Brain waste : the advocacy strategies of refugee advocacy organizations in the Netherlands

(1)

i

Brain Waste

The Advocacy Strategies of Refugee Advocacy Organizations in the

Netherlands

M. Hanegraaff J. Friedrich/10830332

(2)

ii

Preface

The master thesis that is lying in front of you is the conclusion of my master program in Political Science at the University of Amsterdam. The research was conducted in the period of September 2015 until January 2016. I would like to thank a number of individuals who helped me and supported me throughout my research.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, dr. Marcel Hanegraaff, for his expertise, many helpful comments and reading suggestions. But mostly for his understanding when it mattered.

My gratitude also goes out to my parents, Aloys and Maria, for challenging me in many substantive conversations.

I would also like to thank all respondents who made this research possible by being so kind as to participate. It provided me with the opportunity to make new friends, have great conversations and increase my academic knowledge.

Lastly, I would like to thank my lovely girlfriend, Janne Zwart, for her undying love and support throughout the entire process. For her valuable feedback. Her patience when I was busy, and her encouragements when I needed it the most.

(3)

iii

Executive Summary

The discussion between functionalism and pluralism has been applied to the potential of groups to be beneficial to the workings of civic society. According to the scholars of the pluralist and neo-pluralist orientation, groups have the potential to strengthen democracy and de-marginalize minorities. The current European refugee crisis and the impact of refugee influxes in the several European Union states renews the importance of the democratic deficit issue, in the present case, focusing on The Netherlands. Refugees living within the Dutch state territory experience heavy restrictions on their civil rights as they are denied citizenship. While refugee advocacy groups and NGOs are in fact capable of working together with their constituencies, thereby representing their interests, there are still numerous cases where these organizations work without consulting their constituencies and working on their own authority. It has been shown that participatory and representational structures have superiority over solidarity structures in the field of refugee aid. Therefore raising the issue as to why organizations choose either solidarity or representational structures in their activities regarding refugees.

(4)

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1 ... Interviewed Experts ... 36 Figure 2 ... Interviewed Organizations ... 38 Figure 3 ... The democratizing- and participatory mechanisms at Dutch refugee-advocacy groups ... 44, 65

Figure 4 ...

(7)

2

1. INTRODUCTION

In paragraph 1.1 , the problem statement and the research question are elaborated upon. Subsequently, in paragraph 1.2 the research objectives and motivations are explained.

1.1. Problem Statement

The European refugee crisis is one of the most widely impacting security issues of today. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the number of asylum applications in Europe at the end of 2015 is estimated at one million while at the same time it is expected that between 350.000 and 400.000 refugees will be granted refugee- or similar status before the year’s end (OECD, 2015). While these numbers appear shocking in and of itself, they pertain to those people that actually have been able to apply for asylum. This does not include those who did not survive the journey, or who still have to apply for asylum, making it hard to get a full grasp of the magnitude of this situation. Once the refugees arrive in Europe however, their struggles appear far from over. ‘Fortress Europe’ (Kofman & Sales, 1992), seems highly unequipped for the issue at hand and is currently scrambling to arrive at policies to determine these new European citizens’ fate. After the EU’s decision to accept the refugee quota plan, it became clear that all EU member states will have to do their part in the sheltering of the thousands of displaced (UNHCR, 2015). But while the plan has the potential to ameliorate some of the refugees’ difficulties by providing stability on an international level, changing the scope to the national level reveals an entirely different set of issues.

As refugees are sheltered within the borders of European countries, a new period of uncertainty commences. The current Dutch political system provides refugees in the Netherlands with little to no political participatory rights, a situation that can rightly be described as a democratic deficit. The security risks of large groups of migrants suddenly entering a country have been widely noted, such as budget deficits and often resulting societal turmoil, and a democratic deficit bars the societal participation which is necessary for proper integration. While the refugees live within the borders of the Dutch state and are therefore subjected to the laws and regulations that apply within this territory, they are denied access to the democratic rights that are linked to citizenship as their stay is often based on terms of conditionality for years (den Uyl, Weijmans, & Vink, 2014). Even those

(8)

3

asylum-seekers who do get a permanent residence permit have to wait lengthy amounts of time for the slightest modicum of political participation opportunity. This situation is highly undesirable as activities of political- and societal participation are key in reaching successful integration of migrants in their host society, but both are either not- or insufficiently facilitated. A situation in which potential new citizens lack any method to self-determination is thus undesirable on a normative basis as well as on a security related basis (Cambridge & Williams, 2004; Schwarz, 2015; Williams, 2008).

According to the classical pluralist theory on interest groups as well as the more modern neo-pluralist perspective (Beyers, Eising, & Maloney, 2008; Jordan & Maloney, 2006; Lowery & Brasher, 2003; Lowery & Gray, 2004), interest groups can play an important role in combatting democratic deficits by creating new information flows to assist the governmental mechanisms of modern politics and government in situations where the wishes of their constituency are not ideally delivered to them. As a group encounters certain situational constraints to their democratic functioning, the interest group might take it upon itself to represent this group and serve as a translator of their constituency’s wishes. The democratic- and participatory potential of interests groups is however highly dependent on their internal organizational structure and advocacy style which are used to arrive at their eventual goals (Halpin, 2006; Perczynski, 2000). In other words, if an organization wishes to close a democratic gap, it will have to be internally democratic and provide its constituency with deliberation structures and voting structures to indicate what their wants and needs are. Unfortunately, theory suggests that especially advocacy organizations who advocate on behalf of minorities or marginalized societal groups often lack internal democratic- and participatory structures, acting mainly on their own authority. On the one hand one can discern a strategy of acting fully on personal authority without employing democratic- or participatory mechanisms, the so called solidarity strategy. An example of this is when an advocacy organization states that their lobbyists work from a basis of ‘experiential evidence’ which they compiled from working on real life cases (Van Rooy, 2004). On the other hand, one can create an advocacy strategy in which the lobby points are pooled out of the directly communicated wants and needs of the constituency and acted upon with a democratic mandate, the so called representational advocacy strategy. In this case, one should think of the advocacy organization pointing out that their lobbyists are chosen by their

