The plan under pressure: A research about the effects of framing on policy decisions during the refugee crisis of 2015/2016 in Dutch municipalities

(1)

1

The plan under pressure

A research about the effects of framing on policy decisions during the

refugee crisis of 2015/2016 in Dutch municipalities

Master thesis Crisis and Security Management Joey Citroen

S1549200

Supervisor: Sanneke Kuipers Second reader: Wout Broekema Leiden University

(2)

2

Abstract

During the refugee crisis of 2015/2016 multiple municipalities had plans to shelter refugees. In several municipalities this plan led to social unrest. In this research, two municipalities are compared that had plans to shelter refugees and had to deal with protests of citizens. In Steenbergen, the plan was finally rejected by the local council, while in Utrecht the local council accepted the plan. In theory it is assumed that framing might affect policy. This leads to the central question: “How has framing by Dutch municipalities affected the different decisions in the sheltering of refugees in two municipalities during the refugee crisis of 2015-2016?”

Two types of framing have been applied in this research: framing om immigrants and framing on crisis. There are four frames on immigration: the human-interest frame, threat frame, economic frame. Crises can be framed in three ways: ‘no crisis’, ‘crisis as threat’ and ‘crisis as opportunity’. By analysing documents, debates and articles in the media it seemed that the municipality of Steenbergen and the municipality of Utrecht both used the managerialist frame. This means that they emphasized on dealing with the consequences of immigration instead of discussing whether immigration is wanted or not. The municipalities used this frame however differently. Steenbergen mostly emphasized the problem that has to be solved and the process to come a solution, while Utrecht mostly emphasized their own solution. This difference might account for the difference in policy decisions.

Steenbergen mostly used the ‘crisis as threat’ frame to describe the social unrest. This means that they acknowledged the social unrest is a crisis. Because the bench of mayor and aldermen used this frame it was hard to convince political parties that sheltering refugees is necessary. The municipality Utrecht used the ‘no crisis’ frame to describe the social unrest. They argued that the social unrest was not a reason to change the plan. The local council voted against a request to find another location for the refugee shelter.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

1.1. Protests in the refugee crisis of 2015/2016

In 2015, 56.900 refugees requested asylum in the Netherlands. This number of requests was twice as high as 2014, and almost three times the number of requests in 2013 (CBS, 2016). Also in other European countries the number of refugees rose very quickly. The countries had big issues in dealing with the challenge to shelter refugees and so the term “refugee crisis” made its appearance (NRC, 2015).

Also in the Netherlands, it was necessary to shelter more refugees, because the existing asylum seekers centres did not have enough capacity to shelter all new refugees. For that reason, the Minister of Migration urgently requested municipalities to organise and provide shelter for refugees. From September 2015 till January 2016 142 municipalities accepted this request (IFV,2016).

The opinions of citizens about how many refugees a municipality has to shelter and where to shelter them varied wildly. From research it seemed that almost half of Dutch citizens thinks that the Netherlands has to close its borders (du Pré, 2015). In multiple municipalities, demonstrations were organized against the sheltering of refugees. In some cases, violence was used. The demonstrations showed that the debate about the sheltering of refugees in Dutch municipalities led to polarisation between proponents and oponents of refugee shelter

For example, In Steenbergen, in a meetup between the municipality and its citizens about the placement of an asylum seekers centre, everybody shouted at each other. In Geldermalsen demonstrations led to rioting and in Enschede pig heads were placed on the spot where the asylum centre was planned (NOS, 2016a). The refugee crisis led to social unrest in municipalities. You could argue that the crisis at a national level created crisis at the local level.

In some municipalities where demonstrations happened, the plan to shelter refugees was resigned by the local council. In other cases however, the local council agreed with the plan to shelter refugees, despite the protests (NOS, 2016b). The question rises how it is possible that in municipalities with demonstrations sometimes the decision was made not to place an asylum seekers centre, while in other municipalities the placement of an asylum seekers was continued. Literature suggests that a possible explanation for differences in policy outcomes can be found in how an actor frames a crisis. Framing is “selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and

(6)

6

make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). Boin, ‘t Hart and McConell (2009, p. 82) argue that “the process of crisis exploitation may help to explain the variance in outcomes”. Framing is an important part of crisis exploitation.

Next to frames on crises, there are also different frames on immigration. Municipalities can use frames to convince others that sheltering of refugees is necessary. How one municipality uses frames might differ from another municipality. This research focusses on which frames the bench of mayor and aldermen uses with regard to the arrival of refugees and which frames they use as a reaction to the demonstrations in their municipality. Two different municipalities, who both had to deal with demonstrations are compared. In one municipality the local council agreed with the plan to shelter refugees, while in the other the council resigned the plan. The central question in this research is:

“How has framing by Dutch municipalities affected the different decisions in the sheltering of refugees in two municipalities during the refugee crisis of 2015-2016?”

1.2. Societal relevance

This research could tell something about the relations between municipalities and its citizens. Citizens worried about refugees, which ended up in demonstrations. This research shows how municipalities dealt with these demonstrations. Did they take it seriously? Was it perceived as a crisis? This research shows if the worries of the people are a reason to change a policy plan. Another reason why this research is relevant is that it shows how the municipalities dealt with their responsibilities in the refugee crisis. The national government asked the in municipalities in the refugee crisis to shelter refugees. By analysing frames, this research gives an image of the extent to which the municipalities it is urgent to shelter refugees.

1.3. Scientific relevance

This research is partly explorative, and so it adds to the existing knowledge. What makes this research special is that it focusses on two individual municipalities with both their own crisis. There is however also consistency between the municipalities, because there was a national crisis. The frames in this research are predefined in literature, but how municipalities uses these frames and how they work out in this type crisis is unknown.

(7)

7 1.4. Overview of the research

This research starts with an overview of different theories on framing and crisis, this ends with some possible answers to the research question. After the theoretical framework, there is the methodology in which is explained how the research is conducted. Then overviews of two different municipalities are made in the analysis. The research ends with a conclusion.

(8)

8

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Framing

This research focus on the relationship between framing and policy outcomes. First, it is good to know what framing exactly is. The definition of framing is “selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). Salience means that a piece of information is made more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences (Entman, 1993, p. 53). Frames have multiple dimensions: they define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgements and suggest remedies. There are at least four locations in the communications process where frames are attendant (Entman, 1993, p. 52).

a. The communicator: When communicators decide what they say, they make framing judgements. These judgements can be made conscious or unconscious and are guided by the frames that shape the belief systems of the communicator (Entman, 1993, p. 52). b. The text: the presence or absence of certain information (such as keywords, stock phrases and stereotyped images) ensures that a text contain frames (Entman, 1993, p. 52).

c. The receiver: A receiver of information has frames which guides their thinking and conclusions. These frames may or may not reflect the frames in the text or the frames of the communicator. (Entman, 1993, p. 52-53)

d. The culture: Culture might be defined as a set of common frames which are exhibited in the discourse the thinking of most people in a social grouping (Entman, 1993, p. 53). Frames can also change. Actors can choose to change their framing strategy, because they think this gives a better response to critique (Pille & Prins, 2018, p. 470-471)

Now that the concept of framing is explained, in the next parts is explained how framing is applicable on immigration and crisis.

