Growing public outrage with the political responses to conflicts and complex emergencies have led to increasing calls for solidarity with affected populations that identify a shared humanity. Disenchantment with political authority makes it more important than ever for the humanitarian sector to engage with the political discussion, rather than distancing from it in the quest for absolute neutrality, impartiality, and independence. This blog post offers an alternative approach that is less dogmatic and directs towards a space for discourse around an ordinary humanitarian society rather than an ordered humanitarian system.
In a piece for The New Humanitarian, Tammam Aloudat observes that a distinction must be made between humanitarianism as conducted by the humanitarian workers who provide aid to people in need, and humanitarianism as a set of institutions. This recognises the imbalances of power and self-referring hierarchies that ‘can amplify the structural violence that is at the root of humanitarianism’s decay.’ A solution directs towards realigning the lens of participation to focus on the agency and creative messiness of ordinary human interaction in conflicts and crises. One which promotes the agency of ordinary virtues to engage equally within the hierarchies of power.
The humanitarian sector, together with stakeholders within it, must shift away from ideological positions that declare dogmatically who we are and what we do. A new way of thinking directs towards pragmatic engagement with all stakeholders in the environment of complex emergencies where humanitarian principles define clear boundaries and red lines that cannot be compromised. Sara Pantuliano refers to Antonio Gramsci, the Italian philosopher imprisoned by Mussolini for his opposition to fascism in the 1920s. He saw the social and political turbulence of the time as marking an interregnum, which marked a time of monsters that challenge the norms and rights of society. We have entered a similar period of change and challenge, and the growing disenchantment with politics makes it more important than ever to engage with the political discussion, rather than distancing from it in the quest for absolute neutrality, impartiality, and independence. It means influencing political decisions in a different way that promotes the social agency of the humanitarian identity: one that engages in a discussion that is less dogmatic and directs towards a space for discourse around an ordinary humanitarian society rather than an ordered humanitarian system that presents opportunities for consensus on more universal values than much of the current discourse presents.
Flags of Solidarity
Anthropological studies identify a place where one can inhabit and co-exist with others in the ‘uncertain peripheries’ of hierarchy and power, providing an identity that can operate across frontiers and see the value of ‘a world where one can simultaneously belong and not belong.’ The concept of this space of belonging yet not belonging – of being a part of something yet apart from it – has been a feature of anthropological scholarship since the introduction of the concept of liminal space by Arnold van Gennep in 1909, and the English publication of his book The Rites of Passage in 1960.
In a series of podcasts with ALNAP (Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in humanitarian action), Hugo Slim directs towards a new form of multilateralism that places local, national and regional action at the forefront of humanitarian response which offers consensus on patterns of cooperation and challenge – forms of resistance and solidarity that coalesce around the universal demand for dignity and respect. As well as responding to the vital needs of communities in crisis through traditional humanitarian approaches, a key focus in this new approach is on the social relationship of communities that enables them to participate meaningfully in the unequal hierarchies of politics and power. This equates to studies on local agency and relations with institutions of state and non-state actors by academics such as Meike de Goede and Francis Nyamnjoh, which recognise the strength from a convivial engagement with dissonant authority. Nyamnjoh urges recognition of the strength of diversity in a sharing and convivial society that will enable new approaches to ideas of universality that are different from the exclusive narratives around aid and development prescribed in the discourse of the Global North. This means acknowledging the opportunities of an engagement with authority that recognise the interconnections and hierarchies that emerge from the messiness of lived experiences.
A Turning Point
‘Zeitenwende’ is a term appearing frequently in discussions around the shifting discourse of contemporary geopolitics. A German word meaning ‘turning point’, it is increasingly used in humanitarian debates where there is a strong feeling that a changed environment now confronts contemporary humanitarian action and there are opportunities for a turning point to remake the humanitarian system. This requires a solution that looks beyond resetting the current patterns of policy and practice and turns towards a radical change in the way we think around the humanitarian engagement with politics and power. This will mean uncomfortable participation in spaces of engagement that challenge the traditional humanitarian approaches around neutrality and impartiality.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has a well-documented history of successes in engaging with the dissonant and makes special cause to ensure a presence, if not proximity, with the widest possible range of interlocutors. One of its key tools to gain trust and access is strict observance of the principal of neutrality. Evidence of breaches of International Humanitarian Law and failures to protect civilians and humanitarian services in contemporary conflicts around the world has led many observers to question the efficacy of the traditional humanitarian principles to protect those caught up in war. Questions arise from an assumption that without strict adherence to the core principles then trust and access cannot otherwise be gained.
