SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?NATIONAL IDENTITY AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS LOCAL INTEGRATION

AMONG LIBERIAN REFUGEES IN GHANA

In the summer of 2009, focus groups and interviews were

conducted with Liberian refugees living in the Buduburam

Refugee Camp, Ghana. The purpose of this study was to learn

about the national identity of individuals in protracted

refugee situations, and how this influences attitudes

towards durable solutions. Using a grounded theory approach,

I develop a framework of Liberian national identity and

evaluate how these conceptions of identity generate support

or opposition to UNHCR-supported local integration program.

Three main themes regarding identity are identified by the

participants: ethnic or cultural identity, civic identity,

and liberal identity. The results indicate that national

identity is an important indicator about a refugee’s desire

to remain in Ghana, and those with strong ethnic and liberal

national identities, as opposed to civic national

identities, are the least likely candidates for local

integration.

Keywords: Liberian refugees, protracted refugee situations, national identity,

local integration

Introduction

In the summer of 2009, focus groups and interviews were

conduced with Liberian refugees living in the Buduburam

Refugee Camp, Ghana. The purpose of this qualitative study

was to explore how national identity among refugees in

protracted situations influences attitudes towards the UNHCR

supported local integration program in Ghana. Refugees are

nationals of another nation and while their time away from

their country of origin is in theory thought to be a

temporary phenomenon, this is often not the case for many

refugees, particularly in Africa, that find themselves in

protracted situations.1 Crisp defines protracted refugee

situations as those in which members of the refugee 1 Crisp, J. (2003) “No Solution in Sight: The Problem of Protracted Refugee Situations in

Africa,” Refugee Survey Quarterly 22: 114-150.

population have lived in exile for more than five years and

have been unable to find a durable solution. Local

integration has increasingly become an attractive solution

to protracted refugee situations, both in developed and

developing countries.2 This study links two overlooked

elements in the literature: the identity politics of

refugees in protracted situations and how conceptions of

identity influence their likelihood of finding a durable

solution.

While most studies have focused on several core domains

of local integration, generally described as legal,

economic, and sociocultural dimensions,3 the role of

national identity has been notably absent from the existing 2 Fielden, A. and J. Crisp. (2008) “Local Integration: Reviving a Forgotten Solution,” Forced Migration

Review,” 78-79.Jacobsen, K. (2001) “The Forgotten Solution: Local Integration for Refugees in Developing Countries,”

New Issues in Refugee Research: Working Paper # 45: 1-42.Agblorti, S. K. M. (2011) “Refugee Integration in Ghana: The Host Communitie’s Perspective,”

New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper # 203.3 Ager, A. and A. Strang. (2008) “Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework,” Journal of

Refugee Studies.Fieldon, A. (2008) “Local Integration: An Under-Reported Solution to Protracated Refugee Situations”

UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Service, Working Paper No.158. Banki, S. (2004) “Refugee Integration in the Intermediate Term: A Study of Nepal, Pakistan, and

Kenya” UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit. Working Paper No. 108. Crisp, J. (2004) “The Local Integration and Local Settlement of Refugees: A Conceptual And Historical

Analysis.” UNHCR, Policy and Evaluation Unit, Working Paper No. 102.

literature. Yet, national identity is inextricably tied to

the dimensions of a working definition of local integration.

For example, “in many cases, acquiring the nationality of

the country of asylum is the culmination of this process.”4

While it is possible for a refugee to acquire a wide range

of rights within a host country, a broader, mutli-faceted

definition is used to describe the local integration

process.5 Local integration is a process by which refugees

acquire and exercise legal rights within the host country,

which can include, but are not limited to citizenship. For

example, refugees are granted basic rights in this process

including access to public services such as health care and

education, the right to enter the labor market, and the

right to own and sell possessions, including land. Yet,

local integration is not just a process that involves legal

rights. The economic dimension of local integration suggests

that refugees are self-reliant and have opportunities to

support themselves within the host country. Finally, local

integration is a social and cultural process whereby

refugees exist in their daily lives within the host country

Valtonen, K. (2004) “From the Margin to the Mainstream: Conceptualizing Refugee Settlement Processes,”

Journal of Refugee Studies, 17(1): 70-96.Dryden-Peterson, S. and L. Hovil. (2003) “Local Integration as Durable Solution: Refugees, Host

Populations, and Education in Uganda.” UNHCR Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis Unit, Working

Paper No. 93.4 http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c101.html5Ibid. Crisp, J. (2004)

without fear of discrimination. Above all, local

integration, as opposed to local settlement, is a long-term,

permanent process.6 As Fielden notes, “The notion of local

integration is based on the assumption that refugees will

remain indefinitely in their country of asylum and find a

solution to their plight in that state.”7 Arguably, refugees

will become socially and politically integrated in the host

country at the end of this process. Though not required to

abandon their native culture or become indistinguishable

from members of the host country, the permanent and multi-

dimensional character of local integration suggests that

refugees will go through an adjustment process and become

members of a new nation, just like other types of migrants.

Refugees involved in the integration process will accumulate

rights that may lead to permanent residency and citizenship,

will have to establish a livelihood and become self-reliant

in their new land, and must become part of the host society

to an extent that they can live together with the host

population in an acceptable manner. Thus, it becomes

essential to account for views of Liberian national identity

when identifying successful candidates for local integration

in Ghana.

This qualitative research was conducted in Ghana with a

focus on how the Liberians at Buduburam Refugee Camp define

their national identity. A grounded theory approach was used

6 Ibid. Jacobsen, K. (2001)7 Ibid. Fieldon, A. (2008)

to develop a framework of Liberian national identity. Ethnic

notions of identity with a nation emphasize ascriptive

characteristics that are not easily transferred, and in many

cases not voluntarily acquired, such as birth, extended

residency, and kinship ties.8 The sense of kinship among

nationals is manifested and sustained by distinctive

cultural attributes. Civic notions of identity, in contrast,

emphasize a “metaphorical” kinship, created by participation

in a common political community, characterizing the content

of identity as the shared political rights, duties, values,

and political institutions shared by members of a given

territory, irrespective of their cultural heritage and

nativity. Finally, a unique form of civic identity, based on

liberal democratic values, individualism, and social

mobility emerged among the participants.

Individuals with a strong sense of ethnic-based

national identity have been found to place more rigid

boundaries on group membership than those with civic-based

identities, and this study confirms these findings among

refugees. Individuals with more committed ethnic-based

Liberian identities were less likely to see themselves

transitioning from an out-group member in Ghana to an in-

group member and expressed more objections to local

integration as a durable solution. A strong liberal identity

was associated with reservations to participate due to a

8 Roshwald, A. (2000) The Endurance of Nationalism. Cambridge University Press.

lack of some formal rights, a less than optimal economic

situation, and a continued desire to resettle to a developed

country with an expectation of finding more opportunity and

upward mobility. In contrast, individuals that stressed more

civic-based notions of identity appeared more open to the

process of local integration.