2.2. Immigrant framing

Municipalities try convince others that it is necessary to shelter refugees. They could use different frames to do that. According to Dekker and Scholten (2017) there are four different frames on immigrants in immigration-related issues.

(9)

9

First, there is there is the human-interest frame. In this frame immigrants and refugees are portrayed as victims, who need help. Supporters of this frame are in favour of immigration. Second, there is threat frame. Those who support this frame perceive immigrants as a threat to the countries where they come to. They argue that immigration could not fit in society, because immigrants have a different culture than inhabitants and for that reason, immigration is dangerous (Dekker & Scholten, 2017, p. 205).

The third frame is the economic frame. This frame focusses on the economic consequences of immigration and asylum. This frame is used by both opponents and proponents of immigration. Opponents could argue that immigration puts the welfare state under pressure, however proponents could also argue that immigrants put money in the local economy.

Last, there is the managerialist frame. In this frame the central focus is on how to deal with the consequences of immigration: There is no discussion whether immigration is a wanted or unwanted phenomenon proponents of this frame perceive it a depoliticized governance challenge (Dekker & Scholten, 2017, p. 205).

You could argue that the possible sheltering of refugees led to a crisis a local level. There are different ways to frame a crisis.

2.3. Crisis framing

A crisis is “a serious threat to the basic structures or the fundamental values and norms of a social system, which – under time pressure and highly uncertain circumstances – necessitates making critical decisions” (Rosenthal, ‘t Hart and Charles, 1989 in Rosenthal & Kouzmin, 1997, p. 280). Crises can have international, domestic, local or organizational dimensions, however, a mixture of those dimensions is also possible (Rosenthal & Kouzmin, 1997, p. 280).

Frames are used to exploit crises. The definition of crisis exploitation is “the purposeful utilization of crisis-type rhetoric to significantly alter levels of political support for public office-holders and public policies” (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 83). Crises create contests between frames and counter-frames of various actors that want to exploit the crisis. These frames and counter-frames concern the nature and severity of a crisis, its causes, the responsibility for its occurrence or escalation, and implications for the future. The aim of contestants is to have their frame accepted as the dominant frame (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 83).

Boin et. al define crises as “events or developments widely perceived by members of relevant communities to constitute urgent threats to core community values and structures” (Boin et. al. 2009, p. 83-84). The public perception and interpretation of events determines the potential

(10)

10

impact of those events on political office-holders and public policy, and not the events itself. Perceptions of a crisis vary among and within communities. The perceptions are determined by the levels of vulnerability and resilience of communities and the different values, positions and responsibilities of stakeholders (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 83).

Actors can use three different types of frames with regard to a crisis:

Type 1: No crisis

Actors deny that the events are a crisis. The events are perceived as no more than unfortunate incidents. The supporters of this type of posture argue that the events do not require a political reaction or change of policy (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 84).

Type 2: Crisis as threat

The events are seen by actors as a critical threat to the collective good in the situation before the events happened. The supporters of this type try to defend those who work on the crisis related policies (agents) and the policies and organizational practices itself (tools) against criticism (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 84).

Type 3: Crisis as opportunity

Actors perceive the events as a critical opportunity to make a change in policy. The crisis made it possible to point at blameworthy behaviour of status quo agents and the dysfunctional policies of the situation before the events happened. By doing this, the actors hope to mobilize support for the removal of agents or substantive alteration of policies (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 84-85).

(11)

11

Figure 1: Crises as framing contests (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 84)

If different actors who support different crisis frames face each other, then there are the so-called framing contests. In a framing contest, actors debate different how they perceive the crisis. There are two types of these framing contests that could occur.

2.3.1. First framing contest: ripple or crisis?

First, there is a framing contest is about the significance of events. The are some central questions that shape this contest. For example, to what extent are the events that have happened really perceived as a problem? How big is the ‘problem’ and how bad is it for the community that is affected? Problems can be big and bad, only big, only bad, or neither (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 85).

The agenda status of the issues is the result of the contest: the issues could be seen as top priority, but they could also be ignored or given as much priority as other issues. Those who adhere type-1 frames (No crisis) want to minimize event significance, proponents of type-2 frames (Crisis as threat) want to acknowledge event significance. Type-3 proponents (Crisis as opportunity) aim to maximize event significance (Boin et. al. 2009, p. 85).

(12)

12

2.3.2. Second framing contest: incident or symptom?

Sometimes it is no longer an option to deny that the events that have happened are significant and that there is a crisis. Then the second framing contest occurs. This contest is about causality: Who or what is the main driver of the course of events? In this framing contest a central question is to what extent policy makers with their existing policies could be held accountable and blamed for the crisis (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 87) . To what extent an actor can be blamed for the crisis depends on (1) the level of responsibility in causing or contributing to the crisis, (2) if the crisis happened more often/earlier, (3) an actors’ reputation prior to the crisis and (4) how much harm caused by the crisis could be avoided (Resodihardjo, Carroll, Van Eijk, & Maris, 2016, p. 581).

In the crisis as opportunity frame it is argued that the crisis was foreseeable and controllable and those who support this frame try to focus blame on the policy makers and the policies itself. However, also the opposite could be argued. In the crisis as threat frame is argued that the crisis was not foreseeable and/or controllable. Those who use this frame defend policy makers and policies against criticism. In the crisis as threat frame actors deny any responsibility for the crisis, they often point to external factors as the cause of the crisis (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 87). At stake in this contest is the policy outcome. According to Boin et. al. (2009, p. 88) not only the emergence of frames, but the clash between produce types of policy outcomes. The clash is visualised in the policy crisis exploitation game.

