A Faithful Alliance Between the Civil Society and the State: Actors and Mechanisms of Accommodating Syrian Refugees in Istanbul

Abstract

Reception, hospitality and integration are certainly the main challenges of the contemporary world, particularly for countries like Turkey which hosts more than 3 million refugees from Syria. The aim of this article is to analyze the reception practices of civil society organizations and the nature of these bodies’ relationship with state agencies by focusing on Sultanbeyli, a peripheral district of Istanbul. Based on a fieldwork conducted in this district, we present the functioning of various state and non‐state actors in order to uncover not only the role of NGOs, but also the nature of the relations between them and the state in terms of governance of refugee reception in Turkey. We thus argue that the reception of Syrian refugees is undertaken by a “faithful” alliance between the state and certain NGOs, a partnership where civil society assumes a supporting role to the state in refugee reception.

Against all odds: Thessaloniki’s local policy activism in the reception and integration of forced migrants

“…While the contribution of civil society and transnational municipal networks to local migration policy-making is well documented (Caponio 2018;Danış and Nazlı 2018), the decisive role of Thessaloniki's vertical coalition in promoting its local policy approach points to a novelty in migration governance. More specifically, UN agencies have deliberately started to foster closer relationships with local authorities, seeking to promote their own policy agenda for a 'coalition of the willing' in the reception and integration of refugees (Ahouga 2018;United Nations General Assembly 2017).…”

How do local actors interpret, enact and contest policy? An analysis of local government responses to meeting the needs of Syrian refugees in Turkey

“…The national policy narrative on Syrian refugees has proved both ambiguous and dynamic, responding to changing contexts and shifts in government perceptions of political, economic and social risks (Eder and Özkul 2016;Danış and Nazlı 2018). The absence of a universal, institutionalised, rights-based policy has led to significant variation in local responses to refugees, and in their living standards and level of integration.…”

“…Although traditionally framed in relation to national models, migration research has experienced a 'local turn' (Zapata-Barrero et al 2017), including studies on the local dynamics of Turkish refugee policy (Danış and Nazlı 2018;Eliçin 2018;Genç 2018;Woods and Kayalı 2017). Building on this literature, our research makes a contribution by identifying the distinctive policy narratives emerging in local government and the ways these are reflected in refugee services and facilities.…”

Refugee return and fragmented governance in the host state: displaced Syrians in the face of Lebanon’s divided politics

“…The article builds on broader scholarship arguing that a state's informalised and fragmented refugee practices are to be interpreted as part of a 'performative act' or a deliberate political approach (Carpi 2019, 83). A host state may purposefully adopt ambiguous policies (Nassar and Stel 2019), opt for 'indifference-as-policy' (Norman 2019) or rely on informality so as to evade asylum reforms, craft 'multiple pathways to precarity' (Baban, Ilcan, and Rygiel 2017, 42) or privilege certain geopolitical and humanitarian agendas at the expense of others (Danış and Nazlı 2019). In this perspective, seemingly contradictory practices such as combining 'open-borders' with 'local closures' or delegating refugee governance to local actors (Mourad 2019) enable the state to consolidate its politics of control over refugees while strengthening its set of governance structures (Danış and Nazlı 2019;Janmyr 2017a).…”

“…A host state may purposefully adopt ambiguous policies (Nassar and Stel 2019), opt for 'indifference-as-policy' (Norman 2019) or rely on informality so as to evade asylum reforms, craft 'multiple pathways to precarity' (Baban, Ilcan, and Rygiel 2017, 42) or privilege certain geopolitical and humanitarian agendas at the expense of others (Danış and Nazlı 2019). In this perspective, seemingly contradictory practices such as combining 'open-borders' with 'local closures' or delegating refugee governance to local actors (Mourad 2019) enable the state to consolidate its politics of control over refugees while strengthening its set of governance structures (Danış and Nazlı 2019;Janmyr 2017a). From this perspective, Lebanon's fragmented refugee apparatus becomes emblematic of a broader governance approach whereby informalised and incoherent practices drive states' national refugee policy and consolidate their strategies for deploying power (Tsourapas 2019).…”