Presentation Information
[1M09]How Can Governance Through Deliberation in Refugee Camps Realise Refugees' 'Right to Live with Dignity'?
- Implications for the Protracted Refugee Problem Derived from Practice in Palestinian Refugee Camps -
*Masaya SEKIGUCHI1 (1. Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd.)
Keywords:
Refugees,Palestine,Governance,Agency,Resilience,Deliberation
The global refugee situation is becoming increasingly protracted. The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) identifies the challenge of transforming refugees from mere 'beneficiaries' into self-reliant 'actors' within host societies through 'meaningful participation'. As a precedent for protracted refugee situations, Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank face a unique dilemma, caught between the political goal of the 'Right of Return' and the realities of life under 'occupation'. Traditionally, governance within the camps has been characterised by a dependency on UNRWA and challenges to the legitimacy of the Popular Committees (PCs), leaving a vacuum where a mechanism for bottom-up development planning should be. This paper takes as its case study the 'Palestinian Refugee Camp Improvement Project' (PALCIP), a JICA technical cooperation project, as a practice that pursued the 'right to live with dignity' under these circumstances. It asks how the mechanism of a participatory 'deliberative space' (a 'mini-public') nurtured the refugees' own agency, built a relationship with a public institution (the Palestine Liberation Organisation's Department of Refugee Affairs: DoRA), and strengthened community resilience.
The analysis is based on the author's 'participant observation' as the project's Chief Advisor, triangulated with project reports and third-party evaluations. This paper defines 'dignity' as 'collective capability' (the freedom to choose), and analyses the process of its realisation.
The analysis revealed that DoRA acted as a catalyst by establishing the 'Camp Improvement Forum' (CIF), which functioned as a 'mini-public' where diverse residents could seek the 'common good'. This process nurtured decision-making agency (or subjectivity) in the previously passive residents and expanded their 'capability'. As DoRA adopted the role of a 'facilitator' guaranteeing a fair process, it enhanced its legitimacy. The resulting bottom-up governance subsequently functioned as community resilience in times of crisis, identifiable as a practice of 'Sumud' (the Palestinian spirit of steadfastness).
This case suggests that 'meaningful participation', as envisaged by the GCR, implies that even in situations where 'durable solutions' are elusive, it is critical for public institutions to deepen their engagement with refugee communities and to build their own decision-making mechanisms (deliberative spaces).
The analysis is based on the author's 'participant observation' as the project's Chief Advisor, triangulated with project reports and third-party evaluations. This paper defines 'dignity' as 'collective capability' (the freedom to choose), and analyses the process of its realisation.
The analysis revealed that DoRA acted as a catalyst by establishing the 'Camp Improvement Forum' (CIF), which functioned as a 'mini-public' where diverse residents could seek the 'common good'. This process nurtured decision-making agency (or subjectivity) in the previously passive residents and expanded their 'capability'. As DoRA adopted the role of a 'facilitator' guaranteeing a fair process, it enhanced its legitimacy. The resulting bottom-up governance subsequently functioned as community resilience in times of crisis, identifiable as a practice of 'Sumud' (the Palestinian spirit of steadfastness).
This case suggests that 'meaningful participation', as envisaged by the GCR, implies that even in situations where 'durable solutions' are elusive, it is critical for public institutions to deepen their engagement with refugee communities and to build their own decision-making mechanisms (deliberative spaces).
Comment
To browse or post comments, you must log in.Log in