The recent protests at the gated Refugees’ Camps in Poland remind us about the challenges that migration, refugees and multiculturalism bring – and about the inability, the shear clumsiness of our policies that attempt to address these challenges. Poland is not a country that has historically been the destination for refugees. We are having a hard time, though there are some signs of more promising responses.

The question of refugees hit the news October of last year, sparked by a refugee hunger strike at Guarded Centers around the country. Foreigners settled at these centers were demanding their basic rights: the right to decent living conditions, to have access to information, and to have contact with an outside world. Mostly, however, the strike revealed the injustice and cruelty of the system. These centers work, in effect, as prisons. They confine the under-aged (including young children), affecting them, especially those who have recently experienced war, in ways that are hard to imagine. They don’t have full access to education, nor contacts with their peers. Their situation excludes the opportunities for the regular development.

The news of these problems was alive for three weeks until the end of the hunger strike. However, the challenges of immigration, refugees and multiculturalism remain, in a society that has little or no experience with any of this. The challenges must be faced not only by refugees themselves, but also politicians, people working with refugees, and mainly Polish society. Polish towns are unprepared, as they are becoming increasingly multicultural.

In 2009, the information about a beating of two Chechnyan women in Lomza [in north-eastern Poland, actually close to Jedwabne, M.B.] made the news in the Polish media. A young man assaulted the women because they are Muslim and Chechnyan.  Both of them were living in Lomza. Their children attended Lomza school. They had Polish friends. Why, then, were they targets? What was their mistake?

Their first basic “mistake” was in appearing in a place (this town, but in fact Poland as a whole) in which the inhabitants were ill prepared for the emergence of a large group of foreigners, people of different language, culture, and religion. Nobody explained to the local public who the refugees were, why they had appeared specifically in Lomza, where they were coming from, and how long they would stay in town. The inhabitants were not prepared, nor were the employees of the institutions that were to take care of these Muslim refugees from Chechnya.

The Municipal Center of Social Support, the Town Department of Labor [these mainly work with unemployed – collecting information about job postings, organizing trainings etc., MB], and the public schools of Lomza – all these institutions had to work out for themselves the procedures of working with foreigners/refugees who had arrived.

At the beginning things, nonetheless, went smoothly, as the foreigners were present only in a close vicinity of the refugee center. Everybody followed the rule “they live their lives, we live ours.” But issues emerged when the foreigners began to participate in the town’s life: using public transportation, enjoying the right to get help from the Municipal Center of Social Support and the Town Department of Labor, moving to different areas of town. This triggered concern, mainly caused by a lack of knowledge. One of the opponents of the Center for Refugees in Lomza noted: “I don’t know what’s in their heads.”

The refugees began to evoke fear. Many people started associating “the Muslims” with terrorism, which is of no surprise, given that the Polish media present Muslims almost exclusively accompanied with guns or preparing for yet another attack.

These fears should have been addressed in open discussion with the population. Instead, the local MP, a Mr. Kolakowski, decided to solve “the problem” by advocating the closing the Center altogether. In his open letter to the Department of Foreigners  [part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs], Kolakowski supported his request by referring to the high rates of unemployment in town, as well as a rise of crime rates, caused by the presence of the refugees. He likely was attempting to “capitalize” on the fear of the foreigners, looking to increase voter support in upcoming elections.

A group of followers emerged, and we witnessed a true “festival” of hatred vis-à-vis Chechnyans: collecting signatures to support the liquidation of the Center, short clips in internet, comments on internet forums, anti-Chechnyan leaflets etc.

We can see how important it is to counteract the attitudes of this sort, through education about foreigners, their culture, religion and traditions. There is a real danger that if Poles don’t act towards mutual understanding, there will appear ideas and initiatives offering “simple solutions.”

Local authorities in Lomza offered a system of what I call a “seeming tolerance.” Repeated multiple times on various occasions, the term “tolerance” was in fact the keyword disguising ignorance. Both the refugees and the local community were devoid of support; no conditions were officially created to encourage encounter.

More promising have been attempts to build mutual relations through cultural projects: Caucasian Day, the Chechnyan Soiree, and the Day of the Refugee project – all organized by the “Rescue” Foundation in Lomza. In these, long time Lomza inhabitants watch movies about refugees, see the Caucasian traditional dance, try some specialties of the Chechnyan cuisine,  and most importantly, these events provide the opportunity to meet and greet, talk and exchange ideas. Thanks to these projects the Polish inhabitants of Lomza have had a chance to learn that the refugees share with them the same dreams, the same concerns.

This is the way to fight against the negative attitudes that blame the refugees for all the evil in town. It is important, however, to remember not to idealize the refugees. One should discuss any emerging issues – they cannot be silenced or ignored, with an excuse of wrongly understood “political correctness.”

It is clear that more refugees will arrive to Polish towns. By showing the true face of people who found in Poland rescue from wars, cataclysms and oppressions, we can take care not to create conflicts. We should create situations where the foreigners and Poles would be able to meet.

This post was first published in Respublica Nowa and translated for Deliberately Considered by Malgorzata Bakalarz.

