Paper details

Paper authors	Claudia Meier
In panel on	More than (Buzz)Words: Participation in Humanitarian Practice
Paper presenter(s) will be presenting	In-Person / Online

Abstract

The current discourse on accountability to affected people suggests linear progression: more participation will lead to more adapted and therefore better humanitarian response. Like other revolutions before that, however, the participation revolution is messy and riddled with ethical and practical dilemmas. For example, who gets to decide what’s good for people? Of course, that should be the individuals themselves. But what if people prefer sugar to the vitamin-enriched biscuits informed by the latest nutritionist insights? Which of these considerations is more important, based on what criteria? A second dilemma relates to representation. As humanitarians cannot consult with every single individual, what representative structures are adequate? Who decides who gets to participate? How can marginalized groups be part of the conversation without being exposed to more harm?

Because it is so desirable to shake up the heavily supply- and interest-driven humanitarian system, the hard dilemmas currently get little attention. Humanitarians are rightly eager to move forward and start changing things. Yet, addressing dilemmas head on is important to avoid that accountability to affected people is reduced to a simple question of the right tools and processes.

The proposed paper will categorize different participation dilemmas and proposes pragmatic ways for organizations to think them through. ​

Back