Decolonising Aid: Is there a way to tackle racism and redistribute power in the aid sector?

As we have already explored in previous posts, the colonial past of the aid sector and the racism that still exists in aid organisations are highly problematic. In this post, I will attempt to dive deeper into the discussion, and link the discussion to relevant concepts and existing academic literature. Although this longer post will provide more depth to the discussion, one longer post is not enough to cover all the complexities that racism within the aid industry entails. I also acknowledge that as a student at a university in the ‘Global North’ and as a white person, I do hold privileges discussed in this post. It is always important to take note of possible biases in any research, but even more so when the topic of research is racism and privilege. At the end of the post, I will dedicate a section to comment on my experiences throughout this blogging exercise.

Framing the discussion in terms of ICT4D

Firstly, I would like to anchor the discussion within the context of Information and Communication Technologies for Development, or ICT4D. This blogging exercise is a part of a university course on New Media, ICT and Development, and the overarching theme of the What the Aid -blog is ICT4D, Aid Work and Communicating Development. In 2017, Heeks predicted that one of the future trends in ICT4D is the growing influence of social media and mobile devices (p. 319). Social media has indeed been especially influential in bringing the conversation on racism in aid to a wider public and ensuring that a bigger variety of voices are being heard, for example through the use of hashtags.

One of the first hashtags that became influential in this context was #shiftthepower in 2016, which originated in the growing criticism against how INGOs are not emphasizing local civil society enough and that they should make a bigger effort to put ‘Southern agendas’ at the centre of their work (Peace Direct, 2021, p. 31). The #shiftthepower movement had several tangible outcomes, like the Shift the Power manifesto, the Power Awareness tool, and the Shift the Power project which included six INGOs, to name a few (Peace Direct, 2021, p. 31).

When the Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum in 2020, social media users could read an increasing number of accounts of racism in the aid sector. One of the contributing factors for these voices finally being heard is that more and more communities are getting connected to the internet, and more specifically communities who are based in the ‘Global South’.

Except for raising awareness for the prevalent racism in aid organisations, ICTs also have an influential role in further facilitating the dialogue on racism in aid. One example of this is the work done by the organisation Peace Direct, which resulted in the Time to Decolonize Aid -report in 2021. The report is based on input from consultations with 158 participants from 49 countries (Peace Direct, 2021, p. 8). Consultations were carried out on Zoom calls in four different languages, but the discussion was also facilitated on the platform Platform4Dialogue (Peace Direct, 2022, p. 10). P4D is a text-based and web-based platform that enables a wider group of participants to participate, in particular participants that potentially are unable to meet physically for different reasons, or participants that only have access to the internet with low bandwidth. (Peace Direct, 2022, p. 10). In 2022, Peace Direct used a similar set-up for their follow-up report that was more focused on racism and power imbalance in peacebuilding.

Relevant concepts for understanding racism in aid organisations

Discrimination based on race or ethnicity might seem like a straightforward phenomenon to recognise. However, in the case of a whole sector, the issue goes much deeper than it might seem at first glance, which is why it will be helpful to outline a few relevant concepts. For the sake of the limited scope of this blog post, I will cover the following three relevant concepts: Structural racism, White Gaze (sometimes referred to as Imperial Gaze) and White Saviour Complex.

Peace Direct (2021) defines structural racism as “the normalisation and legitimatisation of an array of dynamics – historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal – that routinely advantage White people, while producing chronic outcomes for people of colour worldwide.” (p. 12). Historically it traces back to the colonisation process that established a hierarchy based on racial classification, where the White man was at the top of the hierarchy. The relevance of this in the current discussions on racism is that these power dynamics are still persisting in the aid sector, which puts every non-white actor at a disadvantage, especially if they are not male (Peace Direct, 2021, p. 12). Understanding structural racism also helps us better understand the implications racism has on the aid sector. It can be found in the internal and external workings of the organisations, in the finances, in the project outlines, and in the frameworks to name a few. In the next section, we will discuss further how racism shows in aid work today.

The term White gaze is used to describe how progress is viewed with ‘Northern whiteness’ at the centre. The result is that progress is measured against a White, Western standard, and non-White actors are perceived as inferior (Pailey, 2020, p. 733; Peace Direct, 2021, p. 17). Pailey (2020) summarises White gaze with the following words; “In essence, white is always right, and West is always best.” (p. 733). This affects many aspects of the aid sector, for example, who is viewed as knowledgeable and competent. Historically, the aid sector has been permeated by White gaze, and still many things happen on the terms of the Global North, such as project design and financial reporting.

White Saviour Complex refers to White actors providing ‘help’ to non-White communities, often with self-serving motivations. In communications, the Global South is often represented as vulnerable and passive recipients in need of aid. Some examples of this are volunteer tourism, and INGOs using White celebrity ambassadors, usually sending them to a country in the Global South for participation in promotional videos of the organisation’s aid projects. Even when organisations and celebrities get called out for this type of behaviour, there is often a reluctance to admit the problematic motives behind their campaigns (Aidnography, 2019). Ali and Murphy (2020) state that “The first step [to address the power imbalance] is to immediately cease the marketing of people in the Global South as passive ’beneficiaries’ of aid who need ‘white saviors.’”. Furthermore, Peace Direct (2021) also brings up the perceived neutrality of the Global North as an aspect of ‘White saviourism’, and they state that the ‘White saviour’ mentality is reinforced as “[t]he perceived neutrality and expertise of White Westerners positions them as benevolent humanitarians instrumental to the ‘advancement’ of the contexts they are operating in” (p. 17). This is problematic because when the perception of aid organisations is that they are neutral, it becomes a hindrance to openly discussing racism and discrimination in the aid sector.

