In an era defined by shifting geopolitical tides, fractured alliances, and the rapid redistribution of global power, one of the most pressing philosophical and political questions of our time has emerged with renewed urgency: Can humanism survive — and indeed thrive — in a world that is increasingly power de-centred, polycentric, and pluralistic? This profound question took center stage during a thought-provoking public lecture delivered recently in Colombo, arriving with remarkable timing just as the world observed World Humanitarian Day. The convergence of these two events served as a powerful reminder that the ideals of human dignity, compassion, and solidarity are not relics of a simpler past — they are urgent necessities for a complex future.
The Lecture That Sparked a Global Conversation
The principal speaker at the Colombo lecture was Prof. Amitav Acharya, Distinguished Professor of International Relations, whose scholarly work has long challenged Western-centric narratives of global governance and international order. Prof. Acharya is widely recognized for his contributions to understanding how power operates — and is redistributed — across a multipolar world. His lecture did not merely describe the changing architecture of international relations; it posed a deeper, more existential challenge to policymakers, academics, and citizens alike. In a world where no single power dominates the moral or political landscape, who becomes the guardian of humanist values?
This question is neither abstract nor academic. It strikes at the heart of how nations, institutions, and individuals choose to relate to one another in an age of profound uncertainty. The old post-World War II framework, built around Western liberal democracies and anchored by institutions like the United Nations, is visibly straining under the weight of new realities. Emerging powers, regional blocs, and non-state actors are all asserting their own visions of order — and not all of those visions place human dignity at their center.
Understanding Power De-Centredness and Polycentrism
To appreciate the challenge Prof. Acharya outlined, it is essential to understand what a power de-centred and polycentric world actually means. Unlike the Cold War's bipolar structure or the brief unipolar moment of American dominance following the Soviet Union's collapse, today's international order features multiple competing centers of power. China, India, Brazil, the European Union, regional organizations across Africa and Southeast Asia — all are asserting agency in shaping global norms and outcomes.
This pluralism of power is not inherently negative. In many respects, it represents a long-overdue democratization of the international system, giving voice to nations and peoples who were historically marginalized by colonial and post-colonial hierarchies. However, pluralism also creates a fragmented normative landscape. When every power center advances its own conception of rights, justice, and governance, universal humanist principles can become casualties of geopolitical competition.
Humanism Under Pressure: The Core Challenge
Humanism, at its core, is the belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. It insists that human welfare, freedom, and flourishing must be the ultimate measure of any political, economic, or social arrangement. These values found their most prominent institutional expression in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the founding charters of multilateral organizations. But those institutions were built in a particular historical moment, reflecting a particular distribution of power and a particular — largely Western — cultural framework.
As the world becomes genuinely multipolar, the universality of these frameworks is being contested. Some governments argue that human rights as defined by Western institutions are instruments of cultural imperialism. Others invoke sovereignty as a shield against international accountability. Meanwhile, rising inequality, climate displacement, and violent conflict are creating humanitarian crises that existing institutions struggle to address effectively. The question Prof. Acharya raised is not merely theoretical — it has life-and-death consequences for millions of vulnerable people around the globe.
Pathways to Sustaining Humanist Values
Despite these challenges, there are credible pathways forward. First, humanist values must be re-articulated and re-legitimized through inclusive, cross-cultural dialogue rather than imposed through top-down institutional mandates. If the principles of human dignity are to command genuine global allegiance, they must be seen as emerging from the shared moral wisdom of diverse civilizations — not as exports from any single tradition.
Second, regional institutions and civil society networks must be empowered to carry humanist values into spaces where global institutions cannot easily reach. Local ownership of humanist principles is far more durable than compliance driven by external pressure.
Third, individuals — scholars, activists, artists, educators — must continue to model and advocate for humanism in their daily lives and professional work, refusing to allow geopolitical competition to erode the moral commitments that bind humanity together.
Conclusion: A Call to Collective Responsibility
World Humanitarian Day serves as an annual reminder that humanitarianism is not a luxury — it is a moral obligation. Prof. Acharya's Colombo lecture challenged all of us to think carefully about how humanist values can be sustained not despite the world's growing pluralism, but through it. A truly multipolar world need not be a less humane one. But achieving that outcome will require deliberate, courageous, and collaborative effort from every corner of the globe. The conversation that began in Colombo must continue — in classrooms, parliaments, and communities everywhere.