Methodology

Setting

The data was collected at the Buduburam Refugee Camp in the

Gamoa District of Ghana. Bububuram Refugee Camp was founded

in 1990 to accommodate the influx of Liberian refugees as a

result of the First Liberian Civil War. It is located in a

rural setting, approximately 20 miles from the city center,

and nation’s capital, Accra. While at first just a parcel of

land that had been set aside for arriving refugees, over the

course of 19 years the Camp has developed into a Liberian

enclave complete with housing, schools, churches, markets,

internet cafes and a small health center.9 Though the

proximity to Accra lends some opportunity for acquiring

employment, a general lack of jobs, difficulty obtaining

work permits, high rent, and refusal from some Ghanaians to

do business with the Liberians renders many refugees

confined to the Camp, and seeking a livelihood within its 9 Hargrove, A. (2009) “Liberian Refugee Families in Ghana: The Implications of Family Demands and

Capabilities for Return to Liberia,” Journal of Refugee Studies, 22(4): 483-500.

boundaries.10 Thus, while refugees in Ghana have freedom of

movement, many have little incentive to leave the Camp and

wait there for a durable solution.

Durable solutions available to refugees typically

include three options: 1) repatriation to the home country

2) resettlement to a third country or 3) local integration

in the host country. Between 1990 and 2000, more than 20,000

Liberian refugees were resettled to the US, and many

continued to arrive after 2000 with similar hopes for

resettlement. However, the US largely ceased Priority 1

resettlement in 2003 (in addition UNHCR curtailed referrals

of P1 cases to the US for resettlement due to backlogs and

later a focus on repatriation programs), and has

substantially curtailed Priority III resettlement of

Liberian refugees since 2006, as many family-sponsored cases

turned out to be fraudulent.11 In 2004, a voluntary

repatriation program was initiated, and between this and

earlier resettlement programs, numbers at the Camp had 10 Porter, G., Hampshire, K., Kyei P., Adjaloo, M., Rapoo, G. and Kilpatrick K. (2008) “Linkages Between

Livelihood Opportunities and Refugee-Host Relations: Learning fromthe Experiences of Liberian

Camp-based Refugees in Ghana,” Journal of Refugee Studies 21: 230-252.Dick, S. (2002a) “Liberians in Ghana: Living Without Humanitarian Assistance,”

New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 57.11 UNHCR (2007c) Local Integration of Liberian and Sierra Leonian Refugees in West Africa.Dick, S. (2002) “Protracted Refugee Situations: Liberians in Ghana.” UNHCR Evaluation and Policy

Unit.Mestetsky, E.. (2009) Interview conducted in Accra, Ghana, June 29, 2009.

decreased from 40,000 to 26,000 by 2007.12 Still, many

refugees that were unable to resettle to a third country

refused to repatriate, citing a lingering fear of

persecution upon return, painful memories, or lack of

capital to make the journey and/or sustain one’s self and

family once back in Liberia.13 After 2004, UNHCR supported a

program of local integration for the remaining refugees,

which at its core, would include legal residence and a clear

right to work in the host country.14 Though resettlement was

no longer a viable option for most, hopes of resettlement to

the US or UK prevented many Liberians from considering local

integration, while the impracticality of repatriation

remained a prominent factor in deterring return to Liberia.

In February 2008, some of the remaining refugees engaged in

a non-violent protest requesting $1,000 for a repatriation

package back to Liberia (rather than the $100 that had been

on offer), or resettlement to a developed country. Relations

between the Ghanaian government and the refugees soured as

several deportations and arrests were made.15 12 Kaptinde, F. (2006) “A Tale of Two Camps: A Bustling Buduburam and a Quiet Krisan,” UNHCR News

Stories:UNHCR (2007a) Global Report: Ghana.UNHCR (2007b) Global Appeal 2008-2009: Ghana.13 Ibid. Hargrove, A. (2009)Ibid. Kaptinde, F. (2006)14 Ibid. UNHCR (2007c).15 International Refugee Rights Initiative. (2008) “Refugee Protests Derailed in Ghana,” Refugee Rights

News 4: Issue 2, April.Snieckus, M. (2008) “Liberian Refugees Voluntarily Leave Buduburam in Record Numbers,” New

The current state:

In the aftermath of the protest, many refugees were

repatriated, bringing the population at Buduburam from

27,000 down to approximately 11,000 at the time these

interviews were conducted in 2009.16 While refugees arriving

from the period of 1990-2000 were considered “prima facie”

refugees by the Ghanaian government and given UNHCR

assistance, refugees arriving after 2000 encountered a much

stricter screening process, and assistance was limited only

to “vulnerable” populations. UNHCR continued to work with

the Ghanaian government to find a durable solution for the

remaining refugees, many of whom subsisted without direct

humanitarian aid. With repatriation to Liberia a daunting

challenge for many, local integration became the focus of

UNHCR in 2007.17 Though UNHCR has openly praised the

government of Ghana for its hospitality,18 Ghana has made no

explicit offer of naturalization to the remaining Liberian

refugees within its borders.19 At the time the interviews

were conducted, UNHCR officials were present at Buduburam,

collecting data in relation to the implementation of the

local integration program in Ghana. During meetings with the

Liberian Refugee Welfare Council, I was told that there wereLiberian, May 1.

16 UNHCR (2009) Global Report: Ghana.17 Ibid. UNHCR (2007c).18 Yaw-K. (2009) “UNHCR Hands Over Facilities to the Government,” Daily Graphic, May 8. 19 Ibid UNHCR (2007c).

concerns among the refugees that the UNHCR was not including

them in the discussions about local integration. There was

also a general feeling that the process lacked transparency

because the Ghanaian government had not come up with a

formal local integration package, and many of the Liberians

were unclear as to what this option would mean for their

daily lives. Lingering issues such as economic instability,

discrimination, and security also loomed large 20 This

resulted in a context of mistrust between the different

players at this particular point in time. The refugees also

expressed dismay at researchers, whom they perceived as

coming to the Camp only to help themselves. Given these

suspicions, grounded theory methodology is especially

appropriate, because it allows the participants to direct

the discussion, and be the expert on the subject matter.21

Participants

20 Owusu, M. 2000. “Reluctant Refugees: Liberians in Ghana,” Journal of the International Institute

7(3).Porter, G., K. Hampshire, P. Kyei, M. Adjaloo, G. Rampoo, and K. Kilpatrick. 2008. “Linkages

Between livelihood opportunities and refugee-host relations: learnings from the experiences

Of Liberian camp-based refugees in Ghana, Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2): 230-252.21 Ward, E. (2005) “Keeping it Real: A Grounded Theory Study of African American Clients

Engaging in Counseling at a Community Mental Health Agency,” Journal of Counseling

Psychology 52(4): 471-481.