(9)

4

constituencies in elections, or their lobby points are decided upon by direct vote of their members. Several authors have indicated that there are numerous structural reasons why organizations are unable to work via democratic mechanisms and lack deliberative/democratic structures, however, some organizations are fully capable of installing them but choose to act otherwise. A considerable investigative gap exists within the field as to why organizations choose for a specific degree of internal democracy in relation to their constituency. The relationships between advocacy organizations and their constituencies has been inadequately addressed in the literature. Consequently, this thesis will investigate the degree of internal democracy within advocacy organizations for refugees in the Netherlands, and address the ‘why’ question of their choosing a specific advocacy strategy. By means of qualitative executive interviewing, an attempt is made to add to the literature as well as provide recommendations for future research. The research question underlying this endeavor is : ‘Why do advocacy groups/organizations for refugees in the

Netherlands choose for either solidarity- or representational advocacy strategies?

1.2 Research Objectives

The current study aims to answer the research question: ‘Why do advocacy groups for

refugees in the Netherlands choose for either solidarity- or representational advocacy strategies’. The research aims to be a stepping stone to assist others in achieving a remedy

to an undesirable societal situation by initially uncovering organization’s own reasoning for their organizational choices regarding the degree of internal democracy. In other words, a necessary first step in getting self-labeled advocacy organizations to adopt a more representational advocacy strategy, is finding out what their self-reported reasons are for adopting their current strategies. Others will then be able to further this research and make concrete policy recommendations to assist in making advocacy organizations more representational, and eventually help them close democratic- and participatory societal gaps.

The research objective of this work is then to gain a deeper understanding of the motives underlying the decisions of advocacy groups to install a certain degree of representativeness for their constituencies. Refugees are currently at the mercy of the Dutch

(10)

5

government, the media and the public, and lack proper institutionalized opportunity to speak their mind and influence their own future. Due to my personal prior observations, studies, personal experiences and expert interviews, I have developed the belief that the group we usually refer to as refugees is more than capable of forming well-informed opinions about its wants and needs and translating these into policy goals in the Dutch society. The fact that several authors have indicated that marginalized groups in society often face a lack of democratic- and participatory mechanisms within the advocacy groups that (claim to) represent them, in combination with the research of several psychologists on the heuristics and biases that even the most benevolent of advocates are often subjected to in making (organizational) decisions has increased my personal interest in the matter.

As this specific area of research is rather pristine, exploration is as big a part of the undertaking as is testing the hypothesis. A qualitative research method enables the interviewees to speak their mind uninhibited regarding their advocacy strategy, which increases the validity of possible confirmations of hypothesis. It also allows for insights outside of the scope of the hypothesis. The wide array of possible answers in combination with the detail that is linked with qualitative data, delivers insight for problem solving, evaluating efforts, as well as planning future research strategies. Due to the dual objective of the study, the objectives of the following research are:

1. The discovery of future research tasks in the field of ‘advocacy organizations’. a. Develop questions for further research.

b. Develop new hypotheses regarding the research question. c. Assisting in the development of future research strategies.

2. Testing the theoretical constructs underlying the proposed hypotheses in a real-life setting.

3. Contribute to concrete theory development within the field of ‘advocacy organizations’.

(11)

6

1.3 Outline

This outline aims to provide the reader with both a concise argumentative structure of the thesis, as well as with an overview of the contents of the chapters.

In this theses it is argued that the refugees who arrive here in the Netherlands, enter a lengthy situation of democratic underrepresentation as they have no institutionalized rights to vote on either representatives or laws, or be elected, and are thereby unable to exercise any self-determination. A situation like this is called a democratic deficit, which according to advocacy theory, can be remedied by the activities of advocacy groups. The extent to which an organization is however possible to close a democratic gap, is dependent on whether it offers members of its constituency the participatory- and democratic voice that they are lacking in society. If the organization acts on its own accord, the voice of in this case refugees, is still not being communicated to the government and their democratic limbo remains. Organizations who claim to represent a particular constituency can be expected to also actively pursue proper democratic representation on functional as well as normative grounds. This thesis aims to investigate what the advocacy strategy of Dutch advocacy organizations for refugees actually is, and subsequently find out why these organizations choose their specific advocacy model.

In organizational theory it has been stated that the opinions and attitudes of top executives regarding their customers, clients or constituencies, have a profound effect on the organizational culture, and the way in which the entire organization functions. The advocacy strategy of an organization is also part of the organization’s functional culture and can therefore be affected by the attitudes of the executives in relation to their constituencies. This thesis aims to investigate the effect of three hypothesized strands, which will be elaborated upon in the relevant chapter, of attitudes of the executives on the advocacy strategy of the organization. By means of qualitative interviewing, the executives are offered the chance to reflect on their advocacy strategy, and report on the reasons for their installment or upholding of these strategies. The answers of the interviewees will be linked to the hypothesis. The findings will assist in the development of future research strategies.

(12)

7

The outline of this piece is as follows. First, the theories and concepts upon which the research is based will be examined in the theoretical framework. It will do so by looking at democratic theory and the notion of the democratic deficit, followed by the concepts ‘advocacy groups’ and ‘asylum seekers’. Having laid the theoretical basis, this paper will discuss the problem statement by first looking at the political background and societal relevance and subsequently explaining the hypotheses one by one. Third, the methodology of the research will be explored. In this chapter, the research design, data collection and limitations of the piece will be described. Fourth, the findings will be presented, starting with the dependent variable of the advocacy strategy of the organization, after which the outcome of the hypotheses will be presented. Subsequently, the findings will be linked to the theories and notions explained in the theoretical section in the discussion. Fifth, societal and academic recommendations will be presented. Lastly, the conclusion provide an answer to the research question.

