The tyranny of humanitarian mandates
Mandates galore
As the global humanitarian system slips into late middle age, it is time to take stock of both the rationale and relevance of the mandates that continue to dictate power relations in the humanitarian space.
The word mandate itself is problematic. It has a kind of ‘speak when you’re spoken to’, neo-colonial ring to it. No surprise that the mandates of humanitarian agencies trace their provenance to an earlier generation of international legal instruments promulgated by the League of Nations as part of the colonial carve-up after World War One. Think Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Tanganyika, South West Africa and so on.
These mandates were presented in a way that paid lip service to points 5 and 11 of President Woodrow Wilson’s list of 14 but they were essentially a rejigging of the colonial order.
Under the United Nations, mandates were bestowed on a new generation of humanitarian institutions. UNHCR, for example, was given a mandate to protect refugees. UNICEF was to look out for children. The World Food Programme got food delivery. UN OCHA is responsible for humanitarian coordination. In the meantime, the mandate thing has gone viral. We hear not only UN agencies but non-governmental organizations of all shapes and sizes claiming to have a ‘mandate’ – usually from their governing boards.
Early on there was some justification for giving exclusive responsibility to specific agencies for different aspects of humanitarian work. In today’s world, with a broad array of capable organizations engaged in the variable geometry of humanitarian action, things are different.
One man’s mandate is another’s poison – especially if it undermines the flexibility and agility that are needed to deal with the rising demand for humanitarian services. Field managers for the big UN humanitarian bodies have the power to decide who works where and what they do. It would be okay if they used their mandates to improve accountability and enhance effectiveness. But often it is about keeping a whip-hand on operations to maximize their own interests.
This sort of control is also a drag on innovation. Why do things differently if you already rule the roost? Chances are you will shrug off new approaches if they don’t meet a pre-established set of priorities.
Too often agencies use their mandates to reinforce their acquired rights and slow the process of adaptation and change. The short straw goes to the people supposed to benefit from their work, to innovative aid agencies whose new approaches are stifled, and to the donors who must bank-roll a system operating below par.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for leadership organizations willing and able to take things forward. But they need to earn that status, not inherit it. Preeminence is not about mandates conferred decades ago. It must relate to the way agencies operate today – how they engage their beneficiaries and enable them to exert influence over the type of services they offer and the way they provide them. Call it a mandate from the people.