2.4. Policy crisis exploitation game

The policy with regard to refugees persisted in one municipality after the demonstrations, while it was resigned in another. According to Boin et. al. (2009) the future of the currently existing polices, programs and organizations that relate to the crisis are a result of the policy crisis exploitation game. The policy game focusses on the clash between proponents of retainment of the existing policies (status-quo players) and those who want to change the existing policies (change-oriented players). The latter can choose to pressure for a change of the entire policy and its ideological/intellectual underpinnings, which means that there is a complete shift of policy paradigm. This is however not easy to fix and in order to make more chance that policy indeed will change, the change-oriented players can advocate for more incremental changes (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 90)

The status-quo players have to consider if because of the crisis, it would still be stable to maintain the existing policies. They can choose to resist any form of policy change. This is a risky strategy if the existing policies are under heavy pressure, because of the crisis. Another

(13)

13

option for the status-quo players is to admit that some form of accommodating in necessary. The choices of the status-quo and change-oriented players are illustrated in figure 2. The results are explained in the next part.

Figure 2: crisis exploitation, the policy game (Boin et. al., 2009, p. 90)

2.4.1. Policy outcome

As is visualised in figure 2, there are four types of outcomes. If the status quo players resist any form of policy change and the change advocates press for an entire shift of policy paradigm, two types of outcome may result. A policy stalemate - there is no change at all - could occur or a major paradigm shift, which means that the entire policy changes. This depends on if one of the players can get a majority in support. In other combinations of strategies also incremental policy changes could occur. This could be a result of a dominant change player or a negotiated deal between the players (Boin. et. al. 2009, p 90-91). The outcomes of the game can be reduced to 3 three types of policy implications. First, there could be no change of policy, the policy remains the same as it was before the crisis. Secondly, secondary changes are possible, only a single part of the policy changes. Last, there could be major changes, which means that an entire policy changes (Boin. et. al. 2009, p 94-95).

2.5. Expectations

This theoretical framework showed that there are different frames on immigration. The municipalities wanted to shelter refugees and they could use frames to convince others that it is necessary to shelter refugees. There are four immigration-related frames. It could be possible that the use one frame is more effective than the other. Besides that, it would also be interesting to look at if the municipality used one frame dominant or that they used more frames equally.

(14)

14

Frames could change over time. It might be possible that, because of the demonstrations, the municipality changes their frame on immigration.

After the municipality announced their plan to shelter refugees, the social unrest grew. This could be perceived as a local crisis. The different fames on crisis show how the municipality deals with this crisis. As the theoretical framework showed, the way a crisis is framed, might have consequences for policy. Does the plan to shelter refugees change or not?

So, there are two types of frames that could lead to policy changes. The framing on crisis and the framing on immigrants could affect the decision in sheltering of refugees during the refugee crisis of 2015-2016. The conceptual model in relation to this research is displayed below.

Figure 3: conceptual model

This conceptual model is the basis for this research. The next chapter explains how the research is conducted. It will be explained how the different frames can be recognized and where these frames can be found.

(15)

15 3.

Methodology

The research question in this research is:

“How has framing by Dutch municipalities affected the different decisions in the sheltering of refugees in two municipalities during the refugee crisis of 2015-2016?”

In order to find an answer to this question it is important to do proper research. This chapter explains how the research is conducted. First of all, it will be explained which type of research is conducted, thereafter the selected cases for this research are illustrated and finally, the expectations mentioned at the end of the previous chapter are operationalized.

3.1. Type of research and methods

This research is a qualitative comparative case study. “Qualitative research is a research strategy that usually emphasizes words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data” (Bryman, 2012, p. 380). In this research we would like to get a better understanding of the phenomenon of framing of municipalities in relation to their policy decisions.

This research has a deductive approach. In a deductive research, hypotheses based on theory are subjected to empirical scrutiny (Bryman, 2012, p. 24). Although in this research there are no formulated hypotheses, the frames mentioned in the theoretical framework and the conceptual model based on these framed are used as a basis to research the outcomes of the cases. The research has also characteristics of an explorative research. The aim of explorative research is to “develop pertinent hypotheses and propositions for further inquiry” (Yin, 2003, p. 6). This research will focus on a possible relationship between framing and policy outcomes, hoping to make some more or less general statements.

This study is a dissimilar-outcome comparison. This means that in the outcome in one case differs from the outcome in another case (Schneider & Rohlfing, 2013, p. 570). The cases in this research are most-similar. This means that the cases are the same on specified independent variables, except for the independent variable of interest. Because the conditions are the same, it is presumed that the variance in outcome is caused by the presence or abscence of the independent variable of interest (Seawright & Gerring, 2008, p. 304). These selected cases will be further explained in chapter 3.2.

Another method that is used in this this research is process tracing. “Process tracing focusses on the unfolding of events or situations over time” (Collier, 2011, p. 824). Using this strategy could show possible developments or changes in the use of frames.

(16)

16

The main method in this research is an analysis of documents and media. Official documents from the municipality, debates in the local council about the sheltering of refugees and in media will be analysed for frames on crisis and frames on immigration.

Two municipalities will be compared in this research. By analysing the cases with similar circumstances in depth, we can use this comparison to make statements about the relationship between framing and policy outcome in those municipalities. External validity is about to what extent the results are applicable to other cases (Yin, 2003, p. 37). Because there are only two cases, the external validity of the results is limited. In other cases, there could be several other circumstances that could play a role in the policy outcome.

3.2. Case selection

As is stated before, this research makes a comparison between two municipalities, with a dissimilar outcome. The difference between the cases is that in one municipality the plan to shelter refugees was endorsed in council, while it was rejected in the other. The cases are most-similar. The criteria to select cases that are suitable for this research, are listed below.

A first criterium is that municipality wanted to shelter refugees for a period longer than 72 hours. Sheltering refugees for 72 hours is the so-called crisis emergency shelter. The crisis emergency shelter is in general arranged quickly, and could lead to a different public reaction than shelter for a longer period. The selected municipalities both have to convince people that it is necessary to shelter refugees for a longer period.

The second criterium is that the number of refugees that the municipalities wanted to shelter is more or less the same in both municipalities. A small refugee shelter could lead to different reactions than a big one.

A third criterium is that there were clearly visible protests of the citizens against the refugee shelter. From these protests it becomes clear that there was social unrest. Presence of social unrest is a necessary condition for this research.

The fourth criterium is that the local council of the municipality voted about the plan to shelter refugees. In the debates of the council it becomes clear how the political parties in the local council reacted to the plan of the municipality. Their explanation of votes might show whether the framing of the municipality was effective or not.

(17)

17

The selected municipalites for this research are Steenbergen and Utrecht. Both had the same type of plan to shelter refugees. And in both cases, there were heavy demonstrations against this plan.

Now questions rise about the different sizes of the municipalities, because Utrecht has way more inhabitants than the municipality of Steenbergen. However, in this research we specifically focus on the plan to shelter refugees in the local district of Overvecht. The plan had mainly impact in this district. The protests took place in Overvecht and the main critique in these protests was that the district was not suitable for refugee shelter.

