“The unrest around a new asylum seekers’ center is a many -headed monster and is difficult to predict.” That is what adviser crisis communication Ilmar Woldring says about the protest that got out of hand against a possible AZC in Berlicum. “Another way of communicating is no guarantee to success,” says Roy Johannink.
The resistance to the reception location has been bubbling among opponents all week. The arrival of the AZC is not yet final: the municipality still has to take the decision on that. Three hundred refugees and status holders could possibly be given a place in a meadow on the Runweg, for a maximum period of ten years.
On Thursday evening a demonstration got out of hand at the town hall in Sint-Michielsgestel. Eggs and fireworks were thrown to the town hall, where a regular council meeting took place at that time. On Friday morning, pig’s legs were hung on the spot where the new AZC should be.
“Municipalities have been overrupted by the emotions it evokes.”
The incident evokes memories of the riots in Heesch in 2016. At the time, an asylum seekers’ center was planned for five hundred people. Even then there was a lot of protest.
A dead pig was hung on the intended location and riots broke out during a council meeting outside the town hall. The AZC did not end up in the end.
Woldring looked back on that situation in 2017: “At that time there was suddenly a huge stream of Syrian refugees who had to be taken care of. Municipalities were overcoming, also by the emotions it called.”
Even now there are plans for new asylum seekers’ centers in several places. Protest is almost everywhere, but the form differs. In some places it remains with demonstrations and talk moments. In Berlicum, however, the emotions rise high and the protest got out of hand.
“As a municipality you can never do well either.”
Why that happens in Berlicum cannot explain exactly. “It is so different locally. How do people interact with each other? Do they light each other or not? It is often impossible to predict,” he says.
Roy Johannik, crisis communication adviser, joins himself. “There are so many different factors that determine whether the flame hits the pan or not,” says Johannik. “Do people know each other in neighborhoods, or is there any experience with a shelter? Are there key figures who lead the conversation in the right direction? When do you involve residents and what explanation do you give about why the decision? Do you listen to worries of residents?” According to the expert, all those questions play a role.
According to both experts, you can never do well as a municipality. Woldring: “There is always a group or party that is not happy with it”. Johannink adds: “You can’t do it perfectly, but you can do it wisely. There will always be a part of the population that is against, no matter how you bring it. As a government you should not strive for consensus, but to transparency, legitimacy and tranquility.”
“Have small -scale conversations.”
According to Woldring, the pursuit of peace is not always the solution. “People often want the peace to return. But bringing people to calming can also mean that you silence them. That rest can then be very deceptive. It will then be a peat fire that flares up somewhere else. What has to happen is that a good, clear decision is made.”
Yet Johannik sees a way to have the peace return. “The municipality can now best focus on small -scale conversations with residents, instead of major emotional meetings. It works better to really start a conversation in small groups and to listen to worries. As a municipality you have to continue to communicate openly about what is fixed, which is still negotiable and what the next steps are. Transparency gives peace.”
Waiting for privacy settings …