A total of 37 residents from Buduburam Camp participated in

this inquiry. I conducted 17 semi-structured, individual

interviews, and conducted two focus groups, each with group

with ten participants. There were female and male

participants, as well as participants from 10 of the 16 most

prominent linguistic or tribal groups in Liberia. For the

individual interviews, there were 7 females (40% of the

sample), and 10 males (60% of the sample). Participants

identified themselves as from the following tribes: Clue

(25%), Kongo (5%), Sappo (5%), Pele (5%), Gbo (10%), Loma

(5%), Vie (5%), Gbendi (5%), and Krahn (30%). The

participants’ ages ranged from 18-76, with an average age of

38. Education levels among the participants ranged from

elementary school to graduate school. Two of the

participants indicated that they were unemployed at the time

the interviews took place, while two participants were

employed in volunteer positions with little to no

compensation. Of the twelve that indicated that they were

gainfully employed, all participated in the economy

informally by setting up their own shops or businesses, and

all but one of these were confined to the refugee camp.

Occupations ranged from market vendors to various

specialized trades such as hairdressers, bakers, and

pastors. The most educated participants held professional

jobs in Liberia such as professors, teachers, and leaders of

party organizations, but found other means of survival, as

these jobs were not available to them in Ghana. The

remaining participants indicated that they were students,

with most being provided for by family members within the

Camp, or remittances from family members overseas.

All of the participants had spent many years as a

refugee. The shortest time of displacement was ten years,

and the longest time was 19 years, the time from the

beginning of the First Liberian Civil War until the time

that these interviews were conducted. Among the refugees,

there was an established presence in Buduburam; with the

exception of one participant who had lived at Buduburam for

just under 8 years, participants had lived at Buduburam from

a range of 10 to 19 years, with an average length of 14.5

years spent living at this particular Camp. The younger

respondents in the sample had come to Buduburam a babies or

toddlers, and had completed all of their schooling at

Buduburam.

Demographics of the participants in the focus groups

are quite similar to those of the interviewees with a couple

of notable exceptions. The Liberian Refugee Welfare Council

was split almost evenly by gender, with 6 men and 4 women,

but the Women’s Training Center group consisted almost

entirely of women, with only two men participating. Thus,

the breakdown of gender for the focus groups was 60% female,

and 40% male. Also, focus group participants were more

likely to be unemployed or volunteers, as the Liberian

Refugee Welfare Council is a volunteer-based organization,

and those at the Women’s Training Center were in the process

of acquiring a set of skills to enable them to find gainful

employment. Of the 20 focus group participants, 11

identified as volunteers, 4 as unemployed, and 4 as having

regular work (nurse, market vendor, entrepreneur).

Instruments

Brief demographic questionnaire

A brief demographic questionnaire was used to obtain the

background information from the participants. Questions

included age, level of education, occupation, tribal

identification, family status, number of years as a refugee,

number of years spent at Buduburam and whether the

participant is interested in local integration. Participants

completed the questionnaire at the end of the interview,

which took 5-10 minutes to complete.

Interviews

In keeping with the tenets of grounded theory, the initial

question presented to the groups allowed participants to

define national identity as they perceived it and in their

own words. The session was started with the broad statement,

“Tell me what it means to you to be a Liberian.” During the

procession of interviews, questions became more focused on

perceived critical themes, or dimensions, that began to

emerge across interviews. The following are examples of

questions that were asked later in the interviews: “How has

your identity as a Liberian changed after your time spent in

Ghana,” and “Can you tell me about the cultural differences

that you cite between Liberians and Ghanaians?”

Focus group sessions

I conducted two focus groups at the Buduburam Camp, one with

the Liberian Refugee Welfare Council, and one with members

of the Women’s Training Center. Each focus group met for two

one-hour sessions. Focus group sessions were conducted in a

similar manner as the individual interviews, with an

emphasis on the discovery of theory from the data provided

by the participants. The primary focus question was broad,

allowing the participants to describe what it means to be a

Liberian from their perspective, consequently enabling the

participants, rather than the researcher, to lead and shape

the course of the discussion. Critical themes that emerged

from the first focus group session were then followed up and

expanded upon in the second focus group session.

Interviewer/ Primary Investigator

I conducted this study as part of a grant to study national

identity among refugees in protracted situations. I

introduced myself as a researcher from my institution, but

made clear that I did not work for the United States

Government, the Ghanaian State Government or the United

Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). I conducted all

of the interviews to ensure adherence to grounded theory

practices, and to guard against systematic bias introduced

into the study by interviewer variability. While there was

some potential for the Liberian refugees to feel

uncomfortable speaking with an American female researcher, I

worked very closely with a team that had significant ties to

the everyday lives of the refugees. To facilitate rapport

and trust with the residents at Buduburam Camp, I enlisted

the aid of Charlotte Pobee, a Ghanaian woman, who had five

years of previous experience working with residents in her

capacity as an employee at the Population Caring

Organization (PCO). PCO helped to provide assistance to

residents at the Camp, including Twi language courses and

vocational skills training to enable them to earn a living

on the Camp. Ms. Pobee acted as a liaison between the

refugees and myself, assisting with the recruiting process,

data collection, and data transcription. At the time, there

was some tension between the residents, the Ghanaian

government, and UNHCR. In order to further facilitate trust

and encourage participation, I employed Peter Nyensuah, Jr.,

a ten-year resident at the Buduburam Refugee Camp, to help

with interviews as well. Mr. Nysensuah served as a

reassuring presence during the interviews, and also assisted

in the recruitment process. I felt that it was important to

work with a current refugee at the Camp, in this context of

mistrust and instability that characterized the atmosphere

during the period in which in the interviews and focus

groups were conducted.

Sampling, data collection, and data analysis

To recruit participants, I enlisted assistance from several

parties, including Cal Wisdom Afun, the Camp Manager at

Buduburam, Ms. Pobee and Mr. Nyensuah. Ms. Pobee’s

organization, PCO informed refugees of the study by

contacting individuals directly through organizations that

they worked with at Buduburam and by posting flyers about

the study. Letters about the study were sent to potential

participants to solicit participation, and to inform them

that their participation was voluntary and that they could

withdraw from the study at anytime. These letters were

explained thoroughly to participants and signed before the

start of each interview of focus group.

