The era of symbolic policies

 in Kumkapi One by

I have always approved of the idea of symbolic policies and its emphasis on the symbolic power of policies rather than what their actual effect is or what any practical implication might actually be. In the case of migration studies, Massey (1999) explained that controlling migration flows is not possible for politicians due to global economic forces promoting the movement of people which lie beyond the power of national governments. In situations where popular discontent with immigrants rises, politicians turn to symbolic policies to create an appearance of control. Instead of actually impacting the stream of migrants, this allows a way of demonstrating to the voting population that the politicians are ‘taking care of the problems’.

The question with a symbolic policy is, as is often the case in academia, media and in all other spheres of life- where does a symbolic policy end and when is it a substantial policy with an actual effect? As is normal, the answer is not black and white and it could even be argued that all policies have a symbolic side to them. Laws and policies, apart from constituting one primary way of causing change in the societies of today, are always a form of communication with a certain amount of symbolism attached to them.

If we assume that policies can be located on a grey scale -a spectrum of symbolic policies based on the degree to which policies aim at ‘seeming’ effective more than actually ‘causing’ effect- the question arises where todays policies are located. The situation in the world has not become less complex over the past decade, expanding economies and political ties have globalized and connections between them have become more difficult to explain. This, in combination with the lack of honest politicians who actually dare to think beyond the next election and their personal political career, has arguably led to an increase in symbolic policies with todays policies ranking at the bottom of the scale, having little relationship to actual functional policy. With their actions, politicians often prove to have a very low expectation of the people who elected them and instead of communicating their plans properly and building on the common sense within the population, they decide on policies which satisfy the whim of the population as they perceive it. The problem lies deeper in some ways too, because when actually communicating and starting to explain the situation, own mistakes and misjudgments would have to be owned up to, a quality which in these days seems all too rare.

Why are symbolic policies so attractive for politicians then? One reason is that they want to win the support by the population and their votes. This is strongly related to a second reason, as symbolic policies often suggest an easy solution to far more complex problems. This also relates to the previous point, using symbolic policies as an easy solution that prevents politicians from asking critical questions and taking decisive action. For example, in the case of restricting immigration, when a politician is aware of the limited capacity to actually influence the mobility of people and the causes of migration. Why pretend to be able to control it while people die of thirst in deserts or drown, but many still reach their aim? Because symbolic policies can be used to create the illusion of control and safety.

In order to better understand the role of symbolic policies in the present time, let me give some examples. One great example is the Christlich-Soziale Union in Germany, Bavaria, whose party leader Horst Seehofer is pushing for transit zones which all refugees have to pass. Those who are found not to have a ‘right’ to ask for asylum can be banned from entering the country and be deported more quickly (Focus, 2015). Considering that the implementation of this suggestion would mean introducing border controls, fences and especially considering that the number of so called ‘economic refugees’ has been decreasing in the past month (BAMF, 2015) it seems very obvious that this is a symbolic policy or rather the discussion around it is symbolic as its actual implementation is highly unrealistic.

Another example is also the reaction of Francois Hollande to the Paris terror attacks in November 2015, which was, apart from prolonging the state of emergency, the increase of the number of air strikes in Syria. While this strategy might have prevented a further geographical extension of the Islamic State in the past, they strategically adapted to the situation. As Jürgen Todenhöfer (Moma, 2015) explained in an interview, IS members now travel in cars far apart from each other, not in convoys which are easily targeted by air strikes. As soon as they hear the sound of planes approaching, they spread out and mingle with the population. Cities are being bombed while there are not targets anymore and with very limited effect because the IS has long adapted to the air strikes. Instead of hurting the IS, the bombs only create more casualties among the population. This is exactly where the IS can still grow, if not geographically but in numbers, because ‘bombs kill terrorists- and create new ones’ (Zeit, 2015, p. 3). Keeping this in mind, increasing air strikes in Syria as a reaction to the terror attacks in Paris seems, as Todenhöder rightly pointed out ‘the most unintelligent solution of all’ (Moma, 2015). But why, after years of experience which proved this method ineffective, is it still so attractive? Because it has great symbolic power. It enables the western countries, including the USA, to ‘act’ without having to ask the question why this has spun so far out of control. It enables the diversion of the attention to exclusively external causes, without looking at the West’s own role in the downward spiral of violence.

There are more than enough reasons, however, to take a moment and reflect on the role of the West in the mess that is our world today, especially in light of the created image of the external causes, the “them” of the extremist. We could start with asking why many of the IS fighters are actually people who grew up in Europe. What could lead people to take such drastic steps? The recent study by Sarah Lyons-Padilla and Michele Gelfand (theconversation.com, 2015) shows that the feeling of exclusion can cause extremism, which is nothing new necessarily, but seems to be a message that fails to connect.

Actions such as closing the borders, as was done by the Polish Government, have many repercussions none of which deal with the causes of Islamist terrorism. It is cutting off those who are fleeing from the very same terror as Martin Schulz rightly pointed out (Tagesschau, 2015). The destabilization of the Middle East, with all its perils for the world, has been ignored for years now; people in Syria have been left to die, either in Syria or at the borders of the Fortress Europe. Now the destabilization is spreading into Europe. However, how can one Syrian passport at one crime scene be used as an excuse for damning all refugees and refusing them the tiny bit of safe haven that Europe represented after risking their lives to get there? This again is a great example of symbolic policies as border closings are but an attempt to create the illusion of safety in an unsafe world.

It is time to ask difficult questions about misjudgments in the past, faulty politics, and meddling in external affairs on the grounds of geopolitical and economic reasoning. It is time to critically examine the role of western governments and their economies in creating the unstable situation in the Middle East. As has been pointed out in the newspaper article by Bernd Ulrich in Die Zeit called The End of the Arrogance, it is time to see the faults of the western countries as well, to not close our eyes and actually acknowledge the failings of the past, those strategies which obviously failed in improving the situation but made it worse. Instead of following this advice, what are being implemented are ad hoc policies, greatly symbolic in their nature, which follow in the footsteps of the very policies which have contributed to the spiral of violence. Daniele Ganser rightly points out that the reactions to terror attacks in Europe are driven by the motivation to find external causes and ‘a reflection about the own terror is absolutely taboo’ (Nachdenkseiten.de, 2015).

This reflection about our own role is of great importance on two counts, however. First, for finding sustainable solutions for extremism, terrorism and war, instead of increasing symbolic policies. Second, to make the governments and the populations of the European countries and the United States aware of their responsibilities and that western countries have been involved in this crisis long before the Paris attacks.

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.