Utrecht Overvecht has about 34.000 inhabitants (CBS, 2017). The municipality of Steenbergen has about 25.000 inhabitants (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2018). An overview of the cases is displayed in table 1.

Steenbergen Utrecht Overvecht Planned period to shelter

refugees

5 years, later downgraded to 2 years

2.5 years

Planned number of refugees to shelter

600, later downgraded to 200-300

400

Demonstrations Yes Yes

Council agreed with the plan to shelter refugees?

No Yes

Table 1: Overview of the cases

3.3. Data collection

This research focusses on framing of municipalities. We specifically look at framing by the bench of mayor and aldermen, as representors of the municipality. The frames are searched in policy documents, speeches at the municipal council and media articles about the planned refugee shelter. In the Nexis Uni database is it possible to search articles in newspapers from a certain period. The search terms that are used are “asielzoekerscentrum”, “AZC”, “vluchtelingen”, “vluchtelingenopvang”, in combination with the selected municipality. The articles are collected from the moment the municipality announced that they wanted to shelter refugees till the moment the council voted about the refugee shelter. Besides the newspapers, the earlier mentioned search terms are also applied to online media. There has been searched on NOS.nl (National news broadcaster) and the local news websites Omroep Brabant, kijkopsteenbergen.nl, internetbode.nl (Steenbergen), RTV Utrecht and ‘De Utrechste Internet

(18)

18

Courant’ (Utrecht). All of the interviews and speeches that were not available on paper have been fully transcribed, in order to read it carefully and so that frames could be found.

3.4. Operationalization

As the conceptual framework at the end of the last chapter showed, there are two types of framing that could affect policy outcomes. The first type of framing is on immigration.

According to Dekker and Scholten (2017) there are four immigrant related frames. These are the human-interest frame, the threat frame, the economic frame and the managerialist frame. The operationalization of these frames is explained below. Because the economic frame can be explained in two ways, for this research the economic frame is divided into two separate frames. The table below shows how the different frames can be recognized.

Frame Indicator

Human-interest - Mayor and aldermen argue that refugees are portrayed as victims of war in their own country.

- Mayor and aldermen argue that the refugees deserve the help they need.

Threat - Mayor and aldermen argue that the norms and values of refugees do not fit in the local community.

- Mayor and aldermen argue that refugees could show criminal behaviour.

Positive economic - Mayor and aldermen argue that the municipality receives money from the national government if they shelter refugees. - Mayor and aldermen argue that the attendance of refugees

could help to make the local economy grow.

Negative economic Mayor and aldermen argue that it costs much (public) money to shelter refugees.

Managerialist - Mayor and aldermen argue that the number of refugees Netherlands is a problem and not immigrants themselves. - Mayor and aldermen argue how they will deal with the

problems caused by the increased influx of immigrants. Table 2: Operationalization of immigration frames

(19)

19

Besides framing on the concept immigrants, also framing on crisis might affect the policy outcomes. There are three crisis-related frames: The ‘no crisis’ frame, the ‘crisis as threat’ frame and the ‘crisis as opportunity’ frame. As the theoretical framework suggests, these frames are determined by different dimensions, such as the significance of events and the policy stance. There are three policy outcomes: no change, secondary change and major change.

In the theoretical framework is spoken about the effects of crisis framing on policy. In this research we want to know how municipalities framed the social unrest and if this affected the plan to shelter refugees. So, in this research the protests related to shelter of refugees are perceived as crisis and the plan to shelter refugees is perceived as policy.

The next table shows how the different dimensions of the crisis communication are operationalized. The content of this table is based on the crisis exploitation theory of Boin et. al. (2009). The structure of this table is based on the operationalization of the crisis exploitation theory in the master thesis of Ten Have (2016). Table 4 shows the operationalization of the policy outcomes.

Frame Dimension Indicator

No crisis Definition Mayor and aldermen argue that the protests are not a crisis or are no more than an incident.

Causality - Mayor and aldermen argue that

there is no crisis, and so that there is no cause.

- Mayor and aldermen argue there is no crisis, and so that no-one is responsible or accountable.

Policy stance Mayor and aldermen argue that is not

necessary to change the plans for refugee shelter, because the situation is not exceptional.

Crisis as threat Definition Mayor and aldermen acknowledge that the protests are a very unpleasant situation for the municipality.

(20)

20

Causality - Mayor and aldermen argue that the

crisis was unforeseeable and uncontrollable.

- Mayor and aldermen point to external factors (outside the municipality organization) as the cause of the crisis.

- Mayor and aldermen argue that the municipality or its workers could not be held responsible or accountable for the crisis.

Policy stance Mayor and aldermen defend the plan to

shelter refugees. It should not be changed, despite the protests.

Crisis as

opportunity

Definition Mayor and aldermen maximize the

seriousness of the situation. (Type of language that is used, size of the crisis (beyond the municipality))

Cause - Mayor and aldermen argue that the

crisis was foreseeable and

controllable.

- Mayor and aldermen argue that the municipality itself is responsible. factors inside the municipality were the cause of the crisis.

Policy stance Mayor and aldermen argue that the

protests showed that it is necessary to change or withdraw the plan to shelter refugees.

(21)

21

Policy outcome Indicator

No policy change Mayor and Alderman don’t make changes to the plan to shelter refugees

Municipality Council accepts the plan to shelter refugees as it is proposed by the bench of Mayor and Alderman.

Secondary change Mayor and Alderman still want to shelter refugees, but change the plan to shelter refugees in terms of type of shelter or number of refugees to shelter

Municipality council amends the plan of bench of Mayor and Alderman to shelter refugees, and then accepts it.

Major change Mayor and Alderman withdraw the entire plan to shelter refugees Municipality Council rejects the entire plan to shelter refugees Table 4: operationalization of policy outcomes

In the next part of the research, both cases are analysed. First there is an overview of the frames of the muncipality of Steenbergen, then there is an overview of framing in Utrecht. Chapter 6 shows a comparison between the two municipalities.

(22)

22 4.

Steenbergen

On September 30th, the municipality of Steenbergen published a memo, in which they explained their plan to shelter refugees. The municipality wanted to shelter 600 refugees for a period of 5 years. However, according to the municipality, nothing in this plan was yet certain. Mayor Vos stated about this memo that “it has no value judgment from our side and could be used as a basis to inform the population and start the conversation with citizens” (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015a).