After each interview was conducted, it was transcribed

to begin the analysis phase of the project. Ms. Pobee had a

firm grasp of the Liberians’ unique style of English, and

thus, transcribed the interviews.22 I then assembled a

research team, consisting of two students and myself, to

conduct a line-by-line analysis of the transcripts. Each

22 Ms. Pobee transcribed the interviews into American English, which is what is presented in this paper.

line of the first interview was analyzed to identify the

dimensions that the participant perceived as important to

his or her identity as a Liberian. In the spirit of a

grounded theory approach, this step was followed by memoing,

theoretical sampling, and comparative analysis, a process

whereby dimensions that are identified in the earlier stages

are compared across participants to better understand the

substance of individual dimensions, as well as the

interrelations among dimensions (Bowers 1990; Glazer and

Strauss 1967; Ward 2001; Charmaz 2000).23 This process was

followed until a point of saturation was reached.24

Limitations of Research Design

Grounded theory emphasizes the importance of having a

diverse sample, which arguably was achieved in this

particular research design because of the diverse cross-

section of demographics among its participants. However, as

with most qualitative studies, it is important to note that

23 Bowers, B. 1990. Grounded Theory. In B. Starter (Ed.), Paths To Knowledge, New York: National

League for Nursing Press, pp. 32-39. Chamaraz, K. 2000. Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In N.K. Denzin &

Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 509-

534. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss A. L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative

Research. New York: Aldine. Ibid. Ward (2004)24 Bowers (1990) defines saturation as the “point in which a researcher cannot discover new dimensions in the data being collected.”

the generalizability of the findings is limited. Rather than

generalization, the goal of the study was to focus on the

experiences of a particular group, Liberian refugees in

Ghana.

Results

The first part of this study aims to identify the dimensions

of Liberian national identity and whether there is still a

strong sense of attachment to the homeland among refugees in

this protracted situation. A grounded theoretical model,

presented in the table below, illustrates that three key

dimensions of national identity emerged among the

participants: ethnocultural, civic and liberal identity. It

is important to note that there were references among a

handful of respondents to sub-national identity by ethnic

group or tribal affiliation, but tribal identity did not

emerge as a particularly salient dimension of identity among

the participants.25

Table 1 illustrates the salience of different dimensions and

indicators of Liberian identity across sources and

references. The most prominent dimensions of Liberian

national identity are the ethnocultural dimension,

25 Though the use of the word, “tribe” or “tribal” is contentious in theliterature, I use this terminology in this paper because this is the language used by the participants themselves to describe their identity.

particularly references to ancestry, cultural traditions,

and language, and the liberal dimension, particularly in

regards to opportunity as central to identity. For example,

the importance of ancestry and bloodline in defining

Liberian national identity has 145 references. References to

ancestry or blood ties are mentioned in both focus groups

and in all 17 individual interviews, which lends credence to

the assertion that this aspect of ethnocultural identity is

an entrenched idea among the participants more broadly.

Civic, or state-centered notions of identity, were also

cited across many sources as an important source of Liberian

identity, but fewer references to these ideas were cited by

the participants than the ethnocultural conceptions of

ancestry, nativity and cultural traditions. Results indicate

that while in some instances the participants expressed less

zeal for Liberia or regret over the political troubles of

their country, being a Liberian remained a central element

to their personal identity.

[Insert Table 1 Here]

Ethnocultural Identity

The most prominent expressions of Liberian identity included

links to fellow nationals through nativity, ancestry, and

entrenched cultural traditions shared across all Liberians,

independent of tribal or parochial group membership. All

participants made references to ideas of nativity, ancestry,

culture and language as important to Liberian national

identity, and these ideas were referenced more than any

indicators of civic and liberal conceptions of identity.

Nativity

One of the most commonly cited indicators of ethnocultural

identity was being born in the territory of Liberia. In all

of the transcripts, birth in Liberia is cited first or

second after the initial question, “Tell me what it means to

be a Liberian.” Furthermore, this link between place of

birth and national identity is cited as more important than

citizenship by naturalization, demonstrating an emphasis on

ethnocultural conceptions of identity over civic or

legalistic conceptions of identity. The following quotes

illustrate the role that birth plays in defining identity

for Liberians at Buduburam:

I was born in Liberia and location determines

nationality. (Dobor)

You should be a citizen of a country if you have come

from there at birth, and then maybe you naturalize with

a document, which you can use to prove that you be from

that place, but it is still not the country of your

birth.

(Eunice)

I will always feel the love for Liberia because I was

born there. (Christy)

Ancestry

Bloodlines, or ancestry, is a primary factor in Liberian

identification across all respondents. Identity among the

Liberians interviewed is largely viewed as inherited or

ascribed by blood; in this regard, identity is a static

concept, fixed at birth, meaning that Liberian identity

cannot easily be transferred or changed, even if one no

longer resides in Liberia. As many participants note, “I am

a Liberian and I will always be a Liberian.” Eunice, for

example, says,

“I cannot determine my nationality. I am a

Liberian.”

Similar sentiments are expressed by Grace when asked whether

the amount of time spent in Ghana has impacted her identity

as Liberian at all:

“Not at all- I am a Liberian. You cannot change your

nationality or culture.”

Lynda, who left Liberia when she was still a young girl,

also expresses that her identification with her Liberian

homeland has remained unaffected by all of the years that

she has spent in Ghana:

I am here in Ghana now, but I am a Liberian first. You

will always be a Liberian. You cannot change this. I

feel no differently about being a Liberian because you

cannot change your Liberian identity. I was very little

when I was brought here because of the War, but my

parents are Liberians and I was born there.

Even children born in Ghana at Buduburam were viewed by

their parents as Liberians first and foremost: When asked

about the nationality of his children born in Ghana, Dobor

notes:

By birth yes, they are Ghanaians, I recognize this. But

they are pure Liberians because, we the parents are

Liberians. All of their blood relatives are Liberian,

so they are Liberian.

Similar sentiments are expressed by Mina when asked how she

views her children born in Buduburam:

My children are not Ghanaian. My children are Liberian

because I am a Liberian.

Lynda, the only participant that acknowledges some Ghanaian

identity for her children born in Buduburam, still expresses

this as a compromise between birth and bloodlines:

My children were born here so they are at least half

Ghanaian, and half-Liberian because I am a Liberian.

The youngest respondents in the group, though living most of

their life in Ghana, still express their identity as

Liberian:

“Nothing has changed my identity after living in Ghana all

this time I am a Liberian because even though I came here as

a boy, I was born in Liberia and my parents are Liberian-

nothing can or will change that (Kudee)

I suppose I could say that I am Ghanaian because I have

completed my schooling here and have lived here for several

years and my family lives here now. But I am not Ghanaian

because I was not born here and my parents are Liberians.

(Karna)

Views of Liberian identity as fixed in this manner are

substantially intertwined with opposition to local

integration. Over and over, respondents would indicate that

they could only be “half” of another nationality if they

remained permanently in Ghana or a third country, rather

than return to Liberia. Some respondents had a more

stringent view, maintaining that they could never see

themselves as anything other than Liberian. Though many

sought resettlement to the US, most did not have plans to

permanently settle, rather wanting to build their resources

and make plans to return to Liberia when it is safe and they

have enough money to survive there. For example, when asked

if she would naturalize in a third country, if given the

opportunity for resettlement, Mina says:

By paper, I will say yes, because I need papers to live

there. But, I will still be a Liberian. I only want to

live there and work so that when I have money, I will

then go back and help build my beloved country. I am

very proud to be a Liberian and will always be a

Liberian.