(13)

8

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The following chapter will substantiate the theoretical concepts which form the foundation for the case under study. The theoretical constructs offered below will be linked into a cohesive case in chapter three. This chapter sets out to provide the reader with a general introduction into the notion of democracy (2.1) after which a more specific explanation and theoretical underpinning is provided in relation to the concept of the democratic deficit (2.1.1). Paragraph 2.2 aims to explain the concept, and the role of advocacy organizations in democratic societies (2.2.1) and sets out to show that these organizations have democratizing and participatory potential (2.2.2). Attention will also be directed to the difference between the motivations of an aid organization and that of an advocacy organization (2.2.3). Ultimately, paragraph 2.3 will provide the theoretical background necessary to link the democratic deficit to the marginalized group of the case study. Firstly the definitional issues of the case group are elucidated (2.3.1) after which a factual representation is offered of this group’s political participatory rights (2.3.2).

2.1 Democratic Theory and the Dutch System

To illustrate the meaning of the term democratic deficit, one will first have to understand in the most basic of terms the meaning of democracy. Due to wording constraints and presumption of prior knowledge it suffices to say that democracy in its most basic term can be caught in the definition as offered by Abraham Lincoln: ‘Rule of the people, by the people, for the people’. Democracy comes in in a plethora of different forms, but the formal Dutch form can be described as Liberal Representative Democracy, which in the words of Heywood (p. 40, 1992) can be labeled as: ‘A form of democracy that incorporates both limited government and a system of regular and competitive elections’. The democratic agency of the inhabitants of the polis (the geographical- and territorial demarcations wherein laws are applicable to those bodily present) consists out of their right to vote on who will rule the polis and decide the laws they will have to adhere to (Heywood, 1992).

Moving beyond the most formal sense of the Dutch system, one might look at Carole Pateman’s seminal work Participation and Democratic Theory (1970). According to

(14)

9

Pateman’s research, the workings of representative democracy have steadily been losing relevance with regards to policy making over a period of hundreds of years. According to her, not representation is key, but participation in interest indicative structures. This broad participatory ideal aims at a society in which all members of society are active; sometimes through referenda, petitions, demonstrations or strikes (Pateman, 1970). One of the most radical forms of participatory democracy is the deliberative democracy in which the citizens deliberations and information exchange is at the basis of policy making. This system aims at a society in which a representative survey of the population is sat down to deliberate on a problem and eventually reach a political decision, or in a less binding degree, a political advise.

Bohman (1998) agrees that western representational societies have been steadily becoming more deliberative as citizens are able to assert their influences through public fora in an ever growing degree, especially with the rise of the internet and other social media (Bohman, 1998). One of the most cited advantages of deliberative democracy is its educative potential as citizens are brought into contact with a large variety of political views and problems which they will naturally have to form opinions on themselves (Cooke, 2000; Swift, 2006). The term societal participation has become increasingly important in Dutch society since the early eighty’s onwards as the Dutch government even introduced ‘guided participation’ in its governmental policies (Nieborg, 2002). Lans and Zouridis (2002) also mention that the Dutch society has received an ever growing focus on civilian political and social participation (Lans & Zouridis, 2002). While at this point though, it is still much too early to claim that the Dutch system has transformed in an actual participatory -let alone deliberative- democracy, it is important to take note of these alternative democratic mechanisms as well as this societal shift in the Netherlands and the role advocacy organizations might play in the larger whole.

2.1.1 Democratic Deficit

The term democratic deficit is most widely used in the field of European Studies, but is increasingly being discussed as being an effect of globalization and modernization in International Relations (Chandler, 2003; Held, 1998; Levinson, 2007). In the words of Levinson (859-860, 2007): "A democratic deficit occurs when ostensibly democratic

(15)

10

organizations or institutions in fact fall short of fulfilling what are believed to be the principles of democracy." While this is a rather broad description, Held (1998; in Chandler, 2003) explains that global processes such as forced-migration caused by international wars create democratic deficits at the national level:

(It) is the impact of globalizing processes, which have created a ‘democratic deficit’ at the national level. Daniele Archibugi and David Held assert that decisions made democratically by citizens of one state or region can no longer be considered to be truly democratic if they affect the rights of ‘non-citizens’, that is, those outside that community, without those people having a say. (p. 333)

According to Chandler, a democratic deficit can quickly come into existence as it is necessary to have the implicit- or explicit consent of ‘the entire community which will be affected by a

particular decision’ (p. 334, 2003). As explicit consent is only viable through the mechanisms

of direct democracy, such as referenda, the implicit consent of elected representation remains. A democratic deficit can therefore be stated to exist in cases where a community in a specific area is affected by a particular decision, without it having been able to vote on the representative making the decision, or on the decision affecting them itself. Having discussed the overarching concept of democracy and the democratic deficit, the following section will examine the eventual unit of analysis of this piece, namely advocacy groups. It will first set out to explain what the characteristics of an advocacy group are and at what point one might rightly name an organization, an advocacy organization. Afterwards, an introduction will be provided into the general role of advocacy groups in democracies, and subsequently the more specific theory around the democratizing- and participatory potential of advocacy groups is expanded on.

2.2 Advocacy Groups

In the parts to come, the terms advocacy group and interest group are used interchangeably and are not meant to convey a different meaning. The definition and description used is taken from the research conducted by Beyers et al. (2008). According to Beyers, there are three main characteristics that an actor needs to possess in order to be rightly labeled an

(16)

11

advocacy group. Namely: organization, political interest, and informality (p. 1106, 2008). The first of these characteristics, the organization, refers to the fact that an interest group needs to represent an aggregation of individuals’ forms of political conduct. The second feature, political interest, relates to the performance part of the organization, as in what they actually do. This is also where the overlap between the terms advocacy- and interest group is mainly positioned, as advocacy indicates a main activity. In the words of Beyers et al. (p.1106, 2008):

Political interests refer to the attempts these organizations make to influence policy outcomes. This aspect is often called political advocacy, which refers to all efforts to push public policy in a specific direction on the behalf of constituencies or a general political idea. This notion of advocacy places interest group research squarely within the broader literature on political representation.

