequently informed my research project, which was supervised by Dr. Kazue Takamura from the Institute for the Study of International Development. As a former refugee who spent six years in a camp in Uganda, I approached the internship from a personal viewpoint, willing to help fellow refugees in quest for a new home. Anyone in my position with lived experience of forced displacement would hope that they would leverage this experience to contribute to some sort of tangible impact, however ambitious that may be. But owing to the limited scope of UNHCR’s intervention in Canada, I curved my own ambitions and redirected them to understanding the gaps that are left because of the office’s limited scope, and how alternative actors are filling these gaps. In other words, I adapted to the office’s limited autonomy of action by crafting new learning objectives – understanding the intervention gaps being filled by civil society groups to strengthen Canada’s asylum system in ways that guarantee fair, transparent, and efficient right-based responses to refugee claims.  

The nature and design of the internship were perfect for my data collection. With no routine to stick to, I carried out different activities every day, which also presented an opportunity to collect data from various sources and events. For example, during my meetings with government bodies and groups working for and with refugees, observation skills were key to noticing patterns of discussion, the power dynamics in the exchange of information, and most importantly, the most pressing issues being raised by community groups. Moreover, meeting different stakeholders and service providers represented an opportunity for networking connections; I later reached out to some of these people for interviews in addition to benefiting from informal discussions regarding their day-to-day practices, the challenges they face, and their overall relationship with government institutions.  

Personally, I believe that fruitful and informative discussions happen off camera. And it was through my informal discussions with some civil society representatives that I first realized the existence of a capitalist-type of competition between civil society organizations. If the competition is basically about access to funding, it is through these discussions that I understood that this competition is a byproduct of the structural configuration of refugee governance in Quebec. Indeed, the primary concern raised by my research was how the current structural configuration of refugee governance often pushes civil society groups to transition from political roles to apolitical ones, concentrating on delivery of integration services rather than pushing for systemic change and political accountability. From my observations, such as interviews, and informal discussions and encounters during the internship, the main explanatory factor I highlighted was the high reliance of these groups on governments’ funding models, and the autonomy for action of these groups being highly contingent upon these funding structures, rather than being the result of deliberate negotiations between the government and these groups. All integration services - currently attractive to most organizations, such as job market adaptation, language and cultural adaptation, etc. – are funded by the government under the immigrant settlement policy umbrella, as compared to the immigration policy which controls the flow of people wanting to enter the country; this is not publicly funded as it is considered temporary immigration. Consequently, through this structural configuration, the Quebec government outsources public goods delivery to nonprofits via short-term competitive contracts. It retains oversight of service delivery by imposing funding conditions on organizations that demonstrate efficiency and positive outcomes, while simultaneously excluding those deemed inefficient or those unaligned with the imposed conditions. 

Does this imply that community action is destined to fail or merely serves to perpetuate the existing system of ensuring government-mandated service delivery? I don’t think so! To the contrary, this configuration has a dual character; it is for the people and against the people. Paradoxically, the against-the-people character represents a significant gateway for transformation and underscores the importance of defending the presence of community organizations in neoliberal societies. And the aim of the critique I raised in my paper and my internship observations is not to undermine the community’s collective efforts but to ensure they avoid replicating the very forces of oppression and injustice they seek to challenge.  

This was the second learning component from my internship. It is the realization of the problem, and the subsequent capacity to see certain features of the problem as integral parts of the solution. The institutions are the problem, and the institutions are part of the solution. My motivation to intern at the UNHCR stemmed from a personal note. Having been a refugee in Uganda, I wanted to contribute to the work of the organization that became the beacon of hope for myself and my family. This had less to do with whether the organization is perfect (because it is not, given the limited intervention scope in Canada), but more with my willingness to learn, contribute with my experience, and help where possible. No doubt, I wrote my research paper out of the frustration I felt from a personal level, and most importantly, the fear that is often associated with the erosion of democratic principles in a democratic system. Today, in most cases, responses to refugee situations are being framed as humanitarian and charitable endeavors rather than rights, that one could enjoy under normal observations for human rights standards; and this is despite the existence of international frameworks guaranteeing rights-based treatments to refugees. However, I believe that if a government is interfering with the rights of its own citizens, this should not be treated differently from a government interfering with the well-being and rights of refugees.  Thus, what we need is bodies to uphold these standards, to make politics and governments accountable and to make this accountability an integral part of the pillars of a good democratic system. Otherwise, a political system that is willingly weakening the very social structures ensuring its own accountability is no different from a dictatorship.