Even among the few respondents that did not express a desire

to return to Liberia in the future, ethnocultural identity

was a strong component of their identity.

I cannot change my nationality. Even if I should live

here [Ghana] the rest of my life, I will still see

myself as a Liberian. (Lynda)

I prompted her further by asking why she still feels such

strong ties to her Liberian identity, even though she

expresses no desire to go back to her home country. She

responds:

Because I cannot change my affiliation. I cannot change

that fact that I am a Liberian, even though it would be

too much for me to return. As I said, I will always be

a Liberian. (Lynda)

Language

Language can be either a civic or ethnocultural indicator of

national identity. When used as a cultural indicator, or a

dividing line between nationals and non-nationals, it is

typically thought of as ethnocultural in nature. When used

as a vehicle to participate in the politics and

institutions of the state, then it is categorized as an

indication of civic identity. Though language was viewed

most often in civic terms by the Liberians, ethnocultural

indications of language did emerge as a prominent part of

identity for some. Language was often invoked not just as a

means of survival (i.e. ability to find work) or political

participation, but as an important indicator of culture and

nationality. For example, the inability of most of the

Liberians interviewed to speak a Ghanaian dialect rendered

them as outcasts, as foreigners, in their view. Even if they

learned the local language, the fact that it would be

obvious that it is not their native language would identify

them as targets for discrimination. Also, the use of English

as a lingua franca rather than French in Liberia was viewed

by many as a significant indicator of identity, and a reason

that many choose to seek refuge in Ghana, rather than in

neighboring West African nations not only because they

thought it would help them to communicate, but that sharing

English as a common language would help the refugees to be

accepted.

“But you see they did not accept us, so why integrate

now? I cannot believe that they did not accept their

brothers and sisters when we came here. For 19 years,

we have been ignored by them. They did not accept the

refugees, give them jobs, or help them integrate from

the beginning. I don’t speak the Twi language so

communication and fitting in with them is not so easy”

Cornell

These concerns were independent of concerns about being

able to communicate effectively in order to trade in

Ghanaian markets. Clearly, language has cultural

implications to a significant portion the Liberians, serving

as a partition line between the ingroup and the outgroup. As

Dobor explains:

So, even if we can speak in English to communicate,

they know that we are still not Ghanaian and may not

accept us because we are not one of them.

Citizenship

Citizenship, like language, represents both ethnocultural

and civic notions of identity. References to citizenship as

a cultural indicator were most often tied to the notion of

birthright citizenship, and viewing citizenship as a fixed

and static concept, based on birth and bloodlines. Litty and

Grace sum up how they feel about being offered Ghanaian

citizenship as part of a local integration package:

I would be a member by document only. Even with

documents, I am still a Liberian- because as I said, I

will always be a Liberian. (Litty)

Then [if given papers], I would be Ghanian by document

only, but in my heart, I would never feel Ghanaian.

(Grace)

Customs and Traditions

The most references to ethnocultural identity involved

national cultural practices, customs, and traditions. Most

of the Liberians expressed clear reservations about their

ability to fit into their host nation of Ghana due to

cultural differences. Most of the Liberians expressed a

concern about the communal nature of the Ghanaian culture

being in conflict with the individualistic nature of

Liberian culture. While Ghanaians were cited as viewing the

Liberians as loud, obnoxious, and lacking manners, the

Liberians feel that the Ghanaians have too many rules and

will not allow them to express themselves. References to

Liberians as saying what is on their mind, liking to “make

parties”, and having fun abound, while the Ghanaians are

generally referred to a quiet, strict, and rule-oriented. As

Pedell explains:

Ghanaians think you must be very quiet, follow their

rules, and keep your feelings inside. The [Ghanaian]

people do not know how to cope with us refugees so they

are hostile to us. In Ghana, they have restrictions on

parties and visitors when renting. The people are more

Conservative. We are told to return home because we

don’t fit in with them.

There is a sense that even if Liberians were given formal

naturalization documents, that they would not be able to fit

into the everyday life of their host country due to cultural

differences. Shared identity, whether cultural, linguistic,

or ethnic, can facilitate links between the refugees and the

hosts that lay the groundwork for local integration.

However, in the case of the Liberians and the Ghanaians,

these affinitive links appear to be notably absent. 26 As

Victoria laments:

Even citizenship cannot make up for their [Ghanaian]

culture, and their differences with the Liberians.

In addition to the free-spirited, individualistic cast to

Liberian national culture, the Liberians cite differences in

everyday living such as food and dress. They say that while

the Liberians prefer rice-based dishes, the Ghanaians prefer

corn-based dishes. Cultural differences regarding key

institutions such as marriage were also cited. Dobor

explains that:

26 Ibid. Jacobsen (2001)

Dowry fees in Liberia are a small thing. For example,

you buy a gun for the father and some cola for the

mother. But here in Ghana, you will have to buy so many

things with a huge amount of money before being allowed

to marry and that is preventing some Liberians from

getting married in Ghana, even though we may wish to

marry a Ghanaian woman.

As intermarriage remains a key element to integration with

the host community, these cultural differences regarding

marriage practices are seen by many Liberians as a barrier

to local integration. They also see it as a barrier to

acceptance into the host community, even if other cultural

differences were not so stark. And many say that they simply

are not willing to give up their way of life, a key part of

their identity as Liberians, to remain in Ghana. As Pedell

says to me,

How would you feel if you always went to the beach, you

entire life you had fun at the beach, and then suddenly

you were told that you cannot go to the beach anymore?

Civic Identity

Civic conceptions of identity emphasize a shared political

culture as the bond between members of a nation, rather than

cultural hegemony and nativity (Roshwald 2002). Civic

conceptions of identity are thought to be more inclusive

notions of identity because the focus is on a set of common

principles that in theory anyone can accept, while the

ascriptive characteristics associated with ethnoculturalism

cannot be “freely acquired or voluntarily relinquished.”27

While there is quite an emphasis put on civic notions of

identity by the Liberians at Buduburam, civic identity is

not quite as significant to Liberian identity. Moreover,

even while recognizing and accepting civic elements of

identity, many Liberians made it a point to say that they

are not as important to their overall identity as

ethnocultural conceptions, and to emphasize that they cannot

voluntarily shed their nativity of their bloodlines. This

often lead to conflicts between civic and ethnocultural

notions of identity, with the latter typically getting the

final nod.