The final feature, informality relates to the fact that the activities of the interest organization are not formally politically institutionalized as the official mechanisms of the democratic state. The interest group does not usually seek to represent its constituency through formal elections, but through other channels of agenda setting and interaction (Beyers et al., 2008). As the specific contributions to society of the advocacy group will be elaborated upon in the parts to come, it suffices at this point to indicate that according to Beyers et al. (2008) the use of advocacy groups is twofold. On the one hand, they are politically useful in the sense that they are able to actually contribute to sound policy decisions with expert knowledge and experience, and on the other hand, they are democratically useful, in that they serve to provide governments with specific information about their constituencies, that otherwise might have remained hidden for them. The following paragraph will elaborate upon the general theoretical debate within advocacy theory on the role of advocacy groups in society and provide a theoretical basis for the eventual case under examination.

2.2.1 The General Role of Advocacy Groups in Democracies

Having discussed the characteristics of the advocacy group in a general sense, the following paragraph will look at the theoretical debate regarding the functioning of advocacy groups and their possible contribution, or detriment to democracy. It will be argued that this paper employs the pluralist reading of the role of advocacy groups in society.

(17)

12

The initial theoretical debates within interest group literature focused on group’s eventual possible benefits to society (Lowery & Brasher, 2003). The participants to this large overarching debate can be assigned to two initial camps, namely the pluralists and the functionalists. While both camps have significantly different outlooks on the ways in which the group processes evolve that lead to subsequent outcomes, it is the outcomes that this research is mainly interested in, focusing on the question whether groups are an addition to democratic life or not. According to the classic pluralist theory, mobilization occurs naturally as certain constituencies are under the impression that their needs are not being met by the political establishment. It is at this point that the mobilization into interest groups is initiated. The constituency will try to find a way to inform the political elites about their concerns, and find solace in a group of equal minded peers (Truman, 1951). Interests groups mainly serve as information mechanisms that serve to strengthen the democratic process (Bauer, Pool, & Dexter, 1963). Sometimes certain groups get overlooked in the modern democratic system, and it is the interest group which is capable of mending the democratic deficits that sometimes tend to emerge. If society manages its group structures properly and consistently, allowing for equal voice and participatory potential across the board, one would end up in a ‘pluralist heaven’ (Dahl, 1961).

The main criticism to this exceedingly positive outlook on the role of groups in society is voiced by the functionalist tradition (Schattschneider, 1960). It is the oft heard remark by Schattschneider (1960), that is at the basis of the critique: “the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent”. According to Olson (1965), interest group mobilization is plagued by collective action problems, as groups tend to run into the free rider issue. Olson mentions that large groups, with little resources and diffuse interests tend to have difficulties mobilizing as the costs of participation tend to be too large to make up for the potential benefits. Within large groups, non-participation will seldom lead to exclusion of the groups benefits. Small elite groups with specified interests have a smaller focus and tend to run into much less mobilization difficulties, also their abundance of resources shortens their mobilization period significantly (Olson, 1965). According to functionalists, influence in the policy process can be bought like a commodity, and it is the highest bidder (group with the most resources to begin with) that is capable of exercising power. The eventual outcome is exactly opposite of the pluralist heaven as theorized by

(18)

13

Dahl. In a world where influence is bought and sold, the rich and powerful use groups to strengthen their favored positions at the expense of the marginalized. One would have reached a pluralist hell (Olson, 1982).

While both arguments seem to be plausible from the outset, there have been many examples of cases in favor of pluralist theory and a possible favorable role of advocacy groups to democracy. In his authoritative work, Strength in Numbers: The Political Power of

Weak Interests (2012), Trumbull collects a great many examples of these cases to show that

even marginalized groups in society, who are low on resources and have diffuse interests, can mobilize into advocacy groups and exert their influence on policy at a governmental level. There are however exceptions, and these usually arise when a group does not have the capacity nor freedom it needs to deliberate on their common cause, such as is the case with the refugees in the Netherlands. At this point, the advocacy will have to be organized for them by outside parties, and the possible democratizing- and participatory potential of their group is then dependent on an additional set of factors, which will be elaborated upon below.

2.2.2 Advocacy Groups: Democratizing – and Participatory Potential?

While the discussion above focuses on mobilization by constituencies into groups, and eventually advocating on their own behalf, a very different line of inquiry looks at the advocacy of ‘elites’ on behalf of the marginalized. In our current system it has become a much spotted practice for so called advocacy organizations to attempt to advocate on their constituencies behalf, while not per se being part of this constituency themselves. At this point, the perspective shifts from assessing the democratizing potential of groups through a lens of different constituencies, to a lens assessing the relation of advocacy groups with their constituencies in situations in which these two entities are heterogeneous.

In an attempt to assess the democratic- and participatory potential of advocacy groups, it is necessary to investigate their operational relationship with their constituencies. In the words of Halpin (2006): ‘Groups have been loaded with a number of great (democratizing) expectations (..) such as to address the political exclusion of marginalized constituencies’ (p. 919). According to several authors however (Halpin, 2006; Perczynski,

(19)

14

2000; Rajaram, 2002; Sokolova 2006), it is the extent of internal democracy within the organization that determines most of its democratizing- and participatory potential. An assessment of the current situation regarding internal democratic practices within advocacy organizations sketches a rather bleak image. McLaverty (2002) mentions that most of the advocacy organizations within his study fall short of democratic principles (McLaverty, 2002). According to Halpin, these findings do not have condemning consequences for advocacy groups in general. Halpin introduces the conceptual dichotomy of a continuum stretching from a full solidarity advocacy style, to a full representational advocacy style. According to Halpin, the democratic- and participatory expectations one might have with regards to an advocacy organization should be dependent on their constituency. If an organization’s constituency allows for representational legitimation of their advocacy practices, but their adopted advocacy style prevents this, an organization opens itself up to justified criticism about the legitimacy of their workings. Following Pitkin’s (p.209) definition of the term representation, one should look for mechanisms that allow the organization to ‘act in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’ (Pitkin 1967). The assessment of the democratic potential of one’s constituency occurs by asking the following three questions (Halpin, 2006, p.926):

1. What is the constituency being advocated for? Either ‘non-human’/ future generations or human.

2. Is an overlap between those ‘affiliated’ with the interest group and the ‘constituency’ being advocated for possible?

3. Can the constituency potentially speak in its own voice?

If the constituency is indeed human, an overlap between those affiliated and the constituency is possible, and the constituency has the potential to speak in its own voice, then the organization has democratizing- as well as participatory potential. The democratizing potential as mentioned above naturally relates to the organizations ability to aggregate the voices of the individual members of the constituency into a shared opinion on the policy goals towards which the organization should be striving. The participatory potential however indicates the fact that deliberative structures of an organization, such as general assemblies, advice committees as well as other ways of crowd sourcing might be a very valuable substitute for those marginalized members of society that seldom get the

(20)

15

chance to participate in the deliberative structures of participatory democracy or deliberative democracy (Ball & Peters, 2005; Halpin, 2006; Perczynski, 2000).

