The Rise and Fall of a Solidarity Movement: Grassroots Groups before, during and after the Migration Crisis in Hungary - Tárki

The Rise and Fall of a Solidarity Movement:
Grassroots Groups before, during and after the Migration Crisis
                         in Hungary

                           Anikó Bernát
            TÁRKI Social Research Institute (Budapest)

              ESA Conference Athens 31 August 2017

The research project
Goals:
• Mapping, documenting and understanding the emergence and evolution of the new volunteer
  grassroots organizations helping migrants and refugees in Hungary in 2015
Main question:
• How new forms of civil activity emerged in a society, that, in general demonstrates a low level of
  solidarity towards „others” (high level of xenophobia ) and which can be characterized by a lack of
  trust?
Target groups:
• new grassroots organization and their volunteers that actively helped asylum seekers,
• established aid organizations and NGOs working with refugees and vulnerable groups
Methods:
• individual interviews, focus groups, participant observation, online and social media
Time frame :
• Interviews in two waves: (1) October 2015 - January 2016; (2) December 2016 – March 2017

The context of the refugee crisis (2015) – Tensions and their
consequences
The political context in the EU                         Increasing interest in the media
 • mainly welcoming rethorics                           • FB: fundamental, without it both the
• inability to handle the crisis                          asylum seekers and volunteers would have
                                                          behaved differently
                                                        • the media: its affect on the events is
The political context in Hungary                          greater than usual
• the Government and state bodies are against
  migration; but claiming to abide by European
  regulations                                           Actors
• This migration flow was unprecedented in              • Xenophobic public opinion
  magnitude and intensity;                              • Low level of trust and weak civilian activity
• HUN is not a destination but a transit country, low     in general
  share of immigrants, most of them are Hungarian       • Seasonal characteristics - summer:
  from neighbouring countries                             • favourable to the migration
• heyday for human traffickers because of the lack        • vacations: state orgs: lack of work force
  of strong intervention by the EU and HUN                  - NGOs: plenty of work force
                                                            (volunteers)

(1) At the beginning of the crisis: the characteristics of the organizations
                            New grassroots                      Established NGOs                       Large charities
History             No organizational history,          Have been operating for             Have been operating for decade(s),
                    established intentionally for the   decade(s), independent              members of an IO, often link to a
                    refugee crisis via Facebook         organizations                       church
Reputation          Suddenly well-known, but no         Only professional reputation, low   Well-known publicly and
                    professional reputation             public recognition                  professionally
Original activity   Amateur volunteers, some            Specified to certain fields (e.g.   State funded regular social services
                    professionals (social workers,      legal aid, social inclusion,        and (regular and occasional) aid
                    medicals, translators)              homeless care)                      activity
Background with     No / only a few volunteers had      Most of them are experienced        Most of them are experienced with
refugees            previous experiences                with refugees                       refugees

Organizational      Developed during the crisis,        Small, flat organization,           Large, hierarchical organization,
development         minimal hierarchy, easy to join,    professional                        professional
                    grew rapidly, amateur; network
                    of independent grassroots orgs
Staff               Mainly amateur volunteers           Small professional paid staff +     Large professional paid staff +
(professionalism)                                       few regular volunteers              network of experienced volunteers
Relation to the     No links with the state,            Weak ties with the state,           Strong ties with the state (state
state               oppositional political attitude     pragmatical relation                funded social provision)

(2) During the crisis: The activity of the organizations
                           New grassroots                           Established NGOs                            Large charities
Engaging in      From June 2015, very intensive         Some NGOs joined early / before the        Joined too late, became active
events,          activity as a response to the lack     crisis and were very active, others:       later, probably due to burocratic
intensity        of aid by official charities and       low activity level                         and political reasons
                 the state
Activity         Street social work, provision of       Same as their original mission:              Provision of basic needs (food,
                 basic needs (food, clothes,            specified to certain fields (e.g. legal aid, clothes, medical treatment,
                 medical treatment, information)        social integration, housing)                 information)
Geographical     Local (railway stations, public        Nationwide, major cities, in border        Mainly in border areas and refugee
scope of         spaces), after the crisis: in border   areas and refugee camps                    camps
activity         area and refugee camps, too
Mobilizing and   Very easy (low entry threshold,        Easy (not too burocratic scheme, in        Difficult (for new volunteers joining is
recruiting       opportunity to express                 many cases it was also an opportunity      burocratic and slow, standard
volunteers       oppositional political views by        to express oppositional political views    volunteer staff is hardly mobilizable
                 volunteering)                          by volunteering)                           due to geograpfical location and
                                                                                                   xenophobia)
Donors and       Only private donors (individuals       Regular private donors, private            Regular private donors - domestic,
donations        and companies), mainly domestic;       foundations, domestic and foreign,         regular and occasional state funds,
                 financial, in-kind, volunteer work     mainly financial donations                 mainly financial donations
Cooperation w    Other grassroots, indep. NGOs          Grassroots, other NGOs                     Other charities
Conflict with    Expicitly: state, charities            Implicitly: state, charities               Explicitly: grassroots, implicitly: some
                                                                                                   other charities