Language

One of the most salient aspects of Liberian national

identity is language, particularly when used as a means of

communication in a given society. While a common language

can be a cultural unifier, it also plays a more practical

role of facilitating the communication that is necessary for

common economic and political institutions. Though Ghana and

Liberia are both English-speaking countries, many Liberians

27 Ibid. Roshwald, A. (2000): 256

expressed experiencing hardship in Ghana because of the

prevalent use of Twi and other local dialects. For example,

Dobor and Andy say says:

They speak their local language about 80% of the time,

and English about 20% of the time. And, some Ghanaians

discriminate against Liberians because we can’t speak

their language. (Dobor)

Though I like the Ghanaians, it bothers me because

sometimes it is difficult to communicate; they speak a

different language than me. (Andy)

The use of local dialects rather than English presents a

barrier for Liberians at Buduburam, who have more difficulty

finding employment, and argue that they find themselves

confined to the Camp as they cannot sell their goods in the

Ghanaian markets Similar sentiments were echoed by others:

I do like the Ghanaians very much, but it is difficult

to sell in their marketplace. Because we Liberians do

not speak the local language, they do not trade with us

there. (Johnson)

You see, Liberians have a problem with local

integration because they don’t know the local language.

And it is difficult for them to learn because they are

always together here on the Camp. Language is the

biggest problem for sure. (Joseph)

Given the informal economy of Ghana, the limited prospects

of Liberians to trade and/or sell in Ghanaian markets

represent a significant impediment to local integration. The

inability to communicate affects integration of the refugees

with the larger population, and the inability to penetrate

local markets affects their prospects for economic

prosperity and self-sufficiency. Language barriers have

presented an obstacle for many Liberian refugees in

obtaining self-sufficiency. Many also expressed anxiety over

their ability to sustain a livelihood and support their

family in Ghana, even if formal labor rights were extended

because a lack of local dialects renders the refugees

marginal players in a competitive local economy.

National Sentiments

A feeling of attachment to Liberia also emerged as a

significant component of national identity. A subjective

attachment was considered very important to Liberian

identity and mentioned by most participants as one of the

primary things that made them Liberian. Normative

assessments of this attachment, such as being proud to be a

Liberian, or viewing it as “good” or “great” to be a

Liberian were particularly prevalent throughout the

interviews. Salins (1996)28 describes national identity as

including an emotional attachment to the polity;

naturalization ceremonies represent a “transformative

experience” whereby newcomers become members of the nation,

one of “us” versus one of “them.” But by all indications,

the emotional attachment of most Liberians remains with

their homeland, and very little emotional attachment has

developed with Ghana. It is questionable whether a package

of rights associated with local integration will be enough

to negate these strong feelings of attachment to the

Liberian homeland:

Even if I had all the good things like a job and place

to live, I would not want local integration. I do not

see myself as Ghanaian at all. (Cornell)

I do not feel Ghanaian at all. I cannot change being a

Liberian- it is permanent. I feel Liberian. (Johnson)

It is great to be a Liberian- it means everything to

me! (Pedell)

Citizenship

28 Salins, Peter. 1996. Assimilation, American Style. Basic Books.

Citizenship, as defined in a civic manner, is the link to

formal rights and responsibilities in a polity. According

to UNHCR the availability of formal citizenship is a key

aspect of local integration of Liberian refugees in Ghana.29

The refugees themselves link citizenship with survival

rather than identity, citing refugee status as a constant

marker of their status as foreigners, singling them out for

discrimination and limiting job opportunities.

29 Ibid. UNHCR (2007c)

Though the participants list numerous problems with

obtaining citizenship in Ghana, many were not interested in

citizenship from a third country, such as the US because

they felt that it would not be possible given that their

identity as a Liberian is determined by place of birth and

ancestry. In these instances, while both ethnic and civic

notions of national identity are recognized by the

Liberians, ethnic-based conceptions clearly seemed to carry

more weight in determining identity and sustaining

opposition to local integration. These findings corroborate

Dick’s30 findings that West African ideas of citizenship are

rooted more in primordial attachments to land than civic

rights and responsibilities. As Dick notes, “Liberians might

live in Ghana for 40 or 50 years, but they would continue to

be viewed as foreign even if naturalized. Citizenship in

West Africa is popularly understood to be something a person

is born with and not something a government can bestow.”

While there may be legal obstacles and impracticalities to

obtaining Ghanaian citizenship, identity emerges as the most

significant barrier:

As I have told you before, Liberia is the only home I

have. I am Liberian and I cannot change that. But, for

paper’s sake, I will say yes- I can be a citizen of

Ghana. (Pedell)30 Dick, S. (2002) “Protracted Refugee Situations: Liberians in Ghana.” UNHCR Evaluation and Policy

Unit.

I would not take Ghanaian citizenship- I am a Liberian.

(Johnson)

You can be a Ghanaian by papers, but you will still be

a Liberian, even with those papers. I would still feel

about 80% Liberian, and maybe only 20% Ghanaian. I do

not wish to participate in their politics- I just want

a better life for myself. I do not really see Ghanaian

citizenship as useful and have no interest in it.

(Dobor)

Though many of the Liberians acknowledged that being

granted formal citizenship rights in Ghana would convey new

rights and responsibilities, there was at the very least

apathy, and in some cases, great resistance to participation

in local politics as noted by Dobor. This illustrates the

downplaying of civic ideas of citizenship at the expense of

a heightened ethnocultural understanding of identity. The

Liberians showed little enthusiasm for obtaining Ghanaian

citizenship, as they viewed their identities as Liberians as

a fixed and static concept. In this context, citizenship

would only be useful as a resource for upward mobility.

Interestingly, Agblorti31 notes that much of the Ghanaian

resistance to local integration is the fear that the

31 Ibid. (2010).

refugees will become a powerful voting bloc, assume

political positions, and use their newfound citizenship

status and political power to make decisions that favor

their group, but disadvantage the locals. As one Ghanaian

notes, “Even now that they are not citizens but they are

selling lands; giving them the opportunity to integrate will

give them more power.”32 Consequently, it seems that the

views of Ghanaians about granting the refugees citizenship

may differ sharply from the refugees themselves, who view

citizenship as a marker of ethnic identity, and not a useful

political tool.

32 Ibid. Agblorti (2010).

However, for some Liberians, both ethnic and civic

conceptions of identity were recognized, and they were seen

as equal or co-existent. Thus, it was possible to

acknowledge that one is a Liberian by birth and blood, but a

Ghanaian by sharing in the political culture, language, and

legal institutions of the host country. Among the few

individuals that express interest in local integration, the

lack of formal citizenship is erecting what seems like an

insurmountable barrier in moving forward with the process.

For these refugees, having a document helps to demonstrate

that they are Ghanaians, and allows them the same rights and

opportunities to set up a life in their host country. Those

that are interested in citizenship do not know how to

complete the process, and express a continued existence as

an “outsider” or “foreigner” without legal documents.

