Title: Ten ways to build a new narrative for humanitarianism
Authors: Ben Phillips and Patrick Gathara
Publication: The New Humanitarian
Date: 5 February 2026
URL: Click here for the article
Summary:
Ben Phillips and Patrick Gathara argue that the humanitarian system has operated within a dominant narrative so pervasive it was not recognized as a narrative, but that this narrative is now being re-evaluated. They contend that narratives shape how societies understand the world and determine policies, making them hugely consequential for humanitarian effectiveness.
The authors propose that harmful narratives have undermined humanitarianism's potential by creating false images of competence versus crisis zones, ignoring local humanitarian traditions, and framing crisis response as charity rather than a public good and government function.
Building on discussions at the Humanitarian Policy Group panel at ODI Global in London, the authors propose ten ways to build a new narrative rooted in equality.
10 Ways
Here are the 10 ways the authors propose to build a new narrative for humanitarianism:
-
Convey and embody empathy, not pity - Honor the fullness of people's humanity, especially when exclusionary politics demeans others.
-
Measure success by global safety, not fundraising - Center people affected, not humanitarian responders; effectiveness cannot be defined by money raised or institutional prominence.
-
Remind people crises can happen to anyone - Frame disasters as situations, not categories of people; "that could have been me."
-
Emphasize interdependence - "I am because you are" (Ubuntu); effective humanitarian responses are in everyone's interests.
-
Recognize most crisis response is local - International assistance comprises less than 2% of resource flows; international humanitarians are "sidekicks."
-
Frame crisis response as a public good - Like fire brigades in the Global North, state capacity and accountability are core to effective crisis response.
-
Respect audiences' ability to understand complexity - Tell the fuller story; don't patronize the public's capacity to understand policy drives risk.
-
Acknowledge multiple humanitarian traditions - Broaden from a single Western origin story to diverse humanitarianisms across cultures and geographies.
-
Embrace the risk of change - The status quo has already failed; "the chance of success beats the certainty of failure."
-
Focus on remaking, not rebranding - The purpose is to build something better together, not just update messaging.
Quotes:
"When the frame is fundraising, then progress on policy is undermined – even when the evidence is clear that policy is more important than the funds that particular organisations raise."
"A 2019 report by ODI found that international humanitarian assistance – even to the most high-profile crisis contexts – comprises less than 2% of resource flows to the impacted communities."
"Western publics understood absolutely that people in Gaza weren't just starving, they were being starved. As Desmond Tutu remarked, the point is not only to dive into rivers in which people are drowning but to go upstream and help stop those pushing them in."
"The chance of success beats the certainty of failure. Active hope in what can be built is both justified and essential."
The piece captures something real about the current moment. The humanitarian system is not only under financial strain; it is experiencing a crisis of confidence and legitimacy. Reflecting on the narratives that shape humanitarian action is therefore understandable.
ReplyDeleteFew would dispute the principles the authors outline. Emphasising dignity over pity, recognising the centrality of local response, treating crisis assistance as a public good, and acknowledging multiple humanitarian traditions are all sensible propositions. Variations of these ideas have circulated for decades, particularly through critiques from practitioners and scholars in the Global South.
The problem is not conceptual disagreement. The humanitarian sector has become effective at producing new narratives about change while leaving the underlying system largely intact. Reform language evolves faster than reform itself. The question, therefore, is not whether a better narrative is needed, but whether narrative is the constraint.
Humanitarian action today is shaped less by discourse than by money, risk, and control. Donor priorities, contracting models, compliance systems, media-driven fundraising, and competition among large organisations determine what happens in practice. These forces explain why international actors still dominate resource flows despite the routine acknowledgement that most crisis response is local. They also explain why visibility often counts more than prevention, and reporting compliance more than outcomes. In this context, calls for narrative renewal risk sounding familiar: another layer of reflection added to a system already rich in diagnosis but resistant to redistribution of power.
Humanitarianism does not lack analysis. The sector’s history is filled with widely accepted critiques, relating to local participation, resilience and accountability to affected populations, that produced extensive guidance and frameworks, but few shifts in decision-making authority and financing structures.
Narratives can support reform, but they rarely drive it. More often, they consolidate changes that material conditions have already forced. Institutional behaviour tends to follow funding models, risk allocation, and political priorities, not conference themes.
What makes the present moment potentially different is not the emergence of a new humanitarian story, but the arrival of financial contraction. Shrinking budgets may succeed where years of policy debate have not. Scarcity has a way of forcing decisions that consensus processes avoid.
For decades, the system has been able to postpone difficult choices about who controls resources, who assumes risk, and which functions are genuinely indispensable. That period may be ending.
If the current funding environment leads to real shifts in decision-making authority, partnerships with national actors, and the distribution of resources, then a new narrative will likely follow. The challenge, in other words, is not to tell a better story about humanitarianism. It is to change the system the story describes.