In a thought-provoking address, Rudelmar Bueno de Faria, Secretary General of ACT Alliance, explored why multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) remain essential — not just as mechanisms for collaboration, but as political and moral spaces where the struggle for trust, inclusion, and shared leadership plays out in real time.
Why do multi-stakeholder partnerships matter, and what makes them distinct in practice?
When we talk about multi-stakeholder partnerships, we often describe them as innovative spaces of collaboration — bridging governments, civil society, the private sector, and faith communities. But in practice, these partnerships are also mirrors of our political and social realities, reflecting both our aspirations for common purpose and the fractures that divide us.
Today, we operate in a context that is dramatically different from just a decade ago. Political polarization, religious and ideological fundamentalisms, and the erosion of democratic norms have reshaped the environment in which partnerships function. What used to be technical, or sectoral cooperation now unfolds in highly politicized arenas — where trust is fragile, narratives are contested, and neutrality itself is questioned. From ACT Alliance’s experience — working with faith-based, governmental, and humanitarian actors — three lessons stand out.
1. The myth of neutral partnerships
Partnerships are never value-free. When we partner with governments or intergovernmental agencies today, we face a tension between principles and political agendas. We have seen, particularly in the humanitarian sector, how state interests often override humanitarian mandates. Decisions are not always guided by impartial needs assessments but by political visibility, border control, or ideological proximity. This challenges one of the key MSP “success factors”: inclusive and transparent decision-making. Transparency is difficult when information flows are restricted or when fear of political repercussions prevents open dialogue. Neutrality and impartiality — often used interchangeably — are not the same. Impartiality relates to needs, neutrality to political positioning. In times of atrociy or blatant violation of international law, being “neutral” can mean being irrelevant — or complicit. Our partnerships must therefore be impartial but not silent.
2. Partnership legacies: power, money, and mistrust
Despite the language of equality, most partnerships still operate within the legacy of colonial structures. Who sets the agenda? Who controls resources? Who decides what success looks like? Funding remains concentrated in the Global North; risk remains with the Global South. The humanitarian and development ecosystems continue to reward proximity to donors rather than proximity to affected communities. This power imbalance generates mistrust toward local actors. We hear constant rhetoric about “local leadership,” but local partners are often treated as implementers rather than co-owners. Multi-stakeholder partnerships matter because, at their best, they can re-negotiate these terms—shifting from transactional to transformational collaboration. But for that, MSPs need common leadership and shared responsibility. This means not only co-branding success stories but also sharing risks, failures, and political costs.
3. Shared vision in polarized times
Ironically, the same polarization that divides societies also opens new opportunities. We are witnessing a growing convergence among actors—governments, private sector, faith leaders, and social movements—around the defense of democracy, human rights, and sustainability. Autocratic tendencies and extremist narratives have created a clear moral line. This has allowed unlikely allies to come together around a shared vision of protecting human dignity and multilateral cooperation. Faith actors, in particular, play a bridging role. They can speak to values, to moral imagination, and to the emotional and cultural dimensions of belonging—areas where technical partnerships often fail. MSPs that recognize this — by investing in respectful communication and relationship-building — are better equipped to sustain cooperation through crises. Trust is not built through project logframes; it is built through consistent presence, humility, and dialogue, even when we disagree.
And to conclude: So, why do MSPs matter? Because they are one of the few remaining inclusive spaces where diverse worldviews can still engage constructively. They are laboratories of pluralism, testing our capacity to collaborate across deep divides. But they are also fragile. To “fix the engine while driving,” as our title says, we must accept that MSPs are living organisms. They evolve with the political climate, with leadership changes, and with social pressure. Their distinct value lies not in perfection, but in their adaptability—the capacity to learn, recalibrate, and keep the conversation alive when others have stopped talking.
Where do MSPs most often get stuck—in starting, running, or sustaining? Why?
In my experience, multi-stakeholder partnerships rarely fail because of lack of good intentions or poor technical design. They fail—or get stuck—because of power, politics, and perception. And these are deeply connected to the broader context of polarization and fundamentalisms shaping our societies today.
Let me highlight four key points where MSPs typically get stuck — and why.
