Philippe Besson worked with the Swiss Development Cooperation for more than 30 years before he earlier this year retired from the position as head of the multilateral humanitarian division. In this conversation he provides a unique perspective on humanitarian action and how to be a “principled dinosaur” and a civil servant at the same time.
Transcript
Welcome to Trumanitarian. I'm your host, Lars Peter Nissen. This week's guest is Philippe Besson who was the head of the Multilateral Affairs Division at Swiss Humanitarian Aid Department, which is part of the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation, SDC, until he retired earlier this year. I have worked closely with Philippe over the past years, and I wanted to do this episode for a number of reasons. Firstly, because he has a deep and nuanced and very principled way of thinking about humanitarian action, and he is one of the least linear thinkers I have come across. And just in case there's any doubt among the listeners, being a nonlinear thinker is just about the highest praise I can give to anybody. But I also wanted to interview Philippe, because he held positions of considerable influence within a donor agency, and he has a very clear and principled way of thinking about the dynamics and contradictions between the institutional priorities and personal beliefs. I hope you find the conversation interesting and useful. Thank you for listening.
Philipe Besson, welcome to Trumanitarian.
Philippe Besson:Thanks very much for having me.
Lars Peter Nissen:It's such a pleasure to have you here. We have wanted to do an episode like this for a while. We have worked together over the past couple of years in your function of the head of the multilateral division of SDC, you are one of the donors to ACAPS and you and I have had a really productive and, for me, a very valued collaboration over the past couple of years. And so I always was very disappointed when you said no, I don't think I would like to do the podcast, not yet. I would like to first go on pension. But now you're going on pension, and have agreed to have this conversation. And we will talk a bit about what are the rules, actually, for speaking your mind when you're in a position as a civil servant, as you are. What can you say and what can you not say? What what's best practice there? And I think that that'll be a really interesting discussion. But before we jump into that, I'd like to ask you, Could you just give us an overview of your career? How did you get involved in international cooperation and what have you been been doing all these years?
Philippe Besson:Right. Well, my first training was in law. I studied law in Lausanne. And then, in the late 70s, I joined what, at the time, still was the Graduate Institute for Development Studies, which now is IHIED at the meanwhile, famous institute just around the corner of your office. And I went there because, in a way, I was the classical, social, democratic evolutionary, idealist. Probably also because my father worked for Switzerland. I was out in different countries like Senegal, Libya, other places, for quite some years, that I had this notion of justice, equality, inclusiveness. So that was basically my first incentive. And then the rest is mixture between... Yeah, well, my interests, my sense of conviction, but also just chance. So I got hired by the director of the graduate institute at the time as a totally young professional, to support him administratively and otherwise. It was a two-years mandate. And then I went over to doing a bit of social anthropology so I was in New York and in Paris. And then I was hired, again by chance, by HELVETAS, the Swiss NGO, and then HELVETAS, didn't want to have operations managed in the French speaking part of Switzerland, so you can somehow hear out sort of a feeling of discrimination against the French speakers in there in Switzerland, though there were very rational reasons for that. But then I will look for another job and the ones who were ready to take me they were SDC, the Swiss Agency for Development and cooperation, and that's how I ended up spending 31 years with them, working in countries like Bangladesh, Niger, and later South Sudan, and that's, in South Sudan, that I had my crash course in humanitarian aid from 14 to 17. And then you mentioned that from 17, to, till recently, end of September, I worked in Humanitarian Multilateral Affairs, but that was by accident. So somehow my whole trajectory is a mixture between the sense of conviction, wanting to change things, and total chance, things that just happened, opportunities.
Lars Peter Nissen:Now, I've never seen you in the field. We've always met in the global fora in the Good Humanitarian Donorship, at the conferences here in Geneva, but what's always struck me is that you don't mince your words, you say... you've actually been quite outspoken, when I've seen you, in terms of what works and what doesn't work. And I've heard you use the word "Courage Civic", to describe the responsibility you as a civil servant have to actually speak your mind. Could you just give us your thinking around that? How did you... when you held these positions, some of which are high in the Swiss administration, how did you interpret your obligation to, on one side, of course toe the party line, represent Switzerland, that's why you get your paycheck, but on the other hand, to also speak the conviction that you mentioned, force and follow your principles? How do you balance the institutional and the personal?