The weather has been absolutely spectacular this week in Paris. Clear, sunny skies, low humidity, moderate temperatures. Yesterday, Naomi and I enjoyed having lunch at the Palais-Royal and walking through the city with our friend Daniel Dayan. Each day, we have been spending time in a park with our grandson, Ludovic. Especially nice was a family excursion to the Arab Institute, where we had wonderful pastries and panoramic views of of the city from its rooftop café. Being in Paris, thinking with a European perspective about the Arab world has been my theme of the week, as I, with the help of the editorial team at Deliberately Considered, have been keeping the magazine going.

I observed in my first letter from Paris that the common action of Coptic Christians and Muslims at Tahrir Square created a new pluralistic reality in Egypt. These days, this new reality is challenged, to say the least. There are great fears that sectarian conflict will rule the day in Egypt and in the region, as was reported in Tuesday’s New York Times. According to this report, a clause in the constitution formally identifying Egypt as a Muslim country deriving its laws from Islam, passed during the era of Anwar Sadat, and laws dating back to the late colonial era that stipulate specific restrictions on and privileges for the Coptic church have inflamed tensions. There is a marked increase in sectarian violence, with wild stories about abduction of Muslims, even reported in a historically liberal newspaper. These are very serious matters.

Formal political measures to address these issues are urgently needed. An idea floating that a Bill of Rights ought to be established as a precondition of electoral politics, as advocated by Mohamed El Barade, makes considerable sense. But just as important are indications that the power of definition, what I call the politics of small things, is being marshaled to combat dangerous anti-democratic developments.

A Copt (left) and a Salafi Muslim (right) debate politics and the revolution in Tahrir Square during a break from cleanup efforts, Feb 12, 2011 © Sherif9282 | Wikimedia Commons

There was also a minor subplot in the Times story. As the new political configuration is emerging, competing political parties are acting in interesting “opportunistic” ways. The Muslim Brotherhood is proving to be the powerful political force and is working to consolidate its power. Yet, it continues to be self-limiting. (Poland’s great democratic transformation was often referred to as a self-limiting revolution). Not only is it indicating that it will not present a Presidential candidate, it is contesting only a half of the Parliamentary seats. It purposively couches its Islamic project in terms that are supportive of liberal democracy. A prominent leader of the Party, Essam el-Erian maintains: “We are calling for a civil state,” promoting elements of Islamic law that are common to other world religions, including, “freedom of worship and faith, equality between people, and human rights and human dignity.” Further, the Brotherhood named a Christian a deputy leader of its political party.

Meanwhile, Christian and secular liberal parties are not directly seeking changes to the article in the constitution that recognizes Egypt as a Muslim nation with laws based on Islam. While individuals may privately dislike the article, they recognize its popularity among Muslims and the parties minimally propose only minor changes.

“Our position is that it should stay, but a clause should be added so that in personal issues non-Muslims are subject to the rules of their own religion,’ Naguib Sawiris, a secularly oriented, wealthy, Christian businessman who has established a liberal party. He would prefer the separation between religion and state in accord with Western customs, but realizes that this is now impossible given Egyptian realities.

The Brotherhood’s gestures to liberal democratic values, and the liberal and Christian gestures recognizing Egypt as a Muslim nation, may be simply a matter of cynical political calculation, meant to convince the naïve that the Brotherhood does not pose the threat about which skeptics are most concerned, concealing the Brotherhood’s potential long term complicity in the disturbing anti-Christian actions and attitudes that are on the rise in Egypt, very much a part of the sectarian strife of the region. And the Christian and liberal acceptance of the idea of Egypt as a Muslim nation may simply be a rather desperate necessary, political calculation to maintain viability against an Islamist tide. I am sure such concerns are warranted.

But, I believe something more important is going on, as well, that is supporting the prospects for democracy in Egypt, with clear parallels to the development of democracy in Poland. Real pro-democratic Christians, liberals and Muslims together are muddling through a common definition of their society as one with pluralism and with majority and minority rights. There is a struggle against powerful currents of hatred, fears and suspicions, and major political actors are presenting themselves as moving in this direction. They may not succeed, but it is important to notice that this movement is happening. Given the nature of belief in Egypt, there could be no democracy without the inclusion of Islam in its politics (think of the Turkish experience). Given the richness of the Islamic tradition, there is reason to think that this move is possible, even if not likely.

Democrats of all sorts have skin in this game, as Michael Corey would put it. He suggests, in his latest post, that when I put it this way we should ask: What is being asked by whom, and for what purposes? I think the purposes are pretty clear. A liberal democratic peaceful North Africa and the Middle East would be safer, more prosperous and more just place, and this would contribute to greater safety, prosperity and justice beyond the region. The people asking are those who are most clearly dedicated to human rights, liberal democracy and an open society. And what is being asked is generally minimal, perhaps some economic aid, but mostly a commitment to discontinue the support of repressive force. Minimal support, getting out of the way, engaging in serious dialogue on the basis of shared principles.

One final note about his week on Chris Eberhardt’s post on China: It also reminded me of Poland past. His notion of China as a kind of “Truman Show” resembles the “Poland Show” in which I used to live and visit, although I think the “China Show” is a much more subtle game. Key to the unreality aspect of these real reality shows, i.e. Communist Party directed and controlled societies, is the distance between the official language, which was necessary to get on with public responsibilities, and the language of everyday experience.  More about this when I get back home.