I need a shop to work in and also documents to prove my

identity here. I don’t know how to get these documents

if I stay in Ghana. But since I want to be locally

integrated here, I want UNHCR to help me improve my

life and get documents. (Lynda)

I would like to stay here [in Ghana], but the

government has not explained what local integration is.

I would like to stay here, but how do I get documents?

This worries the others, too. (Joseph)

Respect for Institutions

Finally, there were a few references to respect for the

political institutions of the state and completing one’s

education as significant to identity as a Liberian. This was

particularly salient among older respondents in the sample

as the younger respondents had grown up in Ghana, in some

cases receiving a Ghanaian education and having familiarity

with Ghanaian political institutions. Degree earned became a

salient predictor of opposition to local integration when

participants lamented that their degree is not recognized in

Ghana.

Liberal Identity

Another critical dimension of national identity that emerged

from the interviews and focus groups is another form of

civic identity that is centered on a commitment to a

specific governmental philosophy focusing on individual

liberty and opportunity. This liberal dimension of identity

comes from the Founding of Liberia where freed slaves from

the United States brought with them visions of a land of

freedom, that would in practice achieve the ideals that

their recently departed country was esteemed for, but in

their case, had failed to live up to.33 Though the Americo-33 Dolo, E. T. (2010) Ethnic Tensions in Liberia’s National Identity Crisis: Problems and Possibilities.

Africana Homestead Legacy Publishers: Cherry Hill, New Jersey.Reef, C. (2002) This Our Dark Country: he American Settlers of Liberia, Clarion Books.

Liberians soon instituted a system of oppression against the

indigenous peoples in the land they settled, the ideals of

democracy, equality, and individual rights remained popular

notions.34 Numerous references were made to values such as

freedom, a democratic system of government, equal voice for

all citizens, and the protection of individual rights such

as property as central to conceptions of Liberian identity.

Much like liberal identity in the US, where identification

as an American is tied to the ideal of opportunity for all,

the liberal dimension of Liberian identity is rooted in a

similar narrative- everyone has the opportunity to provide

for himself and his family and anyone can “pull themselves

up by their bootstraps,” so to speak. Living in a land of

opportunity and the potential for upward mobility are the

most noted indicators of Liberal identity that emerged among

the participants, and the perceived lack of opportunity in

Ghana translates into much resistance to local integration.

The following are examples from participants indicating that

they perceived a sense of opportunity as central to their

Liberian identity, and in this context informed attitudes

towards local integration:

34 Dick (2002) notes that the oppression by the Americo-Liberians towards the indigenous peoples contributed to an emphasis on liberal notions of identity, particularly in regards to upward mobility, individualism, and materialism as they had to be like the Americos to gain access to opportunities and power in business and politics (p. 51-52).

I have been in Ghana for 13 years now, years that have

been wasted! I would like to realize myself as human

being now. There are no opportunities to do this in

Ghana, especially if you are a Liberian refugee!

(Pedell)

I resent baking cakes when I had a high power job in

Liberia. In Ghana, there has been no good living and no

opportunity to improve ones self. (Mina)

In Ghana, I am afraid that my children and I will not

have opportunities. (Grace)

Even if I could make good money here [in Ghana], I am

still a foreigner and will have less opportunity.

(Andy)

In Ghana, I cannot fit in because of my lower social

class and having a lower education. I have no

opportunity here but in the US, I could work my way up

to a higher standing, even with little education.

(Emma)

Liberal identity was also informed heavily by the

ability to be self-sufficient. The idea of being able to

work and provide for one’s self and one’s family was

repeatedly mentioned as a characteristic of being Liberian,

and both educated and uneducated participants often

identified themselves in terms of their profession. Dick35

documents how many Liberian refugees were active and capable

individuals that tended to their own needs and wants. Rather

than helpless victims that were dependent on assistance,

many refugees were gainfully employed, and cared not only

for themselves but friends and neighbors in need. It became

clear in the interviews that those who find themselves in a

dependent state, or who are unable to help those that are,

view this as a challenge to their values as a Liberian. The

following are comments indicating the significance of self-

sufficiency:

For Liberians, it is important to be self-sufficient,

but also to help others. If I have money, I can provide

for myself and I can also help other families. (Grace)

The refugees, we are industrious people, we would also

like to work. That is part of who we are as Liberians.

(Lynda)

35 Ibid. Dick (2002)

If we stay here, our people, they can’t get a job in

their [the Ghanaians] community. We need empowerment,

empowerment means being able to work, able to compete

in their markets, and we are not able. (Cornell)

We are people who believe that we should try to do

better and use all of the resources that we have. But

if you do not possess certain skills, you are noted to

be a Liberian, and when they don’t have any employment

for their own people, then how is there room for you?

(Mosa)

Several other indicators of liberal identity emerged among

the refugees, including national identification with a

country that is based on the political values of freedom,

democracy, rule of law, tolerance, individual rights, and

the protection of civil liberties. Paramount among these

liberties was the right to own property, and many refugees

expressed dismay at the inability to acquire property in

Ghana. Moreover, several of the refugees considered the fact

that they previously owned or continued to own property in

Liberia as a significant part of their identity, and a

remaining tie to their homeland. While many recognized that

Ghana was a democratic country with many freedoms, the fact

that they had owned land in Liberia and saw limited upward

mobility in Ghana appeared to be a significant impediment to

acquiring a psychological attachment to their host nation.

There are several explanations why a liberal identity

emerges as such a strong dimension of Liberian national

identity, especially in regards to opportunity and upward

mobility. Dick36 notes that the oppression by the Americo-

Liberians towards the indigenous peoples contributed to an

emphasis on liberal notions of identity, particularly in

regards to upward mobility, individualism, and materialism

as they had to be like the Americos to gain access to

opportunities and power in business and politics. Thus, it

appears that ideas about wealth, status, and the acquirement

of these things shapes how Liberians see themselves, and

whether they can be successful in a given country depends on

how likely the possibility of success and achievement are.

While this is specific to Liberians and their unique history

as a nation, the second explanation for the emergence of a

strong liberal identity is more widely applicable to

refugees as a group due to the trauma that they likely have

experienced from displacement. In juxtaposition to the

hopelessness that many refugees feel, was the hope for a

better life in the future.37 Thus, the ability to work

towards a better life and plan for the future is a coping

36 Ibid. Dick (2002)37 Goodman, J.H. (2004) “Coping with Trauma and Hardship Among Unaccompanied Refugee Youths

From Sudan,” Qualitative Health Research 14:1177-1196. Luthar, S.S. and Cicchetti, D. (2000). “The Construct of Resilience:Implications for Interventions and

Social Policies,” Development and Psychopathology 12:857-885.

mechanism that refugees may use to distract from the

hopelessness of their current situation. As Goodman finds

from her interviews with Sudanese youth refugees, “Hoping

and planning for the future became a major impetus for

survival and helped participants endure the hardship and

boredom of a refugee camp.”38 While a liberal conception of

national identity may be an important to dimension of

identity to the Liberians, it could have an even stronger

salience given their current context as refugees that have

experienced trauma and hardship.