(2) During the crisis: Conflicts and dilemmas

    State vs. civilians
                                       Amateurs vs                     Neutrality vs
                                       professionals               political motivations
Whose task / responsibility is     •Commitment vs. expertise      • (Over-)politized public
the relief work?                                                    discourse
                                   •„professional” debates and
To what extent should abide by     internal conflicts – no        • Presumptive or real political
the law when it is contradictory   procedural routines              motivation
with the humanitarian attitude
/ interest of the refugees?        •Churning / mobility of        • At political level stakeholders
•the legal framework has been      volunteers between groups        were labelled „patriot” vs.
modified often or was not clear                                     „anti-patriot”
in some specific situation         •„Volunteer markets” –
•Law and humanitarian aspect       oversupply in the grassroots   • Volunteers motivations:
were contradictory in some         vs shortage in the big           political motivations vs. pure
cases in the field                 charities                        humanity

(3) After the crisis: What happened with these organizations?
                             New grassroots                    Established NGOs                Large charities
Still active in    • Much lower activity level            • Returned to original        • Returned to original
relief work with   • the small organizations                missions and work             missions and work
refugees?            disappeared or shifted the scope
                     of activity towards local
                     vulnerable groups
                   • few large groups are still
                     operating but with much smaller
                     staff, less intensity, and different
                     type of work
                   • Only one group became a
                     registered organization (in the
                     UK)
Size of the        • Decreased, most volunteers          • Not changed                  • Not changed
organization         disappeared
Future plans       • One larger group has future         • Continue working according   • Continue working
                     project plans targeting refugees,     to their original mission      according to their original
                   • the others have no long-term                                         mission
                     plans, decide upon the current
                     situation

(2) During the crisis: Motivational structure of the volunteers

                     Altruistic motivation       Political motivation           Affectedness
Main emotion(s)   Solidarity                  Outrage                     Duty, sadness
Type of work      Donation, background        Operative tasks,            Fieldwork, special tasks:
                  work, fieldwork             coordinating groups,        interpreting, medical aid
                                              communication with
                                              officials
Connection to     Provision of aid            Ends with assistance        Closest relationships
migrants          In the field: the main      Less personal contact and   Multiple contacts – the
                  motive is trust-building.   experience due to the       main reason is language,
                                              types of work they          trust is the main motive
                                              perform

The role and use of the media (draft)

• use of social media with never before seen intensity and effectiveness in Hungary (both by
  asylum seekers and grassroots NGOs)
• typically all parties using the media in a carefully calculated way (including not using it):
• the Government, via its own media outlets (incl. public media), only gave voice to its own
  point of view (negative image about the regfugees, no children and families were presented)
  and effectively thematized the crisis via its own channels
• Many major media outlets, the online and offline press of the left wing opposition, as well as
  the major commercial TV channels were dominated by both the new and the old NGOs
• the major aid organizations were initially invisible by the media, but having received a
  criticism publicly they increased their media presence

Can these groups be activated in other situations too?
 (1) New grassroots organizations:
 • Many volunteers in the new NGOs were professional or voluntary aid workers before
 • The volunteers have strong social sensitivity in general
 • Grassroots after the crisis:
       • Only one grassroot became registered NGO (registered in the UK)
       • The major new grassroots have continued to work with refugees both in Hungary
         (border area, camps) or on the Balkan route
       • Most of them also started to provide aid for the local poor, present nationwide
       • Some grassroots members established new groups (independently of the original
         organization) with the migrants and local poor in focus
       • members of some NGOs continue to keep in touch informally
 (2) major aid / charity organizations:
 • Continued to work with refugees in the camps and at the border with dedicated state funds
 • returning to their original tasks, managing institutions
 (3) Individual level:
 • Activating factors: new relationships, creation of a volunteer identity
 • Passivating factors: lack of duty, negatív experiences (e.g. burn out)

Similar grassroots and aid groups in Europe

Mapping the NGOs and civilian groups helping migrants and refugees (work in progress)
   • with at least cca 500 members / followers
   • in the countries along the Balkan route and the main target countries (Greece, Macedonia, Serbia,
      Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, Sweden)

Similarities with HUN grassroots (preliminary results):
     • Mix of different types of organizations: new grassroots, network of local grassroots organizations,
        Facebook groups, established smaller and middle sized NGOs, large charities and international
        organizations
     • Networks of grassroots have major role: Flüchtlinge Willkommen (in XXX region / city) (AT),
        Flüchtlingshilfe (XXX region / city) (DE), Refugees welcome (to XXX region / city) (SE) – Migration Aid
        (XXX city) (HU)
     • most of them provide practical and essential help, some of them are working on a meta level
        (coordinating between volunteers and organizations / NGOs and NGOs / state and NGOs etc.) and many
        of them are speciefied to settled migrants (social integration)

Conclusions: Why were the volunteers active in this moment?
• It was a response to the lack of aid by official charities and the state in a humanitarian crisis
  (with children and families in need)
• Quick help and relief: the task wasn’t trying to solve all the problems of the refugees: what they
  needed was immediate help
• Relatively short term aid (street social work): refugees just had to be helped to move on
• Low entry threshold: easy to join to the grassroots
• Helping refugees = solidarity and protest messages at the same time
• Effective communication tools (Facebook)
• Individual level - activating factors: new relationships, creation of a volunteer identity;
• Extraordinary situation and target group, special adventures.

    “If it turns out that everybody wants to stay in Hungary, and we’ll have to take care of them,
integrate them, and not simply provide them with food for two days, dress their wounds, than wave
          goodbye to them as they get on the trains… that would have been a different story.”
                                 (Executive of an aid organization)

Thank you for your attention!
        bernat@tarki.hu