1. They get stuck at the start—when inclusion is selective.
At the beginning, we talk a lot about “multi-stakeholder” and “inclusive,” but often we mean those who think like us. Actors with strong ideological, religious, or political views — especially those outside the mainstream—are seen as too controversial or risky to include. But exclusion, even when well-intentioned, reinforces polarization. When fundamentalist narratives are shaping public life, partnerships that avoid engaging difficult actors risk becoming irrelevant echo chambers. In ACT Alliance, we have learned that inclusion is not endorsement. We can sit at the table with governments that we strongly disagree with on human rights or gender equality, while still upholding our principles. But inclusion requires clear boundaries and ethical frameworks, otherwise it becomes co-optation. So MSPs often get stuck early on, because they confuse inclusivity with ideological alignment — and fail to establish clear principles of engagement.
2. They get stuck in the middle—when transparency and trust break down.
As partnerships move forward, competing interests become visible: Governments pursue political visibility; donors push for quick results; civil society wants long-term change; and faith actors emphasize values. In polarized contexts, transparency becomes a casualty. Information is controlled, data is politicized, and decision-making becomes opaque. In humanitarian settings, we’ve seen this repeatedly: Access negotiations are shaped by political alliances; neutrality is used selectively; funding is conditioned by geopolitical interests. This erodes the very foundation of a partnership: trust. Without transparent decision-making and open communication, even the best-structured MSPs collapse into parallel tracks of mistrust — each actor pursuing its own agenda behind a façade of cooperation. Here, one of the six MSP success factors—inclusive and transparent steering structures — is crucial, but it must be backed by accountability mechanisms. Transparency cannot depend on goodwill; it must be institutionalized through open data, shared governance, and rotating leadership roles.
3. They get stuck in sustaining—when the partnership becomes projectized.
Too often, MSPs are built around projects, not purposes. They start as shared visions but end as deliverables with logframes and funding cycles. When donor funding ends, the partnership often ends too, because the collaboration was built around activities rather than relationships. In polarized political environments, sustainability requires something deeper: a community of conviction, not just a consortium of convenience. This means cultivating a culture of continuous dialogue, learning, and moral accountability, even after the money runs out. If we don’t invest in this relational infrastructure, the partnership becomes fragile—its survival tied to funding rather than trust.
4. They get stuck because neutrality is misunderstood.
Finally, and this is perhaps the most critical point today: Many partnerships become paralyzed because of a misunderstanding of neutrality. Neutrality is not the same as impartiality. In humanitarian work, impartiality means serving people based on need; neutrality means not taking sides politically. But in situations of gross injustice, war crimes, or discrimination, pretending neutrality can be a moral failure. When faith actors, civil society, or international agencies refuse to speak out “to stay neutral,” they risk becoming complicit in the very injustices they were created to address. MSPs can easily fall into this trap: avoiding difficult issues—like gender, migration, or rights of minorities — just to maintain consensus. The result is paralysis. Partnerships that are afraid to take principled positions lose legitimacy, especially among local actors and communities. So, sustaining partnerships in polarized contexts requires moral clarity as much as managerial competence. We need to be impartial in service, but not neutral in defending human dignity.
5. Underneath it all — power.
Across these stages, starting, running, sustaining, the underlying current is power. Who defines the problem, who sets the indicators, who controls the narrative. Even well-structured MSPs often replicate the very hierarchies they claim to overcome. If the Global North defines the agenda, and the Global South is asked to “participate,” we are not in partnership — we are in subcontracting. Real transformation begins when we redistribute influence and risk, not just resources. That means rethinking leadership models, investing in local capacity, and creating safe spaces for dissent and reflection. If there is one message I would leave with you, it is this: Partnerships are political acts. They can reproduce power imbalances—or they can transform them.
To make them transformative, we must:
1. Acknowledge the political and moral dimensions of our work—neutrality does not mean silence.
2. Invest in shared leadership that genuinely redistributes power and risk.
3. Prioritize trust and accountability over visibility and control.
For PaRD members and all of us in this room, I suggest a concrete step: Let us make “trust-building” a measurable outcome in our partnerships—documented, resourced, and evaluated alongside financial and technical indicators. Because without trust, none of the six success factors can hold.
Thank you