A typical example of an organization that has no representative- or participatory potential is Greenpeace. Greenpeace claims to lobby on behalf of the conservation of planet earth. Following Halpin’s checklist one quickly encounters the first difficulty of representing planet earth, namely that it is not human. At this point one can also see that the legitimation mechanisms employed by Greenpeace are all solidarity mechanisms. Greenpeace states that their lobby points are based on their research, their expert knowledge and on the moral authority of their objectives. On the other hand, a typical example of an organization that operates on the other end of the representation spectrum is the Dutch ‘Boerenbond’ (Farmers Association). Their constituency exists out of the Dutch farmers and is obviously human, they are also all affiliated with the organization and they get ample opportunity to speak their voice in general assemblies, vote on their region’s representative for internal decision making structures and get to vote on the organization’s policy drafts. In this case the legitimization is obviously representational and there is a lot of participatory- as well as democratizing potential as the voice of the farmer is directly translated into policy activism at the government.

Unfortunately, reading the cases of several authors, the representative advocacy style described above, which one might expect in advocating for the constituency of refugees, is often absent both within advocacy organizations and outside them (Cambridge & Williams, 2004; Halpin, 2006; Horsti, 2013; Pupavac, 2008; Rajaram, 2002; Rosenblum & Salehyan, 2004). One usually observes that advocacy organizations, tend to work for refugees instead of with refugees. This in turn leads to questions concerning the legitimacy of the advocacy work being conducted as the constituency of ‘the refugee’ is human, it is capable of being affiliated within a group, and it can speak in its own voice.

While several inquiries have been made into the legitimacy mechanisms of solidarity

by definition organizations, pointing to such concepts as ‘victimhood’, ‘expertise’,

‘experiential evidence’ or ‘moral authority’ (Van Rooy, 2004) and the legitimating mechanisms of democratic structures need no further explanation, it has yet to be researched why organizations with the potential for representation often make a choice to

(21)

16

use solidarity mechanisms of representation, denying their constituency the chance of actually speaking their voice (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014). An extensive literature review of last decade’s research into the advocacy work of NPHSOs conducted by Almog-Bar and Schmid (2014) reaches the following conclusion (p.26):

To date, studies have mainly focused on the scope and prevalence of nonprofit advocacy; the complex relationships between organizations that engage in advocacy and their funding sources, organizational properties related to advocacy and advocacy strategies, tactics and modes of operation. While these studies have advanced our understanding of these topics, advocacy by these organizations still deserves further investigation into (..) their relations with their constituencies.

In light of the current gap in the literature with regards to the advocacy choices made by organizations that pertain to be active in advocacy, this research aims to add to the literature by making an initial inquiry into the reasons these organizations may forward for these above mentioned choices. To do so, it is necessary to first find out what the current advocacy strategies of Dutch advocacy organizations for refugees are. It is therefore necessary to investigate what participatory- and or democratizing structures are currently operational within each of them. As democratic- and participatory functioning is regarded as the logical standard for an organization that claims to represent its constituency, the line of inquiry will mainly focus on the organizations’ self-reported reasons for failing to employ internal democratic- and participatory structures. As the reasons for these strategic choices have not yet been investigated, this real-life case testing will add to the current literature. Also, the writer has experienced that the remarks by Almog-Bar and Schmid (2014) about geographic centration of the current study efforts of advocacy practices in the United States is indeed problematic and could be remedied by starting explorative research efforts in other countries, in this case in The Netherlands.

2.2.3 Aid Organizations

While it is commonly observed in both Europe as well as the United States that organizations are erected with a sole objective advocating on behalf of marginalized constituencies, in the Dutch case of refugee advocacy, this situation is somewhat less clear-cut. All of the organizations under investigation call themselves aid organizations, instead of advocacy organizations. One could ask the question whether the groups under investigation (see

(22)

17

chapter 4) can be placed under the same scrutiny as other pure advocacy organizations as their objectives and their methods often differ. All of the organizations under investigation in this thesis have the dual objective of both offering aid to their constituencies, as well as advocating on their behalf. The following paragraphs will shortly address the Dutch field of refugee aid and argue that it is in fact valid to apply the same standards to some of these organizations, as to any other advocacy organization. This argumentation follows Halpin’s logic that it is the implicit promises in an organization’s communicated objectives which decide what their responsibilities to their constituencies are and not the type of organization they claim to be (Halpin, 2006).

In the Netherlands, there are several organizations that direct their effort and attention to creating a better climate for refugees to live in. And while the activities of an advocacy group and an aid organization often overlap, they are by no means the same. They are also not exclusionary as an organization can have aspects of both. To clarify, the definition of an aid organization as provided by Vakil in 1997 is very helpful: ‘self-governing, private, not for profit organizations that are geared to improving the quality of life of a disadvantaged group’ (p.2060). The main goal of an aid organization is to improve the quality of life of a disadvantaged group. According to Vakil (1997), aid organizations are usually active to remedy a vacuum of care that has been created by the lacking effort of the government or commercial organizations.