Philippe Besson:That's a complex question which I believe is very much related to situations, moments. So one answer may sound right in certain contexts and not in another. What I tried to do was to defend, also internally, the principle that on the one hand, okay, I'm a bureaucrat. But the first thing is that I... it's not my money I manage and I allocate, it's really the taxpayers money. So I'm not entitled to use the resources or official development assistance for the purpose of I will call it promoting my ego or somehow making Switzerland shine. In fact, sometimes, or oftentimes, you know, the people would thank me for the support, and thank Switzerland, but also me personally, and there is this other element that comes in of partnership. And I genuinely think that I, as a part and representative of a development and shortened agency, I was depending on sound effective and relevant partnerships. ie, without partners, what can I do? I want to apply the law, I want to implement it, I won't change things. And then the other element which is perhaps especially evident in the Swiss context, with direct democracy and all that, I think that there is, hopefully most of the time, sort of an automatic tension between being a citizen, so I am entitled to my analysis, my views, and all that and being a civil servant. The last bit is, let's face it, contrary to other countries, we... because we are not at the centre of political preoccupations of our political masters, we enjoy pretty large freedom of speech that goes with the permanent risk of being irrelevant because nobody listens internally and perhaps also externally. So I was always trying to suggest that we we have to address things And I always attempted at being consistent between what I would say internally and externally in a conference, in a video meeting, or whatever. The absolute limit I tried to fix to myself was that I never would jeopardise the interests of Switzerland, I would look at the fair interests, as I would define them (so they are again, that was disputable), but mainly I could say in short, I didn't want to embarrass my colleagues, even my bosses, so when I really concretely criticised one of my bosses, I did it internally. But I did also that, which gave me this liberty, as I had said it internally, to bring it up in perhaps packed, packaged a bit differently in the public space.
Lars Peter Nissen:I hear you saying, rule number one is, it's not about your own individual wants, it's... you have to be really careful that you actually represent the interests of the collective, right? You can't just play through your own ego, as you said, or promote your own... that that's sort of the first part of your code. And then, secondly, that this position, as you say, where maybe you're not top of the agenda for for the Swiss public debate gives you space to... a bit of wriggle room to do things, and that there is an obligation to speak your mind, in a sense, even though it is not your money, it's not your personal agenda, but you have to actually speak up, internally at least, when you find a tension between what you think should happen and what the agency actually is doing.
Philippe Besson:Yeah in a way, the individuals react differently, but I always felt that I may be... my political agenda development policies, humanitarian policies, may not be at the top of the agenda of, say, the federal councillors, but that I would try and really speak according to what I felt was in the best interest of Switzerland in the context of what is the best interest of humanity. And sometimes, not only I but others within SDC would be called naive or globalists and all that, and this is also a vivid domestic debate here in Switzerland, about what's in the best interests of Switzerland. And it was captured once (that's the charm of being retired and, and that's also public, so I can speak about that). Our federal counsellor in charge of finance Ueli Maurer has said once, in an ambassador's conference three years ago, that he felt that we, the FDFA (so the foreign ministry's personel), we were not there to change the world, but to defend Swiss interest. It so happens that I had the privilege to try and defend the notion that the best Swiss interest is to change the world, in terms of social justice, and in terms of, for instance, climate justice, and so that there is room one has, and again, I could... I had a lot of leeway, but the the systemic effects were partly doubtful. Although I am a strong believer in those kinds of networks where we recognise ourselves around values of humanity, and so that was also always in my mind, I at least give it a chance to find coalitions that I can go to, so generate contradiction and questioning within one's own ecosystem. And I felt this kind of dialectic tension promoting our own self-evaluation and the evaluation of our work by others, including partners, anything that would be evidence based and respectful, and ethical, that was worth taking. And that was my great privilege, that together with our team, we had the possibility, within financial limits, but we could really engage. And I think that's one of our strengths.
