Abstract
The displacement of 14 million Syrians due to the escalation of the conflict following the 2011 Arab Spring protests created a significant humanitarian challenge: the Syrian refugee crisis. This crisis is part of a global trend of increasing displacement, where political decision-makers hold significant power over refugees’ lives. This thesis investigates whether political practices in refugee spaces lead to justifiable decisions and explores the role of deliberation in governing the Syrian refugee crisis.Through a detailed empirical analysis of Syrian refugee governance in Jordan through the lens of deliberative system, this thesis offers two original contributions. First, this research moves beyond the traditional focus on well-being struggles. It offers a more nuanced examination of refugees as political agents and the role of deliberation in the governance of refugee crises, identifying pathways for refugees to gain voice and influence to shape their futures. Second, the thesis introduces the concept of shura, a form of Arabic-Islamic consultation that aligns with deliberative principles. By incorporating shura, the thesis broadens deliberative democratic theory and challenges Western-centric perspectives, advocating culturally sensitive governance practices that resonate with the communities involved.
Based on the principles of deliberative democracy, this thesis provides a comprehensive approach to unravel the complexities of the Syrian refugee crisis. It uses an adapted version of a deliberative system framework to analyse how the crisis is governed in Jordan. The components of the deliberative system, including public space, empowered space, transmission, and accountability, are evaluated through the normative principles of deliberative capacity: inclusiveness, authenticity, and consequentiality.
Empirically, the thesis analyses 38 semi-structured interviews with decision-makers and refugees in Jordan. The research design aims to provide insights into the functioning of deliberative governance in the context of the Syrian refugee crisis in Jordan.
In analysing deliberative capacity within the deliberative system of the Syrian refugee crisis, the thesis identifies both opportunities and challenges across public space. The refugees in camps demonstrate higher deliberative capacity compared to those in urban and rural areas outside the camps. However, the overall impact of refugees’ participation on decision-making and service provision remains limited.
Within the empowered space, the thesis emphasises the need for improvement in inclusiveness, authenticity, and consequentiality within the decision-making process. The examined transmission mechanisms, led bottom-up by refugees and led top-down by decision-makers, introduces a dynamic layer to the deliberative landscape. While periodic meetings and service areas demonstrate inclusiveness and authenticity, challenges such as scepticism, limited representation, and gaps in structured communication persist. Finally, the analysis of accountability practices reveals positive strides by organisations like CARE International, the UNHCR, and the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC). However, challenges remain with potential impediments to genuine deliberative capacity, including the prioritisation of compliance over problem-solving and refugees’ scepticism towards feedback mechanisms.
The thesis bridges humanitarian practices and deliberative democracy principles, contributing to more equitable governance practices for refugees. The findings enhance the governance of refugee crises and contribute to the evolving landscape of refugee studies and empirical studies of deliberative systems.
| Date of Award | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Supervisor | Jordan McSwiney (Supervisor), Hans ASENBAUM (Supervisor) & Nicole CURATO (Supervisor) |