As a combative melancholic
I am always looking for positive stories to make up for my congenital
pessimism. Nothing as invigorating as the ‘audacity of hope’.
So for me, one of the rare hopeful events in 2015 had been
Germany’s voluntarism in the face of the refugee crisis.
Not merely because it was a rare display of humanity in
times of crisis. But even more because
it looked like they could pull it off, with their Deutsche grundlichkeit: not just temporarily hosting war refugees in segregated
camps, but integrating them as members of German society & economy (1). In spite of all the difficulties, hope sprang it
was possible to live up to an essentially moral decision (2) of welcoming refugees
without sacrificing social cohesion.
In a human species driven by selfish genes - is goodness a
naïve strategy, bound to be abused? (3)
Many good people in Germany must now be
asking themselves that question. Their disillusionment is but one of the woeful
effects of the criminal events on New Year’s eve in Cologne. That unthinking, drunken
mob serially attacking women, the mocking cruelty of those gangs … it taps into
the worst fears of any woman. It was indeed
an assault on the most basic of human rights : the right to move freely about
without fear of being molested. (4)
Two weeks on, we’ve had the predictably repulsive populist
reactions. And we have a debate raging (with varying degrees of quality & objectivity)
about the feasibility (and even the desirability as such) of integrating huge numbers
of people (with a majority of young men) coming from war-torn countries with a
very different socio-economic and cultural background. (5)
It’s not an easy debate (6), but we must have it, as “people may legitimately differ on the
correct policies”. (7)
the greater the perplexity, the lengthier the notes
(1) After
all, though not brilliant, up till now the German integration record of
migrants was better than many others in Europe. A lot better than Belgium’s integration record
at any rate –
(2)
The German welcoming stance was in essence a
moral one (hoping to redeem nazi-history?). Some point to the economic/demographic
rationale for welcoming refugees in an ageing society with a declining
population.
This economic rationale clearly holds in the case of selective
migration policies (eg as in Canada), when only well trained immigrants are
accepted, only those with a background that can easily fit in. There is little or no selectiveness in the
current European refugee policies. As to the stories of highly educated Syrian refugees
– yes, they are certainly there, but they are a minority. Recent Flemish
statistics showed that max 30% of 2015 asylum seekers describe themselves as ‘higher
educated’.
The demographic rationale is certainly relevant – 80% of
2015 refugees were younger than 35. But this demographic “boon” comes with its own
challenges: 75% of current asylum applicants are
male. (latest figures in Belgium) . Throughout the ages and across cultures there’s one common recipe for
trouble: having an excess of unattached,
unemployed young men. So better bring in the migrants’ families? And thus
multiply again the number of newcomers? That’s exactly the policy followed with
previous waves of immigrants, not with huge success alas, because of the
continuous starting all over again of the integration efforts.
(3)
As a misanthrope, one might expect me to say
yes. But, in fact, experience has proven me wrong. At work I have learned how a
positive, trusting attitude (even faked!) combined with empathy can do wonders
to motivate a team. Feeing trusted makes
most people both loyal and driven to surpass themselves (and vice versa). Most
people, not all. There’s the rub: there are always free-riders. There are
always those who see empathy as a weakness to be exploited. And based on the
limited sample of my experience, it’s more often men than women who will abuse
goodness. Vigilance is always needed to identify the free-riders, the selfish
egos. Just like pure self-interest must be tempered by “enlightened” regard for
the rights of others, so altruism needs to be “enlightened” by cautiousness.
(4)
Subsequent condemnations and shocked reactions
by innocent refugees were accompanied by assurances to the “dear women of Germany” that all women
should be respected as if they were “one’s
sister, daughter or mother”. I’m
sure they meant well, but it’s the kind of reaction that only adds to my
dismay: can’t a woman be respected just because she is an individual human
being? Is respect only due to women in function of their being some man’s
sister, daughter, or mother?
(5)
It’s interesting to look at some statistics to understand where countries such
as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (top 3 countries of origin of asylum applicants in Belgium) stand in terms of male and female literacy
rates, female participation in the
labour force, women’s rights .
According to a 2013 Pew Research Center
survey, in Iraq 92% of Muslims mostly agree that a woman should always obey her
husband (94% in Afghanistan, no figures available for Syria)
I’ve no survey results for
Belgium - I’m quite naturally & happily assuming that a wife is no longer
expected to “obey her husband”. But I was surprised to find how recent this (legal) equality really is.
Only in April 1958
(!) a law was approved to end the legal incapacity of married women. The Belgian Civil Code was adapted in order to change an article 214 previously
stipulating that “de vrouw moet de man gehoorzamen” (“ a wife should obey her husband”)
into “het huwelijk wijzigt de burgerlijke bekwaamheid van de echtgenoten niet” (“
marriage does not change the legal/civic competence of the spouses”). (source: "En de vrouwen? - Denise De Weerdt, 1980").
This date is a sobering reminder, which I also
take as a call for vigilance. (History knows too many phases of regression).
(6)
One can and should invoke moral imperatives, but
countries do have a right to consider whether there are limits to their
absorptive capacity and whether refugees can also be helped in ways other than definitively integrating
them in the host countries. Can a European consensus be found in so existential a
debate?
(7)
from Martin Wolf’s (economic) opinion column in the FT
(September 2015).
“Yet migration is not just about economics. Immigrants are
people. They bring in families, for example. Over time, large-scale immigration
will transform the cultures of recipient countries in complex ways.
Immigrants bring
diversity and cultural dynamism. At the same time, as Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling
notes, substantial segregation might naturally emerge. People might then live
quite separately, without many shared loyalties.
Immigration has
economic effects. But it also affects the current and future values of a
country, including its concern for foreigners. People may legitimately differ
on the correct policies”.
(8)
A final, unattached note: Mass immigration is
a social experiment – in fact no one can predict what the consequences are. And the way "we" behave now, will itself
influence the course that future events will take. "We" will need the right balance of realism and goodwill. And "we" will need goodwill and voluntarism coming from all involved parties.
Otherwise there is not and never will be a “we”. At this point I am quite apprehensive. How much turmoil still lays ahead? And how much of what I value in European culture will survive? But then again, I do continue to
take comfort from the day to day “multi-cultural” living together as I experience it at work or in my
neighbourhood. Not all is lost yet.