Lars Peter Nissen:And as a person who has been on the other side of the partnership, I would agree with that. And it one of the great things about working with the SDC over the past years have been exactly this tolerance for ambiguity and acceptance that not necessarily everything fits together in a linear way and that sometimes we have to accept contradictions as something that can be productive and that gives us unexpected gifts. And I think that's great. I also know that the majority of bosses or managers don't necessarily share that insight. And that there is a tendency for hierarchy to want a somewhat tighter ship, if you want. And so how has that been? Being sort of... defining yourself almost as somebody who is there to create a tension also and a contradiction by speaking up? What do you think is right? How has that been in terms of career in terms of relating to the hierarchy? Where are you insights in SDC in your own mind?
Philippe Besson:Yeah. So as I mentioned, I have been around with SDC for 31 years, so that's a long time. It's a generation and a half. So I underwent all the phases, including times that which I would have liked to do other things. So I think you can't be a in a public agency without making compromises. The question is, when does it become compromission? When do I start betraying the my basic set of values. And I hope, although I can't be sure, that I never betrayed my fundamental values. What I learnt was to navigate the system, try and place some elements, introduce some itches, typically, you know, all that's to do with evaluation, with feedbacks. You can promote them and depending on how smart one is at introducing those feedbacks, those other types of messages, hierarchies will have to respond. They don't want to be exposed. So most other assignments... for a little more than three years I was the the Swiss Delegated the Development Assistance Committee. And at the time, I can assure you that a peer review, which basically was a work of the DAC Secretariat plus two DAC member representatives, that was taken really seriously because it was also a PR issue. So you, you start with something which basically is just about image (I don't think I exaggerate it was really mainly or exclusively about image) and then you introduce elements, saying like, I don't know, the Netherlands tend to do this better than us, perhaps we should inspire ourselves. And then it doesn't change things within a week's time, but you can inoculate things. Although the latest one is, though... I can quote, two things for which my colleagues and I are proud. One is localization where we were involved mainly to have sort of a seat for Switzerland at the origin. But we worked on that. So with others, and there comes in the notion of coalition and understanding each other and knowing what's to be said publicly and where we can negotiate and try and find joint ways and all that, that was about saying, okay, localization is very condescending. So let's try and transform this into really promoting local humanitarian action with the subsidiarity principle. So what local actors can do, we may support, but we won't intervene directly, but there may be situations like natural disasters where it still makes sense to send in international aid. And now, within SDC people would endorse this speech. They weren't implemented yet, but they refer to it. So that's a small success. The other one is anticipatory action. We are groomed, it's in our genes, to send out Swiss people who save the world. And now our bosses start saying oh, [inaudible]. If IFRC, even ICRC, start with participatory action, if it's common talk within the UN system, we better at least acknowledge that anticipatory action is important. And then we have evidence, we can heed our masters. So they will repeat this in conferences. And also the bit of teasing is, if I take anticipatory action and I will cite Germany, and that will be the small itch for the authorising environment, who will say Okay, what the Germans do, we can also ask the Swiss to... something of that. So the I'd say it's sort of an art. One never can be sure. One may be wrong. I am sure, oftentimes, I was wrong. But it's always trying this. To me, at points, it was almost playful. It was throwing in ideas, but that's where I personally really needed partners like typically you, Lars Peter, others in Geneva and elsewhere, to give us their own views, the critique and how we could do things differently. And then my job was to, one try and learn, especially I who wasn't a humanitarian seven or eight years ago, and secondly, to try and make my own systems, subsystem learn. And then okay, depending on indicators, we succeeded a little or not. But I know that some colleagues are very proud, especially when it comes to disaster risk reduction and split reaction, which are things we promoted.
