Why solidarity-based care matters in global governance
At a United Nations side event on building inclusive long-term care systems, Pakistan’s intervention highlighted a theme that is often overlooked in global policy debates: social solidarity as a governance principle rather than a charitable afterthought. By drawing attention to Türkiye’s 130-year-old Darülaceze model, the statement situated long-term care within a framework that blends state responsibility, community participation, and institutional continuity.
The choice of Darülaceze as a reference point was significant. Established in the late Ottoman period, the institution has endured political transitions, economic crises, and social transformation while continuing to provide care for the elderly, disabled, and vulnerable. Its longevity underscores an essential lesson for contemporary policymakers: sustainable care systems are not built through ad hoc relief measures but through embedded social institutions that outlast governments and funding cycles.
Solidarity as policy, not sentiment
Global discussions on long-term care frequently remain confined to technical questions financing, demographic ageing, or workforce shortages. The intervention shifted the focus toward solidarity as an organising principle of governance. Darülaceze was presented not merely as a welfare institution but as a model that integrates public authority with philanthropy and civic engagement. This integration challenges the binary that often dominates policy debates: either the state provides, or society fills the gap.
In many developing countries, social protection systems struggle due to fiscal constraints, administrative capacity, or political instability. Yet, as the statement implied, the absence of a comprehensive welfare state does not mean the absence of care. What matters is whether informal practices of giving and volunteering are institutionalised in a way that ensures accountability, continuity, and inclusion. Solidarity becomes meaningful when it is structured, not when it relies solely on individual goodwill.
Pakistan’s parallel experience
By referencing initiatives such as the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) and Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal, the statement drew a parallel between Türkiye’s historical model and Pakistan’s contemporary social protection efforts. These programmes represent attempts to institutionalise redistribution and social assistance within a state framework, even amid economic and political pressures.
At the same time, Pakistan’s strong tradition of philanthropy exemplified by organisations like the Edhi Foundation illustrates how non-state actors often compensate for governance gaps. The key policy insight lies not in celebrating charity but in recognising its limits. Without integration into broader state systems, philanthropic efforts risk becoming fragmented, uneven, and dependent on personalities rather than institutions.
The intervention implicitly argued that the strength of Pakistan’s social fabric lies in this dual structure: formal programmes backed by the state and an entrenched culture of volunteerism and private-sector social responsibility.
Beyond national models
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the statement was its call to elevate solidarity-based care models to the global policy level. Long-term care is increasingly treated as a national concern, shaped by domestic demographics and fiscal capacity. Yet ageing populations, displacement, and post-conflict vulnerabilities are global phenomena that demand shared learning and cooperation.
The emphasis on South-South cooperation reflects a growing recognition that solutions developed in the Global South are often better suited to similar socio-economic contexts than those imported from high-income countries. Models like Darülaceze, or Pakistan’s hybrid welfare-philanthropy framework, offer lessons in resilience, adaptability, and cultural legitimacy, qualities that technocratic blueprints often lack.
Rethinking global care governance
What emerges from this intervention is a broader critique of how care is conceptualised in international policymaking. Too often, long-term care is framed as a future problem, to be addressed once economic growth allows. The solidarity-based approach challenges this assumption by asserting that care is not a luxury of development but a foundation of social stability.
Embedding care within governance structures also has political implications. It strengthens state legitimacy, reinforces social cohesion, and mitigates inequalities that fuel unrest. In fragile and developing states, investing in inclusive care systems may be as consequential as investments in infrastructure or security.
The message, ultimately, was clear: durable care systems are built where the state recognises its responsibility, society organises its compassion, and global platforms allow these experiences to inform collective policy. In an era of demographic change and social fragmentation, solidarity is not merely ethical it is strategic.
Darülaceze and Global Care: Pakistan’s Call for Inclusive Social Protection at UN
Why solidarity-based care matters in global governance
At a United Nations side event on building inclusive long-term care systems, Pakistan’s intervention highlighted a theme that is often overlooked in global policy debates: social solidarity as a governance principle rather than a charitable afterthought. By drawing attention to Türkiye’s 130-year-old Darülaceze model, the statement situated long-term care within a framework that blends state responsibility, community participation, and institutional continuity.
The choice of Darülaceze as a reference point was significant. Established in the late Ottoman period, the institution has endured political transitions, economic crises, and social transformation while continuing to provide care for the elderly, disabled, and vulnerable. Its longevity underscores an essential lesson for contemporary policymakers: sustainable care systems are not built through ad hoc relief measures but through embedded social institutions that outlast governments and funding cycles.
Solidarity as policy, not sentiment
Global discussions on long-term care frequently remain confined to technical questions financing, demographic ageing, or workforce shortages. The intervention shifted the focus toward solidarity as an organising principle of governance. Darülaceze was presented not merely as a welfare institution but as a model that integrates public authority with philanthropy and civic engagement. This integration challenges the binary that often dominates policy debates: either the state provides, or society fills the gap.
In many developing countries, social protection systems struggle due to fiscal constraints, administrative capacity, or political instability. Yet, as the statement implied, the absence of a comprehensive welfare state does not mean the absence of care. What matters is whether informal practices of giving and volunteering are institutionalised in a way that ensures accountability, continuity, and inclusion. Solidarity becomes meaningful when it is structured, not when it relies solely on individual goodwill.
Pakistan’s parallel experience
By referencing initiatives such as the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) and Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal, the statement drew a parallel between Türkiye’s historical model and Pakistan’s contemporary social protection efforts. These programmes represent attempts to institutionalise redistribution and social assistance within a state framework, even amid economic and political pressures.
At the same time, Pakistan’s strong tradition of philanthropy exemplified by organisations like the Edhi Foundation illustrates how non-state actors often compensate for governance gaps. The key policy insight lies not in celebrating charity but in recognising its limits. Without integration into broader state systems, philanthropic efforts risk becoming fragmented, uneven, and dependent on personalities rather than institutions.
The intervention implicitly argued that the strength of Pakistan’s social fabric lies in this dual structure: formal programmes backed by the state and an entrenched culture of volunteerism and private-sector social responsibility.
Beyond national models
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the statement was its call to elevate solidarity-based care models to the global policy level. Long-term care is increasingly treated as a national concern, shaped by domestic demographics and fiscal capacity. Yet ageing populations, displacement, and post-conflict vulnerabilities are global phenomena that demand shared learning and cooperation.
The emphasis on South-South cooperation reflects a growing recognition that solutions developed in the Global South are often better suited to similar socio-economic contexts than those imported from high-income countries. Models like Darülaceze, or Pakistan’s hybrid welfare-philanthropy framework, offer lessons in resilience, adaptability, and cultural legitimacy, qualities that technocratic blueprints often lack.
Rethinking global care governance
What emerges from this intervention is a broader critique of how care is conceptualised in international policymaking. Too often, long-term care is framed as a future problem, to be addressed once economic growth allows. The solidarity-based approach challenges this assumption by asserting that care is not a luxury of development but a foundation of social stability.
Embedding care within governance structures also has political implications. It strengthens state legitimacy, reinforces social cohesion, and mitigates inequalities that fuel unrest. In fragile and developing states, investing in inclusive care systems may be as consequential as investments in infrastructure or security.
The message, ultimately, was clear: durable care systems are built where the state recognises its responsibility, society organises its compassion, and global platforms allow these experiences to inform collective policy. In an era of demographic change and social fragmentation, solidarity is not merely ethical it is strategic.
Latest Post