The proposal of the municipality quickly led to angry reactions of the citizens of Steenbergen. At the Facebook pages ‘Steenbergen in verzet’ (Steenbergen, stand up) and ‘Geen AZC in Steenbergen (No asylum seekers centre in Steenbergen), people expressed their anger about the proposal. Besides that, opponents also placed banners with slogans against the asylum seekers

and graffitied slogans at roads and walls (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015b). On October 15th,

100-150 people demonstrated against the refugee shelter. A group of proponents of the refugee shelter came to the demonstrations to spread a counterargument, these people were pelted with eggs (Steenbergse Bode, 2015b).

The municipality wanted to hear the opinions of the local population about the sheltering of refugees. For that reason, they organised a meeting with the citizens. It became a turbulent meeting: people continuously screamed at the speakers and a women who was in favour of the refugee shelter, was called names (Nijs & Kapteijns, 2015).

After hearing all of the opinions, a few weeks later, the bench of mayor and aldermen of Steenbergen presented a final proposal: they want to shelter 200 or 300 refugees for a period of 2 years. After debating about the refugee shelter, the council amended the proposal of the bench of mayor and aldermen. The municipality won’t shelter 200-300 refugees, but they will house a maximum of 100 status holder for a period of 6 months (Steenbergse Bode, 2015d).

The meeting with citizens is in this case perceived as peak of the social unrest. Next to what is described about this evening in the section above is that prior to the evening, the mayor of Steenbergen established a emergency regulation. People from outside the municipality were also at the meeting to protest against the plan to shelter refugees. At the end of the evening, one person who was in favour of the refugee shelter was brought home under police surveillance. You could argue that the atmosphere was hostile, which put the norms and values of the social

(23)

23

structure of Steenbergen under pressure. For this reason, the meeting with citizens is this research labelled as ‘crisis’.

In this chapter first will be analysed how the municipality framed immigration before this crisis, then will be analysed how they framed immigration after this crisis (did it change?). After that, there will be analysed how the municipality framed the crisis. At the end of this chapter, the process in the council that led to the policy outcome is addressed.

4.1. Immigrant framing before the crisis

The analysis of immigrant framing before the crisis starts with the moment that the municipality of Steenbergen announced that they have a plan to shelter refugees (30 September 2015) and ends with the contribution of the mayor at the beginning of the meeting with citizens about the sheltering of refugees (21 October 2015). In documents, debates and media is searched for statements of members of the bench of mayor and aldermen. If an indicator is visible in (part of) a statement of the bench of mayor and aldermen, then it counts as a frame. The next table shows how many statements relate to each frame this period.

Frame Number of statements per frame

Human-interest frame 1

Threat frame 1

Positive economic frame 2

Negative economic frame 1

Managerialist frame 24

Table 5: Immigrant framing before the crisis in Steenbergen

This table shows that in this period the bench of mayor and aldermen clearly used the managerialist frame to describe the situation with refugees that the municipality is in. First, it will be described where the managerialist frame is visible, then the other frames will be described.

4.1.1. Dominant frame: Managerialist frame

In a memo the municipality initiates a plan to shelter refugees. In this memo the managerialist frame is already visible. In this frame, it is argued that the number of refugees is a problem, and not refugees themselves. This problem is stated by the bench of mayor and aldermen in the first

(24)

24

sentence of the memo “The COA made a call to municipalities to help them with the sheltering of refugees1” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015a, p. 1). Also in the first article in the media that appears in the media about the sheltering of refugees in Steenbergen, you can see this problem definition. In this article, the mayor is interviewed and among other quotes, he states that “you can’t close your eyes for the big flow of refugees and the sheltering problems that this brings2” (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015a) and “all asylum seekers centres are full at this moment3” (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015a). These quotes make the problem definition of the municipality very clear. The number of refugees in that has come to the Netherlands, or even Europe, created a shortage of refugee shelter and that is the problem.

This problem definition is constantly emphasized by the bench of mayor and aldermen in Steenbergen. On the local news website, internetbode.nl, mayor Vos argues that “it is no news that Europe has to deal with a huge refugee flow. We as bench of mayor and aldermen want to be prepared in case the COA request us to provide refugee shelter4_{” (Steenbergse Bode,}

2015a). To the regional broadcaster Omroep Brabant (2015a), Vos told that “in the Netherlands we have been confronted with a huge question about the onrush of refugees5” and in his contribution at the meeting with citizens of Steenbergen, the mayor calls the number of refugees

a “giant question6” (SLOS, 2015).

The managerialist frame is not only about stating the problem, it is also stating about arguing how you want to deal with this problem. In the memo where the bench of mayor and aldermen launches it plan to shelter refugees, it becomes clear that the municipality of Steenbergen has a proactive attitude in dealing with the shortage of shelter: “although a concrete request is not received yet, we think it is desirable that the municipality council takes a position about this subject7” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015a, p. 2). In this quote, the municipality discusses how should be dealt with the lack of shelter which is a consequence of immigration, but does

1_{Het COA heeft een oproep gedaan aan gemeenten om hen te helpen met de opvang van vluchtelingen.} 2_{je kunt je ogen immers niet sluiten voor de grote stroom vluchtelingen en de bijhorende}

huisvestingsproblematiek.

3_{Alle asielzoekerscentra zitten op dit moment immers vol}

4_{Maar, het is geen nieuws dat Europa te maken heeft met een enorme vluchtelingenstroom. Als college willen}

we voorbereid zijn, mocht er wel een verzoek komen vanuit het COA

5_{Nou wij zijn in Nederland natuurlijk geconfronteerd met een enorm vraagstuk rondom de toestroom van}

vluchtelingen

6_{Gigantisch vraagstuk}

7_{Hoewel een concreet verzoek nog niet is ontvangen vinden wij het wenselijk dat de gemeenteraad alvast een}

(25)

25

not directly discuss whether the attendance of refugees in the Netherlands (the concept of immigration) is wanted or not.

Multiple times, the bench of mayor and aldermen emphasized how they want to cope with the situation, which points at the use of the managerialist frame. The municipality organises a meeting with their citizens, because “before the municipal administration makes a decision, council and bench of mayor and alderman want know how citizens think about this subject8” (Steenbergse Bode, 2015c). They also started a survey, “this survey is an extra instrument for us to get a good image9” (Schelfaut, 2015).

4.1.2. Other frames

Although the managerialist frame is dominant in the quotes of the bench of mayor and aldermen, they also use other frames. They do for example speaks about immigration in terms of economic gains, which implicates the use of a positive economic frame. The bench of mayor and aldermen of Steenbergen mention multiple positive economic consequences: “The location offers employment opportunities for security guards, cleaners and health care employees. Asylum seekers do their groceries in general in their direct environment. They also can carry out volunteer work or temporary payed work10” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015a, p. 3). Mayor and alderman also mention that the municipality directly receives money if they shelter refugees, which points at the use of a negative economic frame: “The municipality receives a financial contribution per resident11” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015a, p. 3).