Obviously there are several ways to improve a groups quality of life. The main difference to be noted here is that an aid organization often tends to provide specific provisions for their constituencies that they believe are lacking (Vakil, 1997), while an advocacy organization actively seeks to change policy so the government will provide these facilities (Halpin, 2006; Olson, 1965, 1982). Also, as was mentioned before, an advocacy group has a democratizing potential which an aid organization does not automatically have. It is however possible for an aid organization to also function as an advocacy organization, or at least advocate on behalf of their constituencies. If an aid organization adheres to the three definitional characteristics of an advocacy organization, it assumes the ‘responsibilities’ of one, and may be researched as one. As was mentioned in the theoretical discussion of advocacy organization, an organization can be rightfully called an advocacy organization if and when it adheres to the criteria of being organized, attempting to further

(23)

18

political interests, and if it does so through informal channels. At this point, the aid

organization assumes a responsibility of representation, as an addition to its initial goal of ‘improving the quality of life of their constituency’. As mentioned above, representation may rightfully be expected in the case of refugee advocacy, and representation means responsiveness. A responsibility to be responsive is therefore adapted by the aid organization when its starts practicing advocacy, and its practices may therefore be placed under the same scrutiny as that of exclusively-advocacy organizations.

The previous paragraphs have elaborated upon the unit of analysis of this thesis, namely the advocacy organization. It has been established that an advocacy organization can serve as an information mechanism towards the government for marginalized groups to speak their voice in society and therefore be an asset for modern democracies. In certain cases, when a societal group is particularly weak, it may not be in the position to mobilize and others will have to advocate on their behalf, it is especially here that the existence of internal democratic- and participatory are key if an organization wishes to truly translate the voice of this constituency, and that one can expect organizations to employ these mechanisms a normative level. The following paragraphs will elaborate upon the characteristics and the societal situation of the constituency called refugees. As the organizations under study have been selected on a basis of their advocacy activities, as well as their constituency, the following section aims to clarify what the selection criteria were for me to call someone a refugee. Afterwards, it is shown that these groups do in fact encounter a democratic deficit and are in need of representation.

2.3. Asylum-Seekers

Up until now, this thesis has used the term ‘refugees’ several times in order to describe the marginalized societal group advocated for by the organizations under discussion. In the Netherlands, the specification of what exactly constitutes a refugee is rather difficult. Some of the advocacy organizations specifically advocate on behalf of those who have received a residence permit, others on behalf of those whose request for one has been turned down, others even, advocate on behalf of those who are in the request procedure. While some

(24)

19

would argue that the common denominator of all these groups is that they have fled their country and entered the Netherlands, making all of them refugees, as in those who seek refuge, the institutionalized laws and regulation stipulate a different way of categorization. It is these categorizations that decide what participatory rights and democratic rights a person receives. The following paragraphs will concisely introduce the different legal definitions and regulations that apply to asylum-seekers to shed clarity on who is what (2.3.1). Subsequently in 2.3.2, the political participatory rights that are linked to these different status will be discussed.

2.3.1. Dutch Immigration Regulations

According to the laws and regulations of the Netherlands, the denominator refugee is reserved for a subgroup of those who are called irregular migrants, or foreigners without a residence permit. Within this group, one can discern a large variety of subgroups. One can categorize undocumented migrants in several ways, and a categorization is often selected to serve the purpose of the organization doing the categorizing (Bouter, 2013). Among several categorizations, Bouter (2013) mentions: Way of Entry, Region of Origin, Purpose, Legal

Status. Not all but certainly some of the categories matter to the current research. For the

purposed of this research, the only dichotomy to go into in depth is that of a migrant’s legal status, namely whether he receives a residence permit or not.

According to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, a refugee is (Bouter, 2013; UNHCR, 2010):

Any person who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

In the Netherlands, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) decides whether or not someone accords to all the demands as stated in the refugee convention and ultimately he/she will receive refugee status. For the definitional purpose of this work, the scope of the problem statement takes into account all those foreigners that have applied for asylum for

(25)

20

the self-reported reason of having fled their homes. The truthfulness of this statement is irrelevant to the situation to be sketched in the following chapters.

When an asylum-seeker enters the Netherlands, he or she has to register at one of the many Dutch bureaus of the INS to start his request-procedure. This period of judicial limbo can in fact last for a substantial amount of time as recently due to the large influx of asylum seekers, the duration of the asylum-request procedure has been increased to a standard maximum of 15 months. On top of that, the government has the right to one extra year of investigation which is called the Besluitmoratorium (Decide-moratorium). If one successfully completes the procedure, one receives a residence permit. According to the new Dutch Vreemdelingenwet (Foreigners law) of 2000, there is one refugee status, namely ‘the permit of temporary asylum’, which may be converted to a ‘permanent residence permit’, the practical implications of which will be elaborated upon in the next paragraph (IND, 2015).

If the request is turned down, the asylum-seeker is now regarded as an irregular migrant/undocumented migrant and is regarded as illegally staying within the Dutch borders. If the procedure was however successful and a residence permit has been received, after five years of uninterrupted stay in the Netherlands, one might apply for Dutch citizenship, so called naturalization (IND, 2015).

2.3.2. Political Participatory Rights

Now that the several legal categorizations of ‘refugees’ have been elaborated on, the following part will explain what the political participatory rights are that these several groups have. It was mentioned briefly in the introduction that the societal group of the refugees can be stated to be in a democratic deficit, and that a democratic deficit constitutes a lack of potential to influence the laws and regulation that one is being subjected to. The following part will specify exactly what those political participatory rights are that the current Dutch political system assigns to several groups as categorized above. This will aid to place the situation of the marginalized group in a clearer political context and serve to elucidate the importance of the representative function that organizations advocating on their behalf possess.

