Future of humanism: Ramesh Shrestha

It started late but started well

Civilians have suffered throughout human history during the reign of all empires, colonialism, slavery, World Wars and countless local & regional conflicts. Most of the time the life and suffering of civilians were of little or no concern to the rulers and those in power beyond lip service. It was as if civilians were expendable commodities. The word humanitarianism appeared in the lexicon only during the late 18th century and it was not until the mid-19th century the idea of humanitarianism was discussed with the initiative of a Swiss businessman, which led to the creation of the Red Cross and the first Geneva Convention in 1864. Thus, began the torturous journey of humanitarianism and humanitarian aid in support of people who need assistance affected by conflicts and disasters. In ensuing years humanitarian aid was extended to development, peace building and promotion of rule of law. Throughout the 20th century, humanitarianism survived under the umbrella of a politically coloured divided world led by the elitists in the East and the West (or North and South).

One of the cardinal principles of humanitarianism is to remain neutral which would allow anyone to provide humanitarian assistance to the needy but under political pressure, the principles of neutrality tend to be skewed in contemporary politics. In many situations taking the side of the weak and oppressed has been treated as an unwelcome interference where the oppressor happens to be in a politically dominant position. It is an unrecognised or unspoken political interference tolerated in humanitarian works. The inactions of the political leaders on humanitarian need of the oppressed people globally have become anathema against their own teachings of human rights and social justice - a scar on the principles of humanism. Defining neutrality is easy but remaining neutral in humanitarian crises has been made complicated by the colourful eyeglass of political leaders. Even the international justice system has become paralysed time and again. With total polarisation of global politics, humanitarianism has become the hostage and there is no defense lawyer to plead on its behalf.

A difficult way forward

The principles of humanism are sacrosanct based on the philosophical concept of human rights. In today's world humanism must be protected from the three main driving forces of our society - economy, political dynamics and technology. They all have a positive influence in our society which contributes to the overall wellbeing of our society. But the negative influence of these forces is so serious that it may even change the meaning of what it means to be human as it has bearings on ethics and society's value system. It is time to rethink how to maintain ethics and sobriety of humanism in our dynamic world where everything is changing on a regular basis – even the rule of law, social & cultural values are changing under the pressure of economy and technology.

The banner of human rights and freedom, ethical thinking are seriously impacted by technology by dissolving the border between right and the wrong. Meanwhile globalisation and pluralism has become the dominant culture/force is marginalising the weaker sect of society in economy, ideology and even value system. The economic might is banishing human rights of the weak and destitute.

With the rise of democracy in the developing world towards the end of 20th century even the nature of humanitarian aid was influenced by political alliances and the growing private sector engagement in public affairs. As we entered the 21st century, humanitarian aid has been disrupted by frequent economic conundrum globally. Many countries are facing a budget deficit and are in debt which also influences the allocation of funds for humanitarian assistance. How will these prevailing economic and political realities influence the core philosophy of humanism and its principles which signifies compassion and kindness, empathy and human dignity? While we adapt to these changes will there be a new definition of humanism for the 21st century human beings? If yes, who has the moral authority to redefine humanism - the Technocrats? Capitalists? Politicians? Economists? Do we still have Humanists who could do this job?

The situation of the international aid environment is in a state of flux with the disfiguring of USAID. Many OECD countries follow the USA as an example on all international affairs. Many countries are reducing their ODA to bolster their defense budget with the fear of escalating war in Europe and the perceived threat of growing Chinese global influence. The situation of humanitarian funds is threatened by this identity politics. There are already concerns about slowing economic growth, inflation, low wage and declining job opportunities. It is also a paradox that global GDP continues to increase annually but countries are facing budget deficits. Yet, there is only a passing mention of the wealth disparity between the upper decile and the remaining 90% of the population - the main reason of overall economic insanity worldwide. Need to discuss this topic seriously has been repeatedly mentioned by several economists but no initiatives have been seen anywhere. In fact, it is moving in the opposite direction. Private sector creates wealth but also creates constraints in distribution of wealth. There is no political will to untangle this knot. Is it because the global economic issues are not managed by economists but politicians?

Professionals engaged in humanitarian relief and the development works will likely face a serious shortfall of funds in coming years. Both these activities are linked to geopolitical alliances and perceived security threats. A misfortune we are witnessing is the complete shredding of international humanitarian law while the lawmakers are watching in disbelief and people who can intervene remain indifferent to the situation. Even the threats to the humanitarian workers remained unaddressed. Humanitarian workers may continue to face serious restrictions in accessing people in need as is happening now in Myanmar, Palestine, etc. It is not only lack of access but threats to their life as all international law has been sidelined in the name of national security. The weaponization of humanitarian aid has left the destitute people cut and dry on the geopolitical chessboard of the international players.

It is an indication of overall attrition in democratic principle and human rights law globally. The United Nations, the custodian of all international codes, has been weakened and sidelined by the permanent members of the Security Council, which is supposed to protect and promote global peace. Regrettably, their action has become an example for other authoritarian rulers. All recent happenings are early signs of anarchy that could drive our society to anarchy. The end result? One can only guess. Prayer is not going to be enough to preserve the future of humanitarianism.

Why is humanism failing so miserably? How can we preserve life with failing humanism? Is it possible somehow for the United Nations to break the shackles it is in to take the lead?



Read more articles by Ramesh here.
Or contact Ramesh at ramesh.chauni@gmail.com
Labels: Ramesh