Lars Peter Nissen:So this way of operating, this approach that you have just beautifully described, how does this brand new inside of bureaucracy, where very often, it seems to be arranged to become the ambassador first? How... Were you then?
Philippe Besson:Well, I started at the total novice I was what 32, 33. I was considered the really the young guy who knew nothing. And I was told that I had to go to the field, my condition for my being hired was that I would go to Bangladesh, which was supposed not to be a nice place, and that I would be really a fast learner. And at the time, my masters and bosses were people who had been in Nepal in the 70s, who really had lived with the communities, you know, this picture of people, sometimes of really more rural social extraction, who... That there was a generation of petit bourgeoisie, and really poor people, and they would get the chance of getting university training, they would go into sec and wanting to... that's only happens... or wanting to apply the Social Democratic agenda we couldn't apply within Switzerland. So we would go to places, perhaps it's some sort of another imperialism. But anyway, that's how I was trained, you know. Participation, joint planning, co-creation, one of the concepts you use, and I think you're very right. At this time, we didn't speak of co-creation, but it was really that was there is also a generation of documents that were produced within SDC at the time. We were much more liberal than nowadays and we were totally autonomous. I liked to say that we invested in policy incoherence for development. PCD is typical DAC slogan. So we would do artisans unions in West Africa and later on, we would do ...organisations in India. And at the same time, the Federal Council was pursuing the option of building a nuclear weapon together with Apartheid South Africa. So that's the type of climate we were in, we were allowed everything because we were the good conscience of Switzerland. Meanwhile, it's different, so we tend to be coherent, but that means that yeah, again, Maurer, we have to serve the short term Swiss interest. That's generally the type of of message we get. So that was the first phase. The second phase was when I started carrying some responsibilities, like I was in Bangladesh, and then I was in the mid and late 90s, the head of the Office, full support of, of head office, and we could produce sort of a programme of... and we were not the first ones, but that was... these were also the beginnings of defeat with Claire Short and all that. So that was a sort of period at which everything was possible. You could at least endeavour to invest in genuine partnerships. And you know how strong the Bangladeshi NGOs are. So BRAC, the Bangladesh Rule Advance Advancement Committee, they told us, these are the terms of our collaboration. If you want to work with us, that's what you need to subscribe to. So that was... I learned a lot because of that, because these were so strong partners. And then we got a new DG, president of another political era, so I was the India desk and they came in the daily threats thing. So we did a whole programme around that, working with very strong Indian NGOs. And at a point of time, started jeopardising the relationship between the official Switzerland and the new BGP (ie Hinduist government) and so that was 2OO3-4. And then I got stopped and sanctioned. That was the moment at which, because I argued too much about why we were around and we should applied the law, which says we assist and support the poorest of the poor within the poorest countries, so that the law is still in place. It's a 76 law. And I was told, it was not for me to interpret the law. That was for the DG to do. And so I was, in inverted commas, punished by being sent to Niger as the deputy head. And it was not an easy situation, but I learned a lot, because again of the local colleagues, and then that's politics. And increasingly, Switzerland became the same as other European countries. We were increasingly subject to the political waves. The moment the DG that had, so to say sanction me, was out, the his successor developed some interest in me because I couldn't be accused of being one of the predecessors paths, or proteges. And then that's how I became DAC delegate, which is supposed to be pretty prestigious. And then there was South Sudan, where I was supposed to do state building; I ended up doing humanitarian aid. And because, by and large, apparently we did the right things in South Sudan, or... that, again, I got support from head office, so leeway. And we did things as a team and starting with with the South Sudanese colleagues that we felt were right. So introducing an institutional element. In this dire phase of emergency no that. That's how I ended up in my last job where we, we got to meet. So I could say, in a nutshell, I went through all phases. Getting a lot of praise, and then again, the being just discovered in the corner and then popping up again. Sometimes it was difficult, sometimes it was... well, it certainly was a great education. It's good to prevent one's ego to go through those phases.
Lars Peter Nissen:Do you wish you had played more safe?
