Feedback from the IFRC Strategy 2030 Mid-Term Consultations with the IFRC Network

The below piece is part of the analysis we have undertaken of responses to our surveys and interviews for the Strategy 2030 mid-term review process. So far over 4,000 of you have participated, telling us your hopes and concerns for the world and how we should be responding as a network. This is a preliminary summary of one of the trends you have been telling us about, we will release more in the coming months as we receive more inputs from volunteers, staff and leaders of the IFRC network of National Societies. This article is presented in order to explain to you part of what we are hearing so far and to encourage your feedback and ongoing contributions.  You can add your thoughts here. We thank you for contributing to helping our network strategise for the future.

Polarisation

The concern for an increasingly polarised world has emerged over the first five years of the Strategy 2030 period as a more significant challenge impacting the work of National Societies. This is affecting the ability of many National Societies to operate with neutrality and to maintain independence, but also catalysing new threats. Respondents outline polarisation at many levels including, political, social, economic and internationally at the geopolitical level, as well as the flow-on divisive impacts within the IFRC network. 

Some respondents argue, however, that in the midst of these deepening divisions a strong principle-based approach could help us lead and provide alternative unifying narratives and actions;

“In our polarised world, the IFRC and the ICRC have a key role to play in finding and sharing that greatest common denominator that transcends all differences…”

Staff, Europe

Current state 

Political polarisation continues to grow as a concern in many countries, and is a deeply-rooted endemic issue in others. Worldwide and across sectors, there is a perception that people are taking increasingly entrenched positions and space for civic dialogue and compromise is being eroded or erased.

Global trend analysis seems to support this ¹, often underpinned by values-based divergence and exacerbated by misinformation, algorithmic biases in digital platforms, and political opportunism. This has put some National Societies in a very difficult position;

“There is no neutral position, the society is demanding you take a side, even not taking a side is seen as not neutral”

NS Leader, Asia Pacific

Parallel to this, social polarisation is accelerating inequality and deepening the gulf between those with wealth, health and access to opportunity, and the increasingly marginalised and excluded communities at the other extreme. This poses significant challenges for the network as demand for humanitarian services increases and new vulnerabilities appear even as respect for the fundamental principles appears to decline.

But this is not a universal concern, as one Leader acknowledged: 

“Not all countries are equally polarised – and so the challenge is different for different National Societies. But we must be clear that this is a challenge we all face, and rise up to it.”

NAtional Society Lead

At the global level many leaders have concerns about what they see as increased geopolitical tensions and a growing divide between states;

“It is a very complicated world in which we live in… the big transformations that we have to prepare for are the polarization between East and West or global north and global south, whatever you want to call it.”  

National Society Leader, MENA

This view represents a significant shift from the Strategy 2030 consultations held in 2019 where while polarisation was acknowledged it was not as prominent. A more urgent threat is observed to vulnerability and humanitarian needs globally including creating the potential for wider conflicts but also, importantly impeding the capacity for the collaboration and unity needed to tackle major global challenges.

It was noted by some that humanitarian principles have served as a response to the inhumanity of war in the past and an attempt to mediate and reduce the impact of pernicious forms of violent conflict. Respondents appear to believe though that there is less space for this in the contemporary context.  

“Our National Society has to find a way of getting the Government to trust and be committed to our course financially without impeding on our fundamental principles.”

Staff, West Africa

Within the IFRC network, institutional polarisation appears to be a topic of discussion for some leaders, often forming along similar lines as the wider geopolitical divides that are being experienced, with debate about the threat to our fundamental principles and ability to act, but also causing concerns for unity in the network at a time when it is essential.

“Its supposed to be one National Society one vote, democratic, but there are groups and structures set up that undermine that, powerful, wealthier NSs get to have more say and it becomes more ‘western’.”

SG African Region

Future priorities

For leaders across all consulted National Societies, navigating these challenges means ensuring humanitarian principles are upheld in ways that foster trust and resilience, even amidst societal divisions.

However, respondents have suggested that anticipating and adapting to societal polarisation requires a more strategic approach than has been seen to date. There is a notable disparity between the rapid evolution of polarisation and the relatively static application of humanitarian principles: 

“The Movement’s historical leadership in principles-based responses can pave the way for societal reconciliation amidst deepening divisions. But we have to be more courageous than we have been in recent years. It feels like we are using principles less as a tool for change and more as a space that we retreat to.”

Leader, Europe

Addressing this disparity poses a number of critical strategic questions that were put forward in roundtables with senior leaders:

• Sensitivity and awareness: How can we as humanitarian organisations enhance our sensitivity to, and awareness of, shifting societal polarisation trends?
• Proactive strategies: What proactive measures can be implemented to effectively address emerging polarisation, including within our own network?
• Approach to engagement: Should strategies lean towards a cautious approach, refraining from public stance to mitigate risks, or should they adopt a more proactive role in engaging and mediating differences?

“The challenge lies not only in acknowledging polarisation but in actively using our principles to bridge divides and build consensus. We have to move beyond our comfort zones to do this.” 

Advocacy Lead, Africa

What success looks like by 2030

“In times of heightened polarisation, principles serve as our compass to navigate through turbulent waters with integrity and trust. If we can’t do this, no one can.”

Comms lead, LAC

It was suggested the network could focus in four ways:

• Principles-based communication: Utilising humanitarian principles to foster dialogue and understanding across polarised divides.
• Advocacy leadership: Taking a proactive stance in advocating for inclusive and principled approaches to societal issues.
• Humanitarian education: Investing in child and youth education programs that promote humanitarian principles.

Learning: Investing in more opportunities for staff and leaders to come together and share experiences on these unique issues, learn from each other and develop collaborative approaches.

1. Reducing Pernicious Polarization: A Comparative Historical Analysis of Depolarization – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Worldwide divergence of values | Nature Communications ↩︎