Ya Hala

The Syrian civil war – or proxy war – has been ongoing for far too long now. Three years of infighting, hatred, massacres, radicalism, vengeance, political schemes, betrayal, diplomacy and deals. Fear and sadness drove people out of their homes and left them at the mercy of the international community and good doers to house them and give them a refuge from all the ugliness that is happening in Syria. Those financially comfortable found a place in Europe; those desperate and cunning smuggled their way into Europe as well; and those with less financial means sought neighbouring countries. In arms wide open some countries took Syrian refugees in and gave them a temporary residence until things clear up and calm down back home. Jordan, and Jordanians, are one of those countries and people that stretched out a helping hand to fellow Syrians. Jordan – as in government- and Jordanians- the people- are housing one and a half million Syrians today. Government and citizens are playing host. Or are they both doing so?

Jordan is a poor country. Very limited are its resources and impoverished is a large proportion of its population. Unemployment is widespread and minimum wages are the common wage. Going into the reasons behind the economic situation and the unemployment rates is beyond the scope of this article. The focus of the article is however on why Jordanians agreed to house Syrians and how they agreed to that. The hospitality, generosity, solidarity and sense of brotherhood of Jordanians are not at doubt at any point, but such honourable attitudes must come from within rather than be enforced from without. Jordanian citizens would definitely help Syrian refugees in all possible means, but it would have been nice to first ask Jordanians if they can shoulder the burden before inviting the 1.5 million Syrians in.

Reports have indicated that Syrians’ presence in Jordan not only has cost Jordan (Jordanian taxpayers) huge amounts of money (to finance shelters, security, food, water, services, utilities etc.) but has also formed a new threat: that of cheaper – and more talented – labour force. Some Syrians are seeking shelter in Jordan not due to security factors but based on economic aspirations, judging that the Jordanian market and industries would give Syrians what they want: poorer salaries for skilled workers. A Syrian would gladly accept an underpaid job with an unfair wage, a job that would have been assigned to a Jordanian, instead of staying home and face unemployment and war. Although refugees’ presence in Jordan is officially confined in camps in the north of the country, it is no secret that many have escaped and found their way into central and southern cities in search of economic opportunities. The Jordanian host is not happy anymore. This brings us back to the main question: when the government “banged its chest” (literal translation of a Jordanian expression that means to offer with generosity) and allowed the entry of these Syrians, how did the decision come through? What was the decision process like?

The issue of refugees is one of great importance in the country and many other countries. The scope of dimensions it covers is wide: economy, culture, society, health, politics and the environment are all related to it. The government’s policy towards refugees is –unfortunately- that of limited scope. No one was consulted on whether Jordan was ready to accept these refuges. NGOS, political parties, civil societies, syndicates and other social institutions have not been consulted in that nor asked to study the issue. Consultation was required not to only reinforce and respect democratic practices, but also to reach sound policies. It seems that in Jordan public policy is still stuck in the realm of public administration. Instead of forming vertical and horizontal relations between institutions – formal and informal – to study issue from all angles and reach policies based on research and analysis, the policy towards refugees was one approached from a strictly single-minded diplomatic approach. Instead of having trained administrators in policy making, employees who can use numbers, theories, studies and analysis to draw best policy recommendations and scenarios, the rigid bureaucratic arrangement was followed. Public policy does not seem to exist in Jordan. The art of making policies is one limited to an elite circle. People and public employees are shut out of the process. Those who know best call the shots, avoiding the tedious process of studying policy options with fellow political actors, administrators and policy analysts and acting on decisions that have been decided on already. To conclude, policy making in our part of the world is a mix of Foucault’s conclusion: "political thought and analysis, we still have not cut off the head of the king" and the wise proverb: Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.