Humanitarian agendas, state reconstruction and democratisation processes in war-torn societies

This paper responds to criticisms of humanitarian activities that assert that they harm
rather than support processes of democratisation, accountability and other components of
“good governance” in societies emerging from “complex political emergencies.” It does
this by summarising the emerging critique of the “humanitarian international” (HI) as
articulated by Alex de Waal,1 one of the most prominent and polemical proselytisers of
the death-knell of humanitarianism.2 He argues that the HI’s processes are negative
because they hinder the development of the strong bonds between state and society
necessary for the development of democratic good governance.
The paper challenges de Waal’s claims. Firstly, the paper positions de Waal’s thesis
against current “cosmopolitan liberal” theories of the internationalisation of democracy,
whose framework is shared by the HI. It finds that his thesis has some strength at an
abstract, theoretical and very generalised level. De Waal’s claim that states are a better
locus for democratisation and institution-building processes than international
organisations is supported.
Secondly, however, the paper goes on to examine the effects of humanitarian action on
those in its receipt. This perspective suggests that de Waal’s thesis is too abstract and a
priori. It argues that the processes of humanitarian action can inculcate a culture of
“stateness” within its subjects. This new culture can (but does not necessarily) lead to
outcomes propitious for democracy and “good governance:” an active and reciprocal
state-society relationship capable of coping with the ravages of a new world “order”
which undermines the very structures idealised by analysts such as de Waal.