Implications for Local Integration

Local integration is one of the remaining durable solutions

available to Liberian refugees in Ghana. While there is some

promise for local integration to be an effective strategy in

bringing this protracted refugee situation to an end, the

data in this study suggests that conceptions of national

identity influence support or opposition to this program.

While living conditions in Ghana remain difficult for the

refugees and their families, the composition of Liberian

identity appears to play a prominent role in fostering

opposition to local integration. Many Liberians define their

identity in ethnocultural terms, placing heavy emphasis on

nativity, bloodlines, and cultural practices as central to

being a Liberian. These very exclusive conceptions of

38 Ibid. Goodman (2004), p. 1194.

identity make it difficult for them to imagine how they

would adapt to a different society, even with the proper

legal documents and language skills.

Moreover, while many Liberians are eager to leave Ghana

and travel to a more developed country, an ethnocultural

identity also presents barriers to perceived acceptance in a

developed country. Very few of the Liberians interviewed

indicated that they have plans to permanently resettle,

expressing concerns of fitting into a country like the US,

even though they view American culture and Liberian culture

to be similar and English is a common language in both

countries. Most would like to remain refugees so that they

can travel to a more developed country and build capital,

either through employment or education. All participants

continued to express a deep love for their homeland, and

most planned on eventually returning to Liberia when the

conditions there have improved, regardless of being in Ghana

or a third country for their remaining time away from home.

Aspects of ethnocultural identity were consistently

expressed as more important to identity than civic aspects,

especially in regards to citizenship among these respondents

that expressed reservations about being accepted into a host

or third-country society.

A strong liberal identity, particularly in regards to

equal opportunity and self-sufficiency, was held by most

participants. Concerns that they could not escape their

status as refugees, a condition which made them dependent on

the good will of others, concerns about being unable to

provide for themselves and their families, and concerns

about limited opportunities to improve their situations

while in Ghana due to economic conditions and the host

country’s attitudes toward foreigners, all were associated

with an unwillingness to consider local integration.

However, in a land that they perceived as having more

opportunities such as the US, most of the participants

argued that the ethnocultural aspects of their identity

would still make them Liberians.

You cannot take a stick and put it in the water and

make it a shark. We are Liberians- that’s all. (Mosa)

Of the 37 participants, only 4 indicated that they were open

to local integration. Though the ages were principally below

the mean age for the sample (ages 19, 27, 35, and 76), this

was not overall a very young group. The group was also split

in terms of gender and education. What this group did have

in common was the expression of Liberian identity as a more

equal balance or emphasis between ethnocultural and civic

and liberal conceptions of identity. While these respondents

all claimed that would always feel Liberian first, they

embraced the freedom offered to them in Ghana and believed

that Ghana still held more opportunities for them than if

they were to return home. For these reasons, a strong

liberal identity did not present the same challenges to

local integration An opposite relationship emerged where

strong liberal identities were associated with more

favorable views towards local integration, as the values of

self-sufficiency, achievement and status that were so

important to being a Liberian could be realized. They were

also more willing to accept Ghanaian citizenship and to view

themselves as Ghanaian, at least almost as much so as

Liberian, thereby viewing their identity as Liberians and

Ghanaians as compatible, and not mutually exclusive.

If I get a document, then I can prove that I am

Ghanaian. Also, I have been living in Ghana so long

that I feel Ghanaian so I like Ghana. I am glad to live

here peacefully and hope they will accept me. (Andy)

In Ghana is a good education system. In Ghana, I am

free and am happy, and in Ghana, I believe that if you

work hard you can get ahead. I value this….I am a

Liberian first and will always be a Liberian. You

cannot change this. But, I am here in Ghana now, so I

am also Ghanaian (Lynda)

It is only that Liberians are wrongly informed about it

[local integration]. They think that they will lose

their identity as Liberians and that is why they turn

against it. But since I am a Liberian, I would love to

have both citizenship. I know that I will still be a

Liberian, too. (Sammy)

Conclusion

This study may be one of the first studies to conduct a

qualitative investigation of national identity within the

context of a protracted refugee situation. The data from

this study generated a framework that is helpful in

understanding the experiences of Liberians in Ghana, and how

their identity informs views towards local integration.

The most interesting finding is that there are multiple

conceptions of Liberian national identity, and that this

interplay between these dimensions plays a significant role

in how the refugees think about their future. Those with the

strongest notions of ethnocultural identity, particularly

when not balanced with equally strong conceptions of civic

identity, are the least likely to embrace local integration.

While all Liberians expressed a healthy dose of

ethnocultural identity, those that balanced their

ethnoculturalism with civic notions of identity were most

likely to want to stay in Ghana. The role of liberal

identity appears to be more contextual; in the case of the

Liberians at Buduburam, strong liberal identities resulted

in much opposition to local integration. In the context of

being a refugee and making the transition from hopelessness

to hope, opportunities for future planning and achievement

become paramount. When these opportunities were not

perceived to be readily available in the host country, the

notion that part of being a Liberian is to be self-

sufficient and improve one’s life was threatened.

To my knowledge, conceptions of national identity have

yet to be taken into account when identifying candidates for

local integration in West Africa, but this is essential as

some refugees have views of Liberian identity that severely

limits their ability to accept permanent residence in

another country, particularly a developing country where

opportunities and upward mobility are perceived as limited.

This is exacerbated by the perception that refugees have

even less opportunities Ghana, and the dependency that they

feel as a result of their refugee status. As a practical

policy recommendation, I would recommend that national

identity be taken into account as the process of finding a

durable solution for the 11,000 Liberian refugees at

Buduburam continues.

Table 1: Critical Dimensions of Liberian National Identity

Dimensions of Liberian National Identity Sources

References

Ethnoculturalism:Nativity 19 89 Ancestry/Bloodline 19 145 Cultural Practices 19 127Language 19 127Citizenship 14 86Food 14 40Residence 12 28Christianity 2 5

Civic:Feeling 16 73Language 18 140Citizenship 15 54Education 13 42Respect Laws 4 5

Liberal:Opportunity 19 107Self-Sufficiency 16 80Freedom 14 46Democracy 4 13Rule of Law 4 8Tolerance 2 3Property 7 21

Tribal:Language 5 12Cultural Practices 1 2Religion 1 5

N = 19 sources (17 interviews, 2 focus groups), 37 participants Note: All information gathered using Nvivo Software Program.