Carcerality As 'protection' and 'safety': The Case of Mahama Refugee Camp in Rwanda

Background/Purpose: Forced migration is a prominent global challenge, with over 25% of the 103.1 million refugees and internally displaced people worldwide being housed in refugee camps and settlements (UNHCR, 2023). While the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) states that camp settings are the least favorable humanitarian response to forced migration, for the past 70 years management of displaced populations through camps has in fact been the primary response (Anam, 2020). Refugee camps range in form and design, yet the inherent function of the camp is containment of residents within certain bounds through the imposition of a border between camp space and the outside environment (McConnachie, 2016). Grounded in frameworks of governmentality and biopolitics, this paper illustrates the several carceral arrangements rooted in humanitarian protection practices (Foucault, 1975, 2008; Agamben, 1998; Ticktin, 2012). It examines ways in which refugee protection, specifically related to physical mobility, renders a space of safety, only within a setting of control and questions how safety, for those in positions of forced movement, can be assured outside the carceral logics of camp settings.

Methods: This paper is based on short term data collection from Mahama refugee camp in south east Rwanda, a camp that is often lauded as one of the most successful models of management and refugee protection in sub-saharan Africa. Primary methods included participant observation, use of policy and practitioner documents and the application of geographic information systems (GIS) for the collection and visualization of attribute distribution and spatial-temporal information. Spatial analysis (hypothesis testing and measurements) and content analysis of government and humanitarian organization documents was used to examine ways in which camp models restrict and limit mobility (Longley, 2001; Coffey, 2014).

Results: Analysis illustrated several factors that led to extreme lack of mobility for those living within Mahama camp. Design of built environment, geographic location, constant policing (by UNHCR and government forces) and strict time limits on movement outside of the camp all contribute to a clear connection between camp protection practices and living within a carceral setting. In addition, practices such as mobility cards and access to citizenship, illustrate the ways that humanitarian organizations and governments use mobility not only as a way to control populations, but also to signal who is considered safe or unsafe.

Conclusions/Implications: When viewing care practices around forced migration, responses must be conceived of outside of international protection practices that are based in carceral logics of population management and containment.Camps do not need to be inevitable responses to forced migration or crisis management. The creation and maintenance of these spaces are distinct policy choices that we must be attentive to at both international and domestic levels, especially as we continue to see increasing numbers of people being forcibly displaced by violence, climate change and the denial of their civil and human rights.