In the threat frame it is argued that refugees are dangerous people, and the negative economic frame discuss immigration in terms of financial losses. In one sentence, both of the frames are visible: “We understand the concerns of the inhabitants about their safety, environment and business impact12” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015a, p. 3). The fact that the municipality acknowledges the concerns about safety, shows a threat frame. The concerns about the business impact point at a negative economic frame.

8_{Voordat het gemeentebestuur een besluit neemt, willen raad en college graag horen hoe de inwoners over dit}

onderwerp denken

9_{Deze enquête is voor ons een extra instrument om een goed beeld te krijgen}

10_{De locatie biedt werkgelegenheid aan beveiligers, schoonmakers en gezondheidszorgers. Asielzoekers voeren}

hun eigen huishouding en doen over het algemeen boodschappen in hun directe omgeving. Ook kunnen ze vrijwilligerswerk of tijdelijk betaald werk verrichten.

11_{De gemeente ontvangt per bewoner een bijdrage}

(26)

26

Also the human-interest frame is present once in the period before the crisis. In this frame, it is argued that refugees are in need of help, because they are victims of war. At the beginning of the meeting with citizens, the mayor states: “Every day we see a flow of people who are on the run, because of war violence13” (SLOS, 2015).

4.2. Immigrant framing after the crisis

The period after the crisis, starts with the first interview the mayor gives after the meeting with citizens (21 October 2015). It ends with the last article in the media before the council votes about the plan to shelter refugees (25 november 2015). The table below shows the number of statements that belong to a particular frame.

Frame Number of statements per frame

Human-interest frame 2

Threat frame 2

Economic+ 4

Economic- 2

Managerialist 43

Table 6: Immigrant framing after the crisis in Steenbergen

This table shows that also in the period after the crisis, the managerialist frame is still dominant. In the next section the statements that belong the managerialist frame will be explained. Chapter 4.2.2. explains how the other have been used by the municipality.

4.2.1. Dominant frame: managerialist frame

The managerialist frame can be used in different ways. The managerialist frame is used to define a problem and to how one wants to deal with this problem.

4.2.1.1. Managerialist frame: Problem definition

The bench of mayor and aldermen mostly uses the managerialist frame to state the problem that has to be solved. They do not define immigration as the problem, but the shortage of sheltering is the problem. In their updated proposal to shelter refugees, the bench of mayor and aldermen state this problem multiple times. In sentences like “In September this year a record of 8400

(27)

27

asylum seekers and following family members has been registered in the Netherlands. It may be clear that we, in our country (but also in the countries around us), have to deal with an exceptional situation14” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015b, p. 1), “It is expected that this influx will not decrease for the time being15” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015b, p. 2) and “COA needs for now and next year (2016) a lot of extra spaces to shelter and accompany refugees who request asylum in the Netherlands16” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015b, p. 2), it becomes clear that the municipality sees the shortage of shelter as a problem. This problem definition does not differ from the problem definition of the municipality before the meeting with citizens. Also, in the judgmental meeting, bench of mayor and alderman emphasize this problem definition. These are just some of the statements the mayor made, with regard to the problem definition.

- “It does not matter if you argue that refugees should be sheltered in their own environment, that there should be European agreements, or that the national government should take more direction. The fact is that every day people come in17_”

(Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015).

- “The problem of today has much more priority than the long term questions18”

(Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015).

- “Every day again, there is this question: where can we shelter people? That is a question that we have to answer together19” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015).

4.2.1.2. Managerialist frame: Dealing with the problem

Next to emphasizing what the problem is, the bench of mayor and aldermen of Steenbergen uses the managerialist frame to describe how they want to deal with this problem. Directly after the meeting with citizens, mayor Vos speaks to Omroep Brabant about the evening. In this interview, what the municipality wants to do to find a solution for the shortage of the shelter, which points to the use of the managerialist frame: “The council will debate, judge and look

14_{In Nederland is in september van dit jaar een recordaantal van 8.400 asielzoekers en achterop komende}

familieleden geregistreerd. Het mag duidelijk zijn dat we in ons land (maar ook in de ons omringende landen) momenteel te maken hebben met een uitzonderlijke situatie.

15_{Het is de verwachting dat deze toestroom voorlopig niet afneemt.}

16_{Het COA heeft nu èn voor volgend jaar (2016) veel extra plaatsen nodig voor de opvang en begeleiding}

van vluchtelingen die in Nederland asiel aanvragen.

17_{Het beeld nu is, hoe je er ook in staat, als je nou zegt de vluchtelingen moeten in de regio moeten worden}

opgevangen of er moeten Europese afspraken komen, of de Rijksoverheid zou meer regie moeten pakken. Desalniettemin, het beeld is, het feit is dat elke dag mensen binnen komen.

18_{Het probleem op dit moment is veel meer de dag na dag problematiek, dan de langere termijn vraagstukken.} 19_{Want elke dag is er weer vraagstuk, waar kunnen we mensen huisvesten. Die vraag zullen we toch ook met}

(28)

28

for what kind of information they still need, to get to a decision20” (Nijs & Kapteijns, 2015). The same night, Mayor Vos tells to kijkopsteenbergen.nl: “We also will take a survey, receive a lot of e-mails and letters and the political parties will consult their followers for sure, to finally come to a considered decision21” (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015c).

Also in other quotes from later on in the period after the crisis, it becomes clear that the municipality wants to have a solution for the earlier mentioned problem: “The stadium of searching for answers is over now. Now it is time to make real choices22” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015c). The bench of mayor and alderman want to act, and help to solve the problem they defined, in their new proposal they state: “We don’t want to evade our responsibility for this national problem, for that reason we choose an option that in a minimal sense does justice to that responsibility. We choose for an asylum seekers centre for 200 to 300 persons, which consists mostly of families, for the duration of two years and on multiple locations23_{” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015b, p. 9). In managing the problem, the bench}

of mayor and alderman also tell what they expect from the council: “In case a request comes in, it is wishful that the council already takes an opinion about this subject24” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015b, p. 4). In dealing with the problems, the mayor also argues that it is not important what COA wants. To the council, he says: “We are not guided by the conditions of the COA. We have to say what we want, and COA will accept that or not. The choice is theirs at that moment25”(Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015c).

4.2.2. Other frames

Although the managerialist frame is dominant in the period after the crisis, at some points other frames are also present. These frames are mostly visible in the new proposal to shelter refugees

20_{De raad zal nu gaan debateren, oordelen, kijken wat voor informatie ze nog nodig heeft om uiteindelijk tot}

besluitvorming te komen

21_{We houden ook nog een enquête, ontvangen veel mails en brieven en de politieke partijen zullen zeker hun}

achterbannen raadplegen, om uiteindelijk tot afgewogen oordeel te komen

22_{Het stadium van zoeken in antwoorden is een beetje voorbij denk ik. Nu komt het erop aan om tot echte}

keuzes te komen.

