Understanding conservative political alignment among refugees: Implications for Australian legal and policy practice

However, empirical research and community experience indicate that refugee political orientations are highly diverse. Conservative alignment is more common than widely acknowledged and has important implications for legal practitioners, service providers, and policymakers.

A clearer understanding of these dynamics can strengthen community engagement, mitigate miscommunication, and improve the design of rights-based frameworks.

Trauma does not reliably produce progressive attitudes

There is a widespread belief that individuals who experience authoritarianism or state violence will develop strong pro-rights or progressive political commitments. Political-psychology literature suggests a more complex picture. A cross-national study on responses to the European “refugee crisis” found that perceived threat and instability correlated with stronger preference for authority, hierarchy, and security-oriented political narratives. These instincts are rooted in self-protection rather than clear ideological positioning.

Many refugees come from states that Freedom House classifies as “Not Free”, where institutions have collapsed, policing is arbitrary, and survival depends on predictability rather than enforceable rights. For such individuals, law-and-order messaging and right-of-centre policy positions can feel safer than progressive rhetoric that emphasises openness and structural critique.

In Australia, public opinion research shows that tougher asylum policies are most strongly supported by older and politically conservative respondents, which illustrates how concerns about security and order shape attitudes to people on the move. Refugees themselves are not immune to these dynamics; their personal experience of instability can reinforce a preference for authority and control.

VIEW ALL

Refugees do not arrive as politically neutral actors

Refugee political identity is not formed at the point of resettlement. It is shaped long before arrival, in countries of origin, transit and displacement. UNHCR reports highlight that many refugees spend extended periods in camps or precarious urban settings where religious organisations, ethnic leadership structures and community elders become primary sources of authority.

Research on refugee political participation has shown that these pre-settlement contexts strongly influence attitudes towards governance and civic identity in host countries. In Australia, work on South Sudanese communities, for example, has documented how traditional dispute-resolution practices and respect for local chiefs can sometimes sit uneasily alongside Australian legal processes and expectations, leading to misunderstandings and reduced access to justice.

These inherited frameworks are not inherently “conservative” or “progressive”, but they often emphasise hierarchy, community reputation, and the authority of elders. Where those local authorities hold socially conservative or security-focused views, refugees may arrive with political instincts that do not align neatly with mainstream progressive narratives.

Faith-based worldviews shape perceptions of conflict and rights

In some refugee communities, political attitudes towards international conflicts and rights issues are influenced less by secular geopolitics and more by religious doctrine.

Pew Research Center data from the United States, which has parallels in Australian diaspora communities, show that many evangelical Christians hold strong, theologically grounded positions on conflicts involving Israel and the Middle East, often interpreting events through biblical frameworks rather than international law analysis. Australian research on religion and social cohesion similarly finds that religious beliefs continue to shape how some communities see themselves and “the wider world,” influencing perceptions of other minorities and of state authority.

An ABC analysis of religious diversity in Australia notes the presence of migrants and refugees who, while fleeing violence in religiously nationalistic regimes, nonetheless hold socially conservative or exclusionary attitudes towards “other” minorities. For legal practitioners, it is important to recognise that such positions often reflect inherited doctrinal narratives rather than hostility to Australian law per se.

Policy disappointment and the Australian context

Many refugees arrive in Australia with high expectations of democratic institutions. They anticipate fair procedures, timely decision making, and humane treatment. When they instead encounter protracted processing times, restrictive migration settings or under-resourced services, trust in “progressive” governance can erode.

Australian opinion research shows that attitudes towards asylum and immigration are strongly conditioned by party identification and local context. At the same time, recent polling indicates that a majority of Australian voters expect a fair and humane approach to refugees, even if refugee policy is rarely a top electoral priority. This tension between public expectations, political rhetoric and policy delivery can be acutely felt in refugee communities that see their cases used in broader debates about “border protection” or “queue-jumping”.

The South Sudanese Australian community illustrates the impact of politicised discourse. In the late 2000s and 2010s, sections of the media and senior political figures framed “African gangs” as a fundamental threat to law and order in Victoria. While this narrative primarily targeted them as suspects, it also reinforced a broader lesson for refugee groups: that law-and-order politics can quickly position entire communities as problems to be managed. Some refugees react by disengaging. Others, paradoxically, move towards political forces that promise “strong leadership” in the hope that predictability will at least make the rules clear.

Implications for legal and policy practice in Australia

Recognising conservative alignment among some refugees is not about endorsing or condemning particular ideologies. It is about engaging with refugee communities as they are, rather than as they are imagined.

For legal practitioners and policymakers, several implications follow:

• First, practitioners should avoid if refugee clients will naturally hold progressive or rights-expansive views. Political diversity affects how clients understand authority, due process, and the role of state institutions.
• Second, legal-education and civic-engagement initiatives need to account for the pre-existing worldviews that refugees bring with them, including respect for religious authorities, traditional leadership structures, and security-oriented thinking.
• Third, policy design must appreciate the cumulative effect of public rhetoric. Highly politicised law-and-order campaigns, such as those targeting “African gangs,” have been shown to damage trust and reinforce feelings of surveillance among refugee-background communities. This has direct consequences for reporting crime, seeking assistance, and engaging with legal institutions.
• Finally, the broader Australian conversation about migration and refugees should abandon the idea that refugees are, or should be, a politically homogeneous group. As recent commentary on migrants and religious diversity notes, new arrivals are “of diverse political persuasions,” and any attempt to treat them as a single voting bloc misreads reality.

Conclusion

Refugees, like all communities, bring a wide range of political orientations shaped by trauma, faith, displacement, institutional contact, and domestic political signals. Some align with progressive causes, others with conservative ones, and many sit uneasily between categories.

For the Australian legal profession, acknowledging this diversity is not a theoretical exercise. It is central to building trust, designing effective legal-education strategies, and ensuring that rights frameworks are responsive to the lived experiences and worldviews of the people they are meant to protect.

A more nuanced understanding of refugee political identity can only strengthen Australia’s commitment to the rule of law, access to justice and meaningful democratic inclusion.

Ko Ko Aung is a special counsel at Albert Arthur Lawyers.