Philippe Besson:No, not for a moment. I think at points because, well, I have a family. and because I dragged them abroad, I felt I couldn't quit. I was personally tempted. But I think, in a way, we, with age, where it was a different cycle and all that. we found our respective piece. So I think the last two years of my assignment, I was the guy who was a bit awkward, but he was okay. He didn't mean or do harm, so let him do his things which are a bit unorthodox. So no, when I look back, I think sometimes I wasn't smart enough to lobby and influence the system, but I had this basic notion of... the moment I really can't face anymore what I've done, told, said, then I really should quit. And thank God, I was spared the moment to do this and now I'm at peace with the organisation and the organisation, within, I guess two or three years, will have totally forgotten, because now I'm a dinosaur. I still know the very first people who started as DC at the end of the 70s, but when I talk to young colleagues, they have no clue.
Lars Peter Nissen:As a dinosaur, I think the advantage is that you... I mean, you grew up in a time when the field was developing, it was very principled, there was a lot of money around, a lot of opportunity, a lot of leeway as you describe, and people that really spectacular things. You've then also described a situation where it becomes, I think two things, more and more politically controlled, but also more and more technocratic, in a sense.
Philippe Besson:Exactly.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so when you see entry level professionals coming into the sector today, what do you think? Do you think, Ah these are like chickens grown in little cages, they're all the same and they never spread their wings and had the freedom I have, so they don't challenge the system? Do you think. Amazing young people? How do you see the new generation of humanitarians coming into this?
Philippe Besson:Well, I think again, there have been eras, there have been waves. I, 10 years ago, the people who join SDC (that's by the way, the moment at which you could generally produce expectations of becoming an ambassador while being in international cooperation)... When I started that was impossible. And that was a safeguard, yet that was one thing you never would become. So, this meant that you have to look at what makes sense, where where you find your also your own personal-professional satisfaction... Now, or 10 years ago, people started entering the career and they felt okay, this is just like another administration, by and large, and also there always was but the sort of a new exoticism popped up. It was nice to go to places and to be paid for it. And that's captured by an anecdote, and I'm afraid it's not a Swiss colleague who said this, it's a Danish colleague...
Lars Peter Nissen:We will allow it.
Philippe Besson:We did it... we did an OCHA donor support group trip to Sudan. And then, in the end, we had sort of a feedback. The young colleague from head office, he said, well, the meals were not provided at regular times. And I thought that was totally naive, he didn't mean to be arrogant or whatever, but that was the thing he could say. We had this type of of persons too, we still have them. There would be another topic, perhaps for one of your broadcasts, about how to make a carrier and how the management styles including in our organisations favours certain psychological pattern. But let's say that those people with those types of agendas, they, some of them, went very high. I became head of division by accident, basically, just because I... the symbolics of it... I had been evacuated, I was in the midst of a civil war in South Sudan, so that they had to give me something. So they gave me this. But they didn't give it to me, because I had, together with the team, drafted a really solid conceptual frame for what we could do in South Sudan. Now, back to your question, I think the latest generation... I witnessed two things. First of all, again, new people entering the system who are extremely idealistic in a positive sense, who really, for instance, care about climate combined with social justice. So they they go into the system out of a sense of commitment. And, it's a paradox, but I was happy to have a couple of interns of people who got exposed to us. And in the end, they said, That's not for us. I don't want to make a career in this. That's too bureaucratic, It's too influenced by domestic politics. And I thought, okay, brilliant. There's something happening that gives me hope, the... I think on the short term, we will get more restrained, at least as Swiss generally speaking, international cooperation. But on the medium to long term, I think there's a good chance that the newest generations will do what I would call the right thing. So that makes me really, really hopeful.