23_{Vanuit … onze verantwoordelijkheid ook voor deze nationale problematiek niet uit de weg gaande, opteren}

wij voor variant 5 die in minimale zin recht doet aan die verantwoordelijkheid. Binnen die variant kiezen wij voor een AZC voor 200 tot 300 personen, voornamelijk bestaande uit gezinnen, voor de duur van 2 jaar en op meerdere locaties.

24_{Maar voor het geval er wel een dergelijk verzoek binnenkomt, is het wenselijk dat uw raad alvast een}

standpunt inneemt over dit onderwerp

25_{We laten ons niet leiden, wat nu de randvoorwaarden precies zijn van het COA. Wij moeten het hier zeggen,}

u moet het hier zeggen wat wij willen en daar zal het COA op ingaan of niet. Dat is dan de keuze die daar dan op dat moment ligt

(29)

29

and the debates in the council. Mayor and alderman for example also argue that they want to

shelter refugees for “humanitarian reasons26” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015b, p. 9) and

that “people must have a life worthy of a human being27”. These statements point at the use of

a human-interest frame. In the council meeting of November 9th, the mayor admits that he can

not guarantee that the safety in the village does not decrease (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015c). Here, he implicitly says that refugees could show violent behaviour. This could be perceived as a threat frame.

Also the positive economic frame is visible. In some of his statements the mayor speaks about possible economic gains for Steenbergen: “We have to look if we could create opportunities out of this problem28” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015c) The municipality tries to arrange with COA that new employees for the refugee shelter will be selected via a regional platform (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015b).

The bench of mayor and aldermen is also aware of the economic and financial risks of a refugee shelter in the municipality. For the mayor “it is dangerous to speak about economic opportunities29_{” . About the refugee shelter, he also states that “It will always entail costs}30_”

(Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015c). and “municipalities will have to add a lot money, next to the compensation they receive31” (Municipality of Steenberen, 2015b, p. 4). In these quotes you can see the use of an negative economic frame.

4.3. Crisis framing

Next to the frames on immigrants, there are also frames on crisis. These different frames on crisis could show how the bench of mayor and alderman deals with the social unrest in their municipality. Table 7 shows an overview of how often the municipality of Steenbergen used each frame. The crisis-frames have been divided into different aspects (definition, cause and policy stance). In statements of the municipality has been searched for indicators of those aspects. The statements have been counted in a period after the meeting with citizens till the moment the local council voted about the proposal of the municipality to shelter refugees.

26_{Humanitaire overwegingen}

27_{zodat mensen een menswaardig bestaan kunnen krijgen}

28_{maar natuurlijk moet je dan ook kijken van het probleem een voor een deel een kans kunt maken} 29_{Economische kansen is een gevaarlijk iets vind ik}

30_{Het zal altijd kosten met zich meebrengen}

(30)

30 Table 7: Crisis-framing in Steenbergen

This table shows that the ‘crisis as threat frame’ was mostly used by the municipality of Steenbergen. The no crisis frame was used least by the municipality of Steenbergen. The statements that belong to the different aspects of the frames will be discussed in the section below.

4.3.1. Definition

The municipality of Steenbergen mostly uses the ‘crisis as threat’ frame to define the communal unrest. In this frame, it is acknowledged that there is an unpleasant situation. The mayor acknowledges multiple times that information meeting was “heavy” and that it deviates from a

normal situation. He calls the evening “fiercely and noisy32” (Heijt, 2015). He also states that

“people had to speak in terrible circumstances, which I do not appreciate at all33_{” (Omroep}

Brabant, 2015b). He also states that “it does not matter if there are emotions, but the way how it went is unpleasant34” (te Veele, 2015).

32_{Heftig en rumoerig}

33_{vreselijke omstandigheden, waar ik geen enkele waardering voor heb} 34_{Emotie is niet erg, maar de manier waarop het gegaan is, is niet fijn.}

Frame Aspect Number of

statements per aspect

Total number statements per frame

No crisis Definition 4

Cause 0 4

Policy stance 0

Crisis as threat Definition 11

Cause 8 21 Policy stance 2 Crisis as opportunity Definition 3 Cause 6 10 Policy stance 1

(31)

31

In some of the interviews, the mayor uses even more words to describe the situation. He calls

the meeting with citizens for example as “tough, fiercely and at some points even shocking35”

and fiercely, sometimes shocking and far from adequate36” (NPO Radio 1, 2015). Because the

mayor used these words, you could argue that the mayor tries to maximize the seriousness of the events, which implicates the use of a ‘crisis as opportunity’ frame.

The bench of mayor and aldermen does not always acknowledge that there is an unpleasant situation. In an interview with the media the mayor also calls the evening: “in that sense it is good, because all speakers were able to proven able to convey their message and remain standing there where it was tensive and I thinks that is good37” (Nijs & Kapteijns, 2015). Here, the mayor emphasizes that people had the opportunity to show their opinion, which was the aim of the evening. In this statement, the evening is perceived as business as usual. This shows the use of the ‘no crisis’ frame.

4.3.2. Causality

When it comes to the causality of events, specifically the question of who could be held responsible in particular, both the crisis-as-threat frame and the crisis-as opportunity frame are visible. In the crisis as threat frame, the municipality argues that actors outside the municipality organization are responsible for the crisis. In this case, the mayor states that there were people from outside the municipality, who were responsible for the chaotic meeting with citizens. “My image is that from the first moment on, a group insisted to ruin that evening38” (NOS, 2015). Mayor Vos also argued that the argument that the municipality could be held responsible for the crisis because they organized a meeting, is not valid: “According to Vos it is too easy to say that the information meeting should not be held, because the placement of an asylum seekers centre is not an established fact39” (Heijt, 2015). Vos also said: “Looking back, you could ask if this was useful. Yes, in the end we organised this to give the civilians the opportunity to express themselves40” (te Veele, 2015). These quotes show that the municipality tries to shift away blame, and so this indicates that there is a crisis as threat frame. Another part of the crisis

35_{het was pittig, het was heftig, ook ontluisterend af en toe.}

36_{Het was een heftige avond, soms ook ontluisterend, diep onder peil.}

37_{maar uiteindelijk ook wel in die zin goed, omdat alle sprekers toch in staat zijn gebleken hun boodschap over}

te brengen en ook staande te blijven daar waar het spannend werd en dat vind ik dan weer wel goed

38_{Mijn beeld is vooral dat vanaf het eerste moment een groep er op aanstuurde om die avond doen te}

verzieken.

