Empathy — where are you?

I have been seen as naive in understanding how things work. Personally, I have been making professional choices on certain principles and walking away from conventional parameters of success. Recently, I watched on TV a former militant being received at the UN as the head of a state. I did not know who was right or when it was right. All I can see is that might is right.

Some time back, I saw a post trending on a reputed professional forum. I noticed respected figures from our region and beyond, leading prestigious global platforms on human capital, climate, health, education, poverty and related issues, sharing photographs with high-profile but "controversial" political leaders. One such instance involved a former Western head of government whose legacy, particularly regarding the Iraq War, remains one of the most criticised foreign policy decisions in modern history, widely condemned by human rights advocates.

What struck me was not the photograph itself, but the enthusiastic applause it received from across our sector from leaders in health, human rights, childcare and women's empowerment. Many of them are people I sincerely respect, yet few seemed troubled by the moral contradictions such associations raise. To me, this publicised something propagandised: how unpretentiously our industry celebrates proximity to power, even when that power has left deep scars on humanity.

What does this suggest? Humanity, morals, ethical practices... are just for the official documentation, documentaries, declarations and not for demonstration? This is not a stand-alone story. Every now and then we see such inconsistencies and even commend them. There is a whole constellation of such figures who are in power positions and are either part of governments or advising governments worldwide on transformational change, developmental agendas, and what not. Very few have the courage to notice this deceit and criticise it. And within the spectrum of criticism, too, the colour of skin and nationality matter.

When someone like me questions these alliances, the stakes are entirely different. Western critics and intellectuals can challenge even top leaders and are not silenced. If they do, in exceptional instances, they may face some temporary professional pushback or some controversy that actually raises their stature. For those of us with "weak passports" from the Global South, there are too few chances of becoming Noam Chomsky, Angelina Jolie, Francesca Albanese, or even Arundhati Roy. Such challenges can be career suicide or, worse, literal exile from opportunities, conferences, and even countries.

The system is designed to silence exactly the voices that understand firsthand the impact of these policies. This captures exactly the quandary we meet. We are advised to remain compliant with the doctrine of neutrality and abstain from "stupidity", which is otherwise known as siding with moral correctness. The sanitised, politically correct version of development work is killing what should be our most powerful tool: genuine human connection.

Pakistan ranks among the lowest globally on gender inequality, and after our devastating floods, women and girls bore the heaviest burden. Affectees do not just lose homes and livelihoods in disasters; they lose agency, safety, and often their voices in recovery decisions. Yet our response continues to treat symptoms rather than causes, distributing aid while ignoring the power structures that create vulnerability in the first place.

We discuss and condemn elite capture (something that until recently was almost taboo to mention, and I have personally faced consequences for breaking silence on such no-go areas), while recycling the same familiar faces and voices. And grassroots leaders remain invisible to donors and decision-makers. Instead of inviting the same elite or wannabe-elite voices to speak about grassroots realities, why not create space for the people actually living those realities? This requires intellectual risks and empathy both.

"Empathy" has no equivalent word in Urdu or in several other Pakistani languages. This reflects something profound about how we approach human connection and understanding and why our development work often feels so disconnected from the communities we serve. The strong colleagues in the development sector must look beyond their usual networks and should be able to distinguish between charity models and number-based projects. I have been told many times that I consistently choose the "wrong" side of issues. Wrong according to whom? According to the funders who prefer compliant silence over uncomfortable truths? According to the career networks that reward staying quiet about contradictions?

If standing against genocide is wrong, if questioning the morality of taking money from warmongers is wrong, if insisting that empathy should drive policy rather than profit margins is wrong, then I will gladly continue to remain wrong.

One of the most radical things (or reforming if that sounds better) the sector and subsectors within social development can do is centre human dignity and create measurable indicators for it. It means having difficult conversations and acknowledging that some partnerships are virtuously compromising, regardless of their financial benefits. Most importantly, it means embedding what I call "empathetic policymaking" into how we work. This is not about feeling sorry for people (perhaps it is about feeling sorry for one's own lack of soul and conscience); it is about understanding their experiences well enough to design interventions that actually serve their needs rather than the organisational targets.

The social development sector has transformed into something I barely recognise. What started as a mission to lift disadvantaged communities has morphed into a cutthroat corporate industry where the right connections matter more than the right intentions. The contradiction of our industry looks less like an exception and more like the rule. The social development sector now feels like a marketplace of influence, but the heart is missing.

Empathy, where are you? It is urgent to understand that sustainable change requires authentic relationships built on mutual respect with those stakeholders who are not in the power grid. The governments, aid and donor agencies should comprehend now that development work is supposed to be about justice, not just jobs.