(26)

21

In the current context, political participatory rights mean those specific rights that a person has to directly influence the laws, rules and regulation to which he or she is territorially subjected, as opposed to all the rights that people regularly associate with living in a state which adheres to the general principles of liberal representative democracy such as the right to association and assembly. According to Taekema et al. (2011), political participatory rights, in a legal sense, can be translated into the right to suffrage, dividable in active- and passive suffrage. Active suffrage, the right to vote on those representatives that one thinks are best suited to govern, as well as passive suffrage, the right to be elected as representative are the only ways of direct political participation. In the Netherlands, elections occur on various political levels, and usually follow representational structures; one can discern:

1. International Level: European Parliament 2. National Level: Dutch Parliament

3. Provincial Level: Provincial States 4. Municipal Level: Municipal Counsel

5. Regional Level: Regional Water Authorities

With regards to active suffrage, a non-Dutch citizen (all non-naturalized refugees) has no right to vote, in any circumstance, on level 1-3 and 5. Whether someone has been granted a residence permit is irrelevant as well as his or her duration of stay. The only exception that is based on the Right to Migrant Suffrage which was introduced in the Netherlands in 1986. According to this regulation, all migrants that have legally resided uninterruptedly in the Netherlands for a period of five years, have a right to active- as well as passive suffrage on the municipal level. Consequently, all those who do not have Dutch citizenship, or have been living legally in the Netherlands upwards of five years, have no political participatory rights whatsoever (Taekema, 2011). Having discussed the characteristics of refugees, the following section will elaborate on the problem under investigation considering the relation between this group and advocacy organizations.

(27)

22

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT

The following chapter serves to provide an in depth elaboration of the problem statement and the case at hand. Building on the theoretical foundation provided in the preceding chapter, this chapter will address the political- and contextual background of the research question (3.1). Subsequently, since the academic relevance is displayed throughout the theoretical framework, paragraph 3.2 will serve to indicate the societal relevance of the research and the case study. Finally, paragraph 3.3 will introduce the reader to the hypothesis that have been tested in the field. A thorough theoretical underpinning will be provided for each of the hypothesis. Hypothesis one will focus on the concept of civic education and organizational culture (3.3.1), hypothesis two (3.3.2) elaborates on the notion of a constituencies perceived mobilization potential, while hypothesis examines paternalization and its possible consequences (3.3.3).

3.1 Political Background

Ever since the European Union’s decision to redistribute the incoming refugees across their member countries using a quota formula, it is becoming ever more clear that its member countries’ citizens will have to adapt to a new societal status quo. As mentioned in the introduction, before the year’s end, an estimated one million refugees will have applied for asylum and between 350.000 and 400.000 refugees will be granted a residence permit in some shape or form (OECD, 2015). The latest assessments of the current migratory flows from the Middle-East suggest that there will be no sudden halt regarding the influx of refugees in 2016, while others even predict a new surge in numbers as a mixture of further conflict escalation in Syria and the effects of success stories might compel much larger groups to attempt an escape to safety (OECD, 2015; UNHCR, 2015).

With regards to the case of the Netherlands, it is difficult to assess the absolute number of refugees to receive a long-term residence permit to stay within the borders of the country. However, taking into account the most basic international legal guidelines dealing

(28)

23

with the topic of refugees and asylum practices, one is inclined to point out the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which’ most important guiding principle of

non-refoulement states that (p.3):

The principle of non-refoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom. (Italics in original)

In 1967, the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees removed geographical and temporal restrictions making it universally applicable (UNHCR, 2010). While an in-depth analysis of these protocols is beyond the scope of this work, the above mentions serve to illustrate the fact that due to the grim prospects of conflict resolution of the Syrian civil war (Arquilla, 2012; Asseburg & Wimmen, 2012; Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, & Miall, 2011), repatriation of the current refugees in the Netherlands is most likely something of the distant future. Keeping the above analysis in mind, a quick media scan of the current Dutch situation brings up a picture of quite recent societal turmoil regarding Asylum Seeker Centers (ASC) being built in the Netherlands, migrants resisting transportation, Dutch citizens fearing for their safety and many other issues. It appears to be the case that the adaptation to the new status quo by both the asylum seekers as well as the Dutch nationals leaves lots of room for improvement. This comes as no surprise as the internal security risks of migratory flows has been well-documented in both the academic fields of security studies as well as sociology. In the academic field of security studies, the issue of ‘population movements’, or simply ‘migration’ has received a prominent place as one of the main issues in the field from the early 1990’s onwards (Peoples & Vaughan-Williams, 2010; Williams, 2008). Since the forces of globalization and modernization have enlightened scores of people across the globe about the potential of a safer life in other areas of the world, and opened up new opportunities for travel, migration in general has continued to surge (Williams, 2008). On an international level, migration can lead to several interstate difficulties eventually constituting a security issue. Even more complicated however are the internal security issues that migration can bring about as a nation has to come to terms with the sudden presence of foreign inhabitants (Bali, 2008; Cambridge & Williams, 2004; Hechter & Horne, 2009; Peoples & Vaughan-Williams, 2010; Ramsbotham et al., 2011).

(29)

24

3.2 Societal Relevance

It has often been shown that the admittance of migrants has enduring social effects on receiving countries (Hechter & Horne, 2009; Peoples & Vaughan-Williams, 2010; Williams, 2008). The issues most often addressed are those that deal with the integration of migrants into the host country. Migrants increase social anxieties since they possibly threaten to undercut the acceptance and strength of the nation-state. Migrant integration is a two-way process in which both the receiving and arriving parties have to go to great lengths to make the adaptation a success. Lack of integration and social recognition of migrants can lead to a breakdown of social cohesion within the nation-state. In the words of Bali (p. 531, 2008):

Migrants are received with hostility if they are perceived as a threat to the culture and way of life of the people in the receiving country. This tends to happen when large numbers arrive in a short period of time or when migrants are seen as holding themselves apart and being reluctant to make any

efforts to integrate into the host country’s way of life. (italics mine)

Writings on the best practices of refugee integration have shown that the concepts of self-determination and participation are of key-predictive value to the eventual success of integration efforts. Feelings of helplessness, being unable to participate and the idea of being paternalized on the other hand serve to create societal divisions and feelings of resentment both on the migrants’ – as well as on the host country’s citizens part.