39_{Vos vindt het te makkelijk om te zeggen dat de informatiebijeenkomst beter niet gehouden had kunnen}

worden, omdat de komst van asielzoekers immers nog lang geen vaststaand feit is

40_{Terugkijkend zou je zeggen, was dit nou handig? Ja, uiteindelijk hebben we het gedaan om de burger de kans}

(32)

32

as threat frame is arguing that a crisis was unforeseeable, this is something that the municipality of Steenbergen also does. The mayor says that although they were aware that people from outside Steenbergen would join the meeting, “it surprised me and others that they used this strategy of being noisy from the start41” (NOS, 2015).

However, in some statements it seems that the municipality also feel some responsibility for the events that happened at the meeting with citizens. After stating that the information was unpleasant, the mayor admits that “we invited the people ourselves to express their opinion about what Steenbergen can do with regard to the sheltering of refugees42” (NPO Radio 1, 2015). He knew that there were some risks in organizing such a meeting: “We thought it should be possible to - even with this big number of attendants – bring the evening to a successful conclusion43” (NOS, 2015). Although mayor Vos earlier stated that it was good to organize the evening, in Nieuwsuur, he is more reserved in his words “Reasoning afterwards, looking afterwards, I wonder if one should organize these kinds of meetings44_{” (NOS, 2015). In these}

statements, it seems that the municipality accepts certain responsibilities. This could show the presence of a ‘crisis as opportunity’ frame.

4.3.3. Policy Stance

Crisis exploitation partly is about the question whether policy related to a crisis should be changed, which in this case is the plan to shelter refugees. Noticeable or not, the municipality barely answers that question. According to mayor and aldermen, the municipality council must decide what they will do the result of the information meeting. On a question of a journalist, whether it is better for the municipality not to shelter refugees, in order to prevent difficulties,

the mayor answers that “it is not up to me to draw that conclusion45” (Nijs & Kapteijns, 2015).

At the night of a meeting in the council about the refugee shelter, a brick is thrown through the window status holder. This is possibly a protest against the refugee shelter (van Doorn, 2015). The mayor is clear about the consequences of a brick that is thrown through someone’s window for the plan to shelter refugees. In his contribution at the council meeting, he says that the process to come to a solution won’t be influenced by events like that. “We chose not to do that,

41_{maar dat ze deze strategie hadden, vanaf het eerste moment zou luidruchtig daarin gaan, dat verraste mij en}

meerdere toch wel.

42_{ja we hebben zelf als gemeente de mensen uitgenodigd om hun mening te geven over wat Steenbergen wil}

betekenen in het kader van opvang

43_{maar we hebben er toch op gegokt dat het mogelijk moest zijn, ook met zoveel mensen zo’n avond tot een}

goed einde te brengen

44_{Achteraf redenerend, achteraf kijkend vraag ik me ook wel af of je dit soort avonden moet willen houden} 45_{Het is niet aan mij om die conclusie nu te trekken}

(33)

33

we want to go through the democratic process 46” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015c). It clear that mayor does not violence as a reason to change policy. This points to the ‘crisis as threat’ frame.

4.4. Policy outcome

The local council of Steenbergen voted about the proposal of the bench of mayor and alderman to shelter refugees. The table belows shows the composition of the council and which parties belong to coalition and opposition. The council of Steenbergen has 19 seats in total.

Coalition Seats Opposition Seats

Gewoon Lokaal! 4 Volkspartij 3

VVD 3 PvdA 3

D66 3

CDA 2

Steenbergen Anders 1

Total 13 Total 6

Table 8: Overview of composition of the local council in Steenbergen (Kiesraad, 2014, kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2014)

4.4.1. Debate

After the meeting with citizens, the bench of mayor and aldermen presented their final proposal

to shelter 200-300 refugees for a period of two years. On November 9th, the local council

debates for the first time about this proposal. In this debate, only Gewoon Lokaal! and PvdA clearly state that they are in favour of the proposal (kijkopsteenbergen, 2015).

D66 argues that they feel the social responsibility to shelter refugees, but the interest of the local people deserves priority. According to D66, the local people are in majority against the refugee shelter. The Volkspartij draws the same conclusion. This party wants maximum 100 refugees, only families, divided proportionally over the different districts of Steenbergen (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015d).

Within VVD the opinions about the sheltering of refugees differ. Council member Suijkerbuijk is against the shortage at a local level. He argues that the shortage of shelter has to be solved by higher governments. According to him, municipalities are not responsible. VVD-chairman

(34)

34

prefers that Steenbergen is committed to housing status holders, rather than sheltering refugees in an asylum seekers centre (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015d).

CDA feels the moral duty to help the people that are in need of help, but that demands conditions that guarantee social rest and safety. Further they state that all municipalities should take the responsibility to shelter refugees and the local residents around the refugee shelter should be involved in this process (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015d).

According to Steenbergen Anders, the municipality should not make an offer to shelter refugees, but needs to wait for a request of COA (kijkopsteenbergen.nl, 2015d).

4.4.2. Voting

According to VVD the proposal of the bench of mayor and aldermen is unacceptable. The size of the shelter does not fit with the size municipality and the support of the local people. VVD however, feels a responsibility sees possibilities in sheltering more status holders. For that reason they presented an amendment to the proposal of the bench of mayor and alderman. Instead of sheltering 200-300 refugees for a period of two years, VVD wants to house maximum of 100 status holders, for a period of 6 months (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015d).

All of the council member, except for one, voted in favour of this amendment. Only VVD-member Suijkerhuijs votes against the amendment. He did not agree with his party that helping in the refugee crisis is necessary (a month later he left the VVD and joined Volkspartij). All of the parties in the local council of Steenbergen argued that the municipality takes responsibility in the refugee crisis and that there is support from the local society for this amendment. Also CDA and Steenbergen Anders, who doubted about the proposal, think this is the best solution.

Gewoon Lokaal! and PvdA – who were strongly in favour of the proposal of the bench of mayor and alderman – also supported this amendment, because they realised that there was no majority in the council for the proposal of the bench of mayor and aldermen. Baartmans (Gewoon Lokaal!) stated that she would support the motion “with pain in her hart” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015d). According to her, it is important that a decision has to be made. “By housing status holders, spaces in refugee shelters become available for new refugees” (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015d). PvdA argues that “a good proposal has been lost, but we will vote in favour of this proposal, because doing something is better than doing nothing (Municipality of Steenbergen, 2015d)”.

The plan under pressure: A research about the effects of framing on policy decisions during the refugee crisis of 2015/2016 in Dutch municipalities