In the modern geo-political environment, the inequalities of power and stark abuse of basic rights mean the principal of solidarity features prominently as a humanitarian approach to protection of communities at risk. Neutrality and solidarity are not mutually exclusive. Médecins Sans Frontières has from its inception complemented its activities by bearing witness to the abuses and inequalities that much frontline engagement entails. Most humanitarian actors concurrently run services and advocacy campaigns. The salient factor is that of trust and calls for new patterns of engagement across the spectrum of power in arenas of conflict, with a focus on protection and social justice. As guardians of the Geneva Conventions, there is a strong argument for ICRC to maintain its robust position in defence of neutrality and it makes clear its support for the victims of war, but this does not exclude others from taking different approaches.
A new pattern of humanitarian participation requires a multi-faceted approach that has broad engagement with stakeholders in a crisis – political, military, private (commercial) – and, most essentially, the affected communities. This requires discussion in multiple forms: confidential dialogue with established power in the case of ICRC, and more open advocacy in the form of NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and frontline actors, such as Médecins Sans Frontières. The discussion also needs awareness of the influences of the unestablished power of commerce and the donors. Together, this acknowledges multiple mandates and methods of engagement along the aid-development-peace ‘triple nexus’ that can cooperate effectively, as long as the humanitarian purpose remains constant.
A Space for Engagement
The constraint most often echoed in policy and academic debate is a shrinkage of the neutral, impartial, and independent humanitarian space in which these core humanitarian principles can function. By recasting a gaze on the perceived loss of space, my analysis observes that the opportunity for principled humanitarian action has not diminished, but rather that a loss of relevance, representation and trust has meant that access to the space for discourse has changed. In order to regain relevance and feel confident in the altered space for principled humanitarian action, the humanitarian needs to rethink its identity.
Studies on Social Identity Theory observe that people’s orientation towards authorities change once they have established a social bond, meaning that incorporation into the social fabric of public life increases the likelihood of a more considered interpretation of the intent of authority and its auxiliary structures. The construction of social capital, and its associated features of trust, norms of behaviour and mutual obligation, have been linked to an emergence of community participation, where voluntary participation with state or non-state authority is seen to be a product of shared values and a culture of responsibility to one’s community and society. It will be through navigating the (often contesting and uncomfortable) pathways towards a less simplistic engagement with power and authority that a more relevant and robust humanitarian access can be secured.
There is history of a legitimated identity to question and challenge authority that shares a common genealogy stretching from Europe to the Middle East and beyond. The traditions and politics are different, but there is a universal expression of dignity and respect, and the voluntary impulse to protect these values, that is common to all. To craft this space for discourse, we need a new way of thinking – one that complements the new way of working endorsed at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, but which does not delegate responsibility to the local while maintaining the dominant discourse of exceptionalism.
The role of humanitarian actors working on the frontline, is not to resist the process of government control but to work with it on the frontiers of power, while retaining the agency of how and when to engage. This means exploring a new mechanism that enables it to work within the boundaries of state and non-state authority. We must engage with all stakeholders in a conflict and natural disaster, but the nature of engagement needs to change. This does not require the formulation of formal partnerships with established or non-established power, but there needs to be agreement of a mechanism to enter the discussion and influence the discourse. This requires a protected space where trusted engagement and transparent negotiation can occur, and where local voices are able to participate.
The failure of principal actors in the sector to identify established and unestablished power for breaches of humanitarian law direct towards a more confrontational approach than the cautious approaches of traditional humanitarian diplomacy. Discretion has an important role but when the humanitarian goal of access to save lives is refused then maintaining silence to abuse is seen as transactional self-interest. Comfortable approaches must not obscure a radical redesign of the humanitarian architecture but although real and honest reform cannot happen from within the ‘system’ it cannot function without it. New forms of engagement will locate a messier but more relevant middle ground for popular participation in the hierarchies of politics and power.