Ubuntu and Capabilities Approach: Basic Doctrines for Calibrating Humanitarian Action

Open access


This article explores prospects of using Ubuntu and Capabilities Approach to expand the scope of humanitarian action, to design one which serves humanity better even in the absence of disaster to essentially fulfil human development needs. It is considerate of the fact that humanitarian works contributes immensely in determining the extent to which humanity thrives. The traditional view on humanitarianism presupposes action-driven initiatives geared towards devising interventions to restore or reinforce human social order, improve livelihoods and quality of life. In sociological terms, human development is dependent on realizing and safeguarding, amongst others, human well-being, civil liberties and social security. The article utilizes core values enshrined in Ubuntu, Africa’s historic philosophy of life, and Amartya Sen’s Capabilities Approach as tools of analysis, with the view to expressing how to operationalize what should be considered stable humanitarian conditions and human well-being. Owing to persistent socio-economic challenges, especially the poverty problem, it is asserted that humanitarian action ought to depart from being a post-disaster intervention strategy, to being a pro-active and preventative pre-disaster orientated action, intended to nurture well-being and resultantly enable human development.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Buchanan-Smith M. & Cosgrave J. (2013). Evaluation of Humanitarian Action: Pilot Guide. The Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) London: Overseas Development Institute.

  • Burges J.P. (2002). Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention: The Circle Closes. Security Dialogue 33(3) 261-264.

  • Clark D.A. (2005). Sen’s capability approach and the many spaces of human well-being. The Journal of Development Studies 41(8) 1339-1368.

  • Darcy J. (2004). Human Rights and Humanitarian Action: A review of the issues. Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) Background Paper. London: Overseas Development Group.

  • Eliastam J.L.B. (2015). Exploring Ubuntu discourse in South Africa: Loss liminality and hope. Verbum et Ecclesia 36(2) 1-8.

  • Fox F. (2001). New Humanitarianism: Does It Provide a Moral Banner for the 21st Century? Disasters 25(4) 275-289.

  • Frangonikolopoulos C.A. (2005). Non-governmental Organisations and Humanitarian Action: The Need for a Viable Change of Praxis and Ethos. Global Society 19(1) 49-72.

  • Hilhorst D. &Schmiemann N. (2002). Humanitarian principles and organisational culture: Everyday practice in Meedecins Sans Frontie res-Holland. Development in Practice 12(3-4) 490-500.

  • Hilhorst D. & Jansen B. (2012). Constructing Rights and Wrongs in Humanitarian Action: Contributions from a Sociology of Praxis. Sociology 46(5) 891-905.

  • Kamwangamalu N.M. (1999). Ubuntu in South Africa: a Sociolinguistic Perspective to a Pan-African Concept. Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies 13(2) 24-41.

  • Letseka M. (2012). In Defence of Ubuntu. Studies in Philosophy Education 31 47-60.

  • Lucchi E. (2012). Moving from the ‘why’ to the ‘how’: reflections on humanitarian response in urban settings. Disasters 36(1) 87-104.

  • MacFarlene S.N. & Weiss T. (2000). Political Interest and Humanitarian Action. Security Studies 10(1) 112-142.

  • Macrae J. (1998). The Death of Humanitarianism: An Anatomy of the Attack. Disasters22(4) 309-317.

  • Mkhize N. (2008). Ubuntu and harmony: An African approach to morality and ethics. In Nicholson R. (ed.) Persons in community: African ethics in a global culture pp.35-44. Scottsville: UKZN Press.

  • Mokgoro Y. (1998). Ubuntu and the Law in South Africa. Potchefstroom Electronic Journal1(1) 15-26.

  • Morris N. (2008). The Evolution of Humanitarian Action. Refugee Survey Quarterly 27(1) 24-29.

  • Murithi T. (2007). A local response to the global human rights standards: the Ubuntu perspective on human dignity. Globalisation Societies and Education 5(3) 277-286.

  • Nussbaum B. (2003). Ubuntu: Reflections of a South African on Common Humanity. Reflections 4(4) 21-26.

  • Pease K.K. & Forsythe D.P. (1993). Human Rights Humanitarian Intervention and World Politics. Human Rights Quarterly 15(2) 290-314.

  • Rapatsa M. (2015). Human Dignity as a Foundational Norm in the Understanding of Human Rights. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology 12(2) 41-53.

  • Sachs A. (2012). Liberty Equality Fraternity: Bringing Human Solidarity Back Into the Rights Education. Journal of Human Rights Practice 4(3) 365-383.

  • Sen A.K. (1985). Well-being Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy 82(4) 169-221.

  • Sen A.K. (1992). Inequality Re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Sen A.K. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.

  • Sen A.K. (2005). Human Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development 6(2) 151-166.

  • Slim H. (2005). Idealism and Realism in Humanitarian Action. Two Talks Given at the ACFID Humanitarian Forum Canberra 5 October 2005. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.

  • Stoddard A. (2009). Humanitarian NGOs: challenges and trends. In Joanna M. & Adele H. Humanitarian Action and the ‘Global War on Terror’: A Review of Trends and Issues (eds.). pp.25-36 HPG Report HPG: London.

  • Tong J. (2003). Questionable Accountability: MSF and Sphere in 2003. Disasters 28(2) 176-189.

  • Tshoose C.I. (2009). The Emerging Role of the Constitutional Value of Ubuntu for Informal Social Security in South Africa. African Journal of Legal Studies 3(1) 12-19.

  • Wright H.R. (2012). Child care children and capability. Cambridge Journal of Education 42(3) 409-424.

  • Zetter R. & Deikun G. (2010). Meeting humanitarian challenges in urban areas. Forced Migrant Review 34(5) 5-7.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 323 175 12
PDF Downloads 225 162 18