By: Amanda Porter
Deborah Stone’s Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making details a model of the polis that acts as a foil to the market model, effectively humanizing and complicating the more positivist, scientific and unrealistic “economic man” approach to policy making. Stone’s model also explicitly differs from the Pluralist theory which holds that interest groups have relatively equal opportunity to voice their opinions in the political system. In the polis, there are systems of alliances but all are not equal, which is a seemingly obvious but crucial point if a model hopes to reflect reality. In the final chapter of her book Stone describes the role of “Power” in the polis model and how leaders in democratic nation states have historically and continue to negotiate their power through the concept of citizenship and the creation of an insider/outsider dichotomy. Stone asks the question, “What can democracy mean in states with large populations of noncitizens who are subject to government decisions but can’t influence them?” (pg. 357). This question is incredibly salient in relation to the current refugee crisis. With around 65 million refugees spanning the globe today, a situation is created where a mass group noncitizens are subject to the decisions of government, decisions that can mean life or death for individuals and their families (UNHCR 2015).
Although in Chapter one Stone creates an almost idealistic model of a political society as an insular national state, Stone does well to finally extend her model in the final chapter beyond national borders to include crucial international issues like immigration and migration. Although she still remains within the confines of Western democracy, discussing the policies of the United States and Europe, the discussion of power in her model and critical framing of citizenship proves to be an effective starting point to discuss the issues of global migration, especially in relation to the refugee crises. The refugee crisis touches on almost all key contributions of the polis model including altruism and influence and particularly membership and the idea that policy makers and those in power attempt to control the interpretation of information.
Refugees worldwide face the paradoxical reality that in countries where entry and asylum is easily granted, like in most African countries and some countries in the Middle East, these forced migrants are relegated to a life in a refugee camp. Life of asylum in a refugee camp comes with no citizenship rights and restricted freedoms. For example, refugees have no freedom of movement, as they are not allowed to leave the camp, no economic freedom as they are not allowed to legally work within the country and importantly do not have the right to vote. On the other hand, in countries like the United States and in European countries where asylum does come with citizenship rights, the process is incredibly long and difficult, with many barriers to entry—if asylum is granted at all. The historical development of country, regional and global policies on the rights and status of refugees is of course too complex to discuss in this short paper however, it is clear that policies crafted and enacted to deal with our current refugee crisis are highly politicized and strongly related to the securitization of refugee policy and islamophobia.
In an ever globalizing, post-9/11 world the question of international terrorism and of national security in relation to forced migration looms large. The threat from nonstate actors, both real and perceived, leaves states with a feeling of insecurity—on both the national and individual level—and greatly influences migration policy. This fear leads Somalian refugees to be confined to the walls of Dadaab camp in Kenya indefinitely or held on the borders of Europe while their fate is decided. In this case, politicians and those in power are effectively crafting information and influencing how the information will be interpreted by framing the refugee crisis as a crisis of national security. In turn, the policies crafted by those in power to keep outsiders from accessing citizenship which ends up further isolating a group who is already seriously vulnerable and insecure and has no voice or power in the decision-making processes that determines their fate. How then can this group access democracy when they are effectively outside of the polis? As Stone suggests, for these migrants they must look outside of the nation state and to the international policy making institutions to uphold their rights and fight against discrimination. In conclusion, although Stone’s model is not all encompassing, it does at least extend the model of policy making beyond the walls of the nation state, a key contribution that was lacking in previous positivist and post-positivist frameworks of policy decision making. As Stone points out, there are many issues with the policies created by international institutions like the United Nations, including the fact that—unlike federal governments—these international bodies lack the capacity and legal enforceability of their policies which is a key element of public policy. However, flawed, it is important to at least acknowledge and grapple with the policies that are crafted from and influence international relations, especially with events like global warming and the refugee crisis that have widespread and important consequences for the international community.
Deborah Stone’s Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making details a model of the polis that acts as a foil to the market model, effectively humanizing and complicating the more positivist, scientific and unrealistic “economic man” approach to policy making. Stone’s model also explicitly differs from the Pluralist theory which holds that interest groups have relatively equal opportunity to voice their opinions in the political system. In the polis, there are systems of alliances but all are not equal, which is a seemingly obvious but crucial point if a model hopes to reflect reality. In the final chapter of her book Stone describes the role of “Power” in the polis model and how leaders in democratic nation states have historically and continue to negotiate their power through the concept of citizenship and the creation of an insider/outsider dichotomy. Stone asks the question, “What can democracy mean in states with large populations of noncitizens who are subject to government decisions but can’t influence them?” (pg. 357). This question is incredibly salient in relation to the current refugee crisis. With around 65 million refugees spanning the globe today, a situation is created where a mass group noncitizens are subject to the decisions of government, decisions that can mean life or death for individuals and their families (UNHCR 2015).
Although in Chapter one Stone creates an almost idealistic model of a political society as an insular national state, Stone does well to finally extend her model in the final chapter beyond national borders to include crucial international issues like immigration and migration. Although she still remains within the confines of Western democracy, discussing the policies of the United States and Europe, the discussion of power in her model and critical framing of citizenship proves to be an effective starting point to discuss the issues of global migration, especially in relation to the refugee crises. The refugee crisis touches on almost all key contributions of the polis model including altruism and influence and particularly membership and the idea that policy makers and those in power attempt to control the interpretation of information.
Refugees worldwide face the paradoxical reality that in countries where entry and asylum is easily granted, like in most African countries and some countries in the Middle East, these forced migrants are relegated to a life in a refugee camp. Life of asylum in a refugee camp comes with no citizenship rights and restricted freedoms. For example, refugees have no freedom of movement, as they are not allowed to leave the camp, no economic freedom as they are not allowed to legally work within the country and importantly do not have the right to vote. On the other hand, in countries like the United States and in European countries where asylum does come with citizenship rights, the process is incredibly long and difficult, with many barriers to entry—if asylum is granted at all. The historical development of country, regional and global policies on the rights and status of refugees is of course too complex to discuss in this short paper however, it is clear that policies crafted and enacted to deal with our current refugee crisis are highly politicized and strongly related to the securitization of refugee policy and islamophobia.
In an ever globalizing, post-9/11 world the question of international terrorism and of national security in relation to forced migration looms large. The threat from nonstate actors, both real and perceived, leaves states with a feeling of insecurity—on both the national and individual level—and greatly influences migration policy. This fear leads Somalian refugees to be confined to the walls of Dadaab camp in Kenya indefinitely or held on the borders of Europe while their fate is decided. In this case, politicians and those in power are effectively crafting information and influencing how the information will be interpreted by framing the refugee crisis as a crisis of national security. In turn, the policies crafted by those in power to keep outsiders from accessing citizenship which ends up further isolating a group who is already seriously vulnerable and insecure and has no voice or power in the decision-making processes that determines their fate. How then can this group access democracy when they are effectively outside of the polis? As Stone suggests, for these migrants they must look outside of the nation state and to the international policy making institutions to uphold their rights and fight against discrimination. In conclusion, although Stone’s model is not all encompassing, it does at least extend the model of policy making beyond the walls of the nation state, a key contribution that was lacking in previous positivist and post-positivist frameworks of policy decision making. As Stone points out, there are many issues with the policies created by international institutions like the United Nations, including the fact that—unlike federal governments—these international bodies lack the capacity and legal enforceability of their policies which is a key element of public policy. However, flawed, it is important to at least acknowledge and grapple with the policies that are crafted from and influence international relations, especially with events like global warming and the refugee crisis that have widespread and important consequences for the international community.