Lars Peter Nissen:It is difficult. And there is a cost associated with making noise, right? You don't necessarily make friends. I think you've experienced that. I've definitely experienced that in my career. And still, I think it is quite important that you try to, from whatever platform you're on, speak your mind and really challenge the status quo. Especially when you work in these situations we work in where systems break down and become part of the problem. But you also have to exist within a bureaucratic framework. What's your advice to people today? Who are sort of trying to climb the corporate humanitarian ladder? And who, as I experienced them a lot, are really scared of being fired or not getting the next P or whatever they are looking for in their careers. What's your advice to them?
Philippe Besson:One element that was of tremendous help to me was that even in difficult context, or where I felt this is really much outside of reality, I always found interlocutors, partners who were asking themselves the same question, struggling, and then you get sometimes in this kind of meta conversation or you start sharing with the this attempt at finding common solutions, finding a way that that is conducive and where we can build alliances. And that's also true internally. That there were different types, they were the people who sanctioned me, that there were some, but often times, that there was this kind of liberal, more permissive attitude. "Okay, his ideas are a bit crazy, but let him do it, he doesn't do any major harm. So that's fine." And then teams are essential. and there one needs to be lucky. But the moment on a day to day basis, you and your whole team, or the majority within a team, can can talk openly and also share concerns, options, views and all that, iteration, the conversation, I think that helps tremendously. And then there are limits. I never felt Okay, that's the moment I have to quit. But it could have occurred, and that's really, really, really tough. But okay, I am a strong believer in the art of teasing the system, but in a smart way and finding out where where the limits are. And my experience is that, never expose your boss publicly, but with a little bit of skill, one can tell a lot of things in a private conversation. The limit of this, as I expected, is that they are very sympathetic. They say, "Yes, that's nice. Thanks, Philipe", but perhaps even I think about it, and then they will do just the opposite. And, okay, the other thing is... right, I was bombarded at the time Head of Division. I don't think that there was any chance that I could join the SDC Board of Directors. That would have been the limit of subversion. That would have been unacceptable. That they they wouldn't do. So I reached the highest level that was conceivable. And that was, again, due more to chance, a constellation... In other times, I would have been the old geezer who has been 30 years in this and friends, colleagues, would have listened to that. But I said... but also there is this element of using one's power wisely. So precisely trying to avoid using power just for the sake of satisfying one's ego, but then using power to induce a change. That's the other thing, risking it a little bit... that kind of... it's like a recipe.
Lars Peter Nissen:It's gurilla warfare. You can't go out in the open with it, right? And you can't afford to lose a major battle than you're dead.
Philippe Besson:Yeah, yeah. It's... I think, yeah, it's really... how subversive Can you allow yourself to be. But I genuinely think that, and I repeat this all over the place in the whole humanitarian system, international cooperation system, there are people, if they are given the chance, if the coalition is right, they will do the right things. And I saw my role also at making this a little more probable, a little more possible.
Lars Peter Nissen:So one thing I found interesting was that you... whenever I asked you, you said, "No, let's do it once I went on... Once I retired". Why is that? What is it you able to say today you weren't able to say two months ago?
Philippe Besson:That my my first note, that there was three thoughts. One was that I, like... I love being here in this conversation with you, but to me, it was essential that it would be about two persons professionals who like to do this. And the... being a bureaucrat from a sponsoring agency, that's a bit ambiguous. That was one reason. One very important reason was not to embarrass colleagues. Now they can just, if they like say, this guy has retired, so [inaudible]. And then the... again, I never would purposefully hurt my colleagues, their interest, their future, but like the anecdote about our finance minister, I don't think I would have told it if I had still been with SDC, because that might have been resented by the hierarchy, and again, it could have been a problem not so much for me, because I'm the lost case, but for my colleagues, that would have been a pity. So that's the constellation of reasons I had to say, Okay, let's wait a little.
Lars Peter Nissen:Philippe Besson, thank you so much for coming on Trumanitarian. Thank you for your partnership and friendship over the years. It's been such a pleasure working with you. And thank you for your insights today.
Philippe Besson:Well, thanks very much for this conversation. And really, good luck and long life to Trumanitarian, to you, Lars Peter, and to ACAPS, that was great.