Racism in Aid today

Both stories shared on social media and stories from participants in the Peace Direct consultations give an account of many instances and patterns of racism in the aid sector. Unfortunately, only a few will be cited here due to the limitations in scope. However, the consensus is that structural racism can be found all throughout the sector in recruitment practices, fundraising and communications, organisational strategies, partnerships with local actors, knowledge generation and analysis, organisational structures and leadership, the language used in the system, relationships and networks, as well as in funding practices (Peace Direct, 2021, p. 33). Although unacceptable at every level, at worst structural racism puts non-white people’s health and lives at risk.

The realities:
Hazardous conditions – black workers more likely to be put in harm’s way.
Housing conditions – better for whites than for black colleagues.
Promotions – white workers promoted over more competent black colleagues with years more experience.
Complaints about these and other injustices – ignored and dismissed
Agaba, Open Democracy, 2018 (first cited by Denskus on Aidnography, 2020)

Not only are the racist systems and practices making non-white actors’ jobs and lives harder, but the systems also work in a way that reinforces the status quo and makes changing the sector a massive challenge. If underlying attitudes and issues, such as the persistent White gaze in INGO leadership, are not tackled, lasting, meaningful change is out of reach.

Past attempts to remedy the unequal global–local power dynamics that privilege Global North countries have focused on localising development, humanitarian aid and peacebuilding efforts. Yet, these attempts have had limited success,
due in part to a failure to address the aid system’s colonial legacy and ongoing racism.
Peace Direct, 2021, p. 37

Except for the racist structures and practices themselves, aid organisations also face criticism for not taking racism as seriously as for example sexual misconduct in the aftermath of all the attention of the #MeToo movement (where also aid workers shared their experiences under #AidToo). For example, Bruce-Raeburn questions how it seems to be that “‘Nonprofits that have “zero tolerance” of sexual misconduct seem much more ready to tolerate racism.’” (New Humanitarian, 2020, 16 July).

Conclusion: Is there a way forward?

The width and depth of racism in the aid sector is enough to question if there even is a way forward. Is there enough incentive for international aid organisations of the Global North to change when they are benefitting from the current system? From discussions in the comment section of my previous blog posts, it is evident that many feel at a loss for how to go about change in their own workplaces and what their personal role should be as agents of change. The changes that need to be made in the aid sector are massive, and in essence, as expressed by Ali and Murphy (2020), aid organisations need to be “turned on their heads”. Still, many practitioners seem to have ideas about ways to move forward, and in certain ways, seeing these discussions happening out in the open could be a reason for cautious optimism.

“Our focus should not be on purifying our individual actions, but collectively demanding and building a better system for our world.
More productively, as development scholar Olivia Rutazibwa argues, we should not throw the baby (altruism) out with the bathwater (aid’s racist and colonial past), and instead ask ourselves: “What do we keep? What do we throw out?”
Arbie Baguios (Aid Re-Imagined, 3 July) cited on Aidnography (2020)

Most sources cited in this post give specific suggestions for how to start working towards the decolonisation of the aid sector. Many examples are not new or unheard of but are still to be acted upon appropriately. In addition to the basics of acknowledging racist practices, encouraging discussions, rethinking funding and shifting power to the Global South, some specific suggestions from the cited sources are to create systems for the protection of whistle-blowers (Agaba, 2018), assess the language and create new and inclusive terminology (Peace Direct, 2021, p. 37), implement more transparent and formal recruitment processes and recruit differently (Agaba, 2018; Peace Direct, 2022, p. 45), and for INGOs to have an exit plan for how to transfer funding, voice and power to local communities (Ali and Murphy, 2020). Moving forward, ICTs will be an important part of continuing the discussion, putting new routines in place, and holding actors accountable. However, the determining factor in whether or not decolonisation of the aid sector can be successful is if power and resources can be redistributed to communities in the Global South, as concluded in the Peace Direct report:

It is not enough to localise projects; if non-White, non-Western individuals do not hold structural power, the system will simply continue replicating itself, skewing global power dynamics ever more in favour of the Global North. Beyond tokenistic hiring or performative programmes, decolonisation requires existing norms be fundamentally disrupted and dismantled. It requires a commitment to the redistribution of power and resources.
Peace Direct, 2021, p. 37

Personal reflections on the blogging experience

Writing a blog as a part of the studies has overall been a positive experience. Not only has it provided some variation to traditional academic writing and literature in the studies, but it has also acted as a bridge from the academic world into the ‘real world’.

Although sharing my writing publicly initially was, and still is a bit daunting, the less rigid writing format has given me the freedom to explore my writing style, which in turn has given me more confidence in my own writing. I found it more natural to write a blog, and it was easier to find a ‘flow’ in the writing process, as I felt less constrained to keep my text overly formal. The format of the blog let us combine creative thinking with our studies and express ourselves more, which meant we also got to know each others’ strengths within the group. Although the group work certainly came with its challenges, it was nice to get the opportunity to contribute with a bigger variety of our strengths to the course work. Except for the interaction in our own group, another positive aspect was the interaction with students from other groups. Commenting on each others’ blogs created thought-provoking discussions and also added to the motivation. Writing is more fun when people are reading what you have to say.

For me, this course exemplifies some of the things that set the Communication for Development program at MAU apart from other more traditional Master’s programs.