Vluchtelingen Werk Nederland/Refugee Work Netherlands (VWN) has investigated the social

situation of refugees in the Netherlands and shown in one of their most recent reports that there are strong democratic deficits in the Dutch democratic system. As refugees get a residence permit, they usually enter a naturalization period of five years in which they have to follow several integration programs and meet demands as to eventually gain Dutch citizenship rights. In this period however, they are deemed stateless and do not enjoy many of the democratic rights which other inhabitants of the Dutch territory enjoy. This means that they have no right to create a political party, no right to run for office and no right to vote. In other words, it appears to be the case that there is a lack of participatory potential in this five year period. In the most basic of terms, a democratic deficit occurs when institutions fail to operationalize the democratic mechanisms that are ought to be in place

(30)

25

for the inhabitants of the ‘polis’. In this case the migrants living in the polis of the Netherlands.

3.3 Hypotheses

Bearing the above stated exploration of theoretical layers in mind, In the case of the refugees in the Netherlands, it is quite clear that, following the three-point system of Halpin (2006), refugees have the potential for being represented, and it also seems advisable that when possible, refugee interest/advocacy groups should attempt to give a voice to their refugee constituencies. To recap; Halpin (2006) states that firstly, a constituency needs to be human, which refugees obviously are. Secondly, a possible overlap needs to be able between the constituency and those affiliated with the organization, this overlap is possible. And finally, the group needs to be able to speak in its own voice, which in the case of refugees is possible. This however is often still not the case. Representational aspirants, or solidarity choosers bypass their constituencies and appear to act according to their own directives. Several case studies have been conducted in recent years, and many pieces have been written about the ways in which to best advocate for the refugees, but a gap in the current literature appears to exist. While Halpin (2006) mentions the fact that there appear to be some concerns with regards to the mobilization potential of refugees as well as the

civic education principle (do newly arrived refugees have enough knowledge of their new

situation to justify asking their personal opinion), these factors have not been analyzed in relation to the advocacy group’s decision to pick one specific advocacy style. Van Rooy (2004), specifically addresses the numerous legitimization mechanisms that are deployed by organizations that use a solidarity advocacy style. In his discussion of the several ways in which advocacy organizations legitimize their lobby, Halpin (2006) discusses these mechanisms as well, stating that solidarity choosers employ the same legitimizing mechanisms as those organizations that have to take this strategy due to the nature of their constituency. The hypothesis formulated here however, do not provide suggestions as to what these legitimizations might be, or why these legitimizations are chosen, such as investigated by Halpin (2006) and Van Rooy (2004), it is hypothesized why solidarity

(31)

26

choosers, choose their solidarity style over employing mechanisms of internal democracy. The internal decision making procedure in picking one specific advocacy style has received little academic inquiry. Thus, to address this gap, the following hypotheses have been established and researched.

It is my hypothesis that an organization’s main reason for choosing either a solidarity based advocacy style or a representational advocacy style is based on the concept of constituency perception. The influence of perceptions on behavior has been well documented in several psychological studies and also serves a prominent place within constructivist identity studies. It is hypothesized that organizations might choose solidarity mechanisms because their perceptions of their refugee constituencies imbue them with the idea that a solidarity structure is more suitable or at least sufficient. The writer has arrived at the following hypotheses:

1. The civic education perception leads to an adaptation of solidarity mechanisms. 2. The organization’s perception of the mobilization potential of their constituency

leads to an adaptation of solidarity mechanisms.

3. The organization’s perception of their constituency as being either victims or heroes leads to an adaptation of solidarity mechanisms.

3.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Civic Education

Hypothesis one is based on the literature of O’Neal and his mention of the legitimacy mechanism often used in solidarity advocacy organizations. According to O’Neal, arguments based on the amount of expertise or experiential evidence are commonly seen as a way to legitimize advocacy on behalf of non-human constituencies (O’Neill, 2001). The writer noticed that several authors in migration and integration studies mentioned the principle of civic education (Junn, 1999; Pupavac, 2008; Strang & Ager, 2010; Tam Cho, 1999). This principle is based on the fact that many refugees who enter their host country have had a very diverging civic education in comparison to the host country’s citizens. This also extends to principles of democracy, basic ways of how representation works, and the possible benefits their new society might have for them. I have hypothesized that if the organizational executives share this perception of refugees as being societally

(32)

27

undereducated, they might think of themselves as better fit to work for the refugee (based on their experiences with all the social services on offer and expertise in earlier dealings with refugees), than with the refugee subsequently adopting a solidarity advocacy style.

In business theory, the concepts of organizational cultures and leadership have been extensively researched. According to Schein (2010) organizational culture is made up out of sets of shared assumptions, beliefs and attitudes regarding all aspects of the organizations activities and its beneficiaries. It has been shown that an organization’s culture is a heavy influence on the way in which the employees perform their jobs. While some aspects of an organization’s culture have been shown to have positive effects on efficiency and effectiveness, as well as customer satisfaction, there is also a possible downside to its manifestation (Schein, 2010).

Aronson, Wilson and Akert (2010), explain the role of institutionalized prejudice resulting out of overarching societal prejudice.

Simply by living in a society where stereotypical information abounds and where discriminatory behavior is the norm, the vast majority of us will unwittingly develop prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior to some extent. For example, if you grow up in a society where few minority group members have professional careers and where most people in these groups hold menial jobs, simply living in that society will increase your likelihood of developing certain negative attitudes about the inherent abilities of minorities. (p.246)

The most important effect of institutionalized prejudice is the way in which it can affect the manner in which people act towards the underprivileged group, in their daily lives, but also in their professional careers. The effects of institutionalized prejudice can lead to unintentional and unwillingly biased behavior towards societal minorities, without any conscious decision process underlying these actions (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2010; Shinnaoui & Narchal, 2010). In an extensive study into the underlying psychological mechanism of discounting migrant skills and the resulting brain waste, Shinnaoui and Narchal (2010) explain the effects of the most modern forms of out-group prejudicing in reference to Dovidio and Gaertner (2000):

Different theoretical models have been proposed in relation to modern prejudice. The aversive racism theory of Gaertner and Dovidio holds that prejudice is a product of regular cognitive processes prompting individual biases toward other groups. Accordingly, aversive racism is typified in