We must contemplate the moment of history we are in and together work out what it means for Amnesty International, human rights and civil society.

This is a time of worldwide turbulence; we are all experiencing it, whichever part of the world we come from.

Some of the most alarming examples include US President Trump’s brutal immigration policy and his detention of thousands of children. Then there is the election of President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil on an openly anti-rights platform. The spread of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim violence. The rise and rise of Matteo Salvini in Italy and his hateful policies towards refugees. Fresh terms for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey on religious nationalist platforms. The popularity of President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines after killing thousands under his so-called war on drugs. The mass detention and social control of Uyghurs in China on a vast scale.

I could go on; Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Bashar al-Assad in Syria and more. This is a time of global moral panic. The multitude of crises, the growing appeal of aggressive populist leaders — we can’t be complacent about a return to the conditions which allowed human rights to be created.

Inequality grows while our ability to reverse it is shrinking. The power differential grows and grows. Refugees, immigrants and others are already dehumanised and left to die on the fringes of the rich world, while our core value, that all human beings are equal members of one family, becomes increasingly contentious.

Technology is changing the rules of society, politics and economics everywhere. Elections are won or lost based on who owns and can best use the most data. That trend will only grow.

Be it for profit or social control, technology titans see every individual as data to be manipulated. Our notions of individual autonomy, our social contract with one another and the states we live in, all are coming under threat as we make ourselves ever more vulnerable to the opaque power of technology companies.

Climate change poses an imminent threat to the viability of our species; the price we are paying for centuries of ruthless exploitation of the planet.

People around the world sense all of this. We humans see how big, unassailable forces are changing the world rapidly and profoundly, and how powerless we are to confront it. We look for quick answers and people to blame.

The forces creating this turbulence are serious and are here to stay. Consequently, we’re not only seeing populism on a domestic level, but relations among states and big business are changing. Above all, the US’s waning commitment to a rules-based international order and its competition with China’s growing global role and the rapidly expanding Belt and Road Initiative will shape much of the world in the coming decades.

We face difficult choices about our focus in the next strategy because of the complexity facing us. How can we make a mark on the interlocking systems which enable and fuel injustice and our inhumanity towards one another? We can fight for small victories, but must also ask how do we take on the big challenges and systems of injustice that drive human rights violations.

We are under attack and becoming paralysed. The so-called shrinking civic space we face threatens three core freedoms critical for our survival: freedom of expression, assembly and association. Do we spend too much time struggling against one another because it’s easier than the struggle with the world beyond our boundaries?

At the last Global Assembly, I saw the slogan, “Amnesty International: fighting bad guys since 1961”. And one of our colleagues quipped that the slogan is incomplete. It should say, “fighting bad guys and each other since 1961”. During the 2019 Europe Regional Forum, I said that we deal with one another in the same way that we deal with the bad guys outside. Colm O’Gorman responded that it’s worse than that: we have protocols for treating our enemies on the outside!

I see three major challenges that have contributed to our own sense of being in a difficult moment.

First, our structural dysfunctionalities as a movement breed conflict and hold us back from being the best we can be. Right now, the idea of One Amnesty is little more than words.

Second, we have a serious trust deficit holding us back from working well together, empowering, supporting and collaborating with one another.

Third, given the onslaught against human rights in the world, we are not achieving enough – we see a mismatch between the change we want to make and the impact we are having. This frustrates us and disempowers us. But, this is not a time to lose hope, rather to take courage and imagine a stronger Amnesty.

Inspiration abounds in the world around us. The amazing creativity of protesters struggling against the might of China in Hong Kong. The boldness of those rising up in Sudan. The wildfire-like spread of women’s rights movements and the school climate strikes over the past two years. These are localised, self-driven movements united by a common purpose. They are pointing to the future of activism and social change in the world. As a nearly 60-year-old movement, we must look at them humbly, take inspiration from them, learn from them and ally with them.

The key question for us as a movement is quite simply this: What is Amnesty here for? To put it a different way, what is our purpose, our added value, our proposition for the world? That will define how we can make our mark positively in the world.

So, what does Amnesty bring? How do we take on the politics of demonisation? How do we make an impact on the interlocking patterns of inequality, climate change and technology that have pushed us into the situation we are in? Since the beginning of 2019, our movement has embarked on what has become the single largest listening exercise we have undertaken – with every national entity reaching out to staff, members, supporters and partners to find answers and ideas on the big questions we face together.

Throughout 2019, I have been reflecting on these big questions myself and would like to share with you some reflections based on all I have heard and seen over the past year. Let’s be clear: we are not ineffective and we are getting some important wins, as the Movement Impact Report highlights. But our ability to raise the political cost of human rights violations simply by exposing and naming them is receding. How can we become stronger, more effective?

The first question is about power and systemic change.

I believe we are genuinely doing too much. In a global movement such as ours, we need to find the right balance between global focus and local relevance.

We have been saying this for years, and we have never managed it. But let’s acknowledge the opportunity we have with our next strategy: what we need is not a scramble to throw in as many issues as possible. Rather we need a smart analysis that will help us to make the powerful interventions possible, that will have ripple effects across the world.

Our analysis of the world has to grapple with the sources of power – old and new – and the systems which drive abuse. We need an ambitious plan to tackle the big challenges, including the unholy trinity of inequality, technology and climate.

The second question is about shifting narratives and attitudes. We are in a global battle of ideas. It’s not simply a binary one between populists and liberals, but a time of global moral panic which demands global moral vision. We have a strong record of research which we have to strengthen and develop further, to truly influence the course of events in real-time.

The third question is around stronger movement and partnerships. We cannot ever be self-sufficient. No meaningful change happens without alliances and partnerships. We need to deeply enhance the quality of our partnerships with traditional and new allies, global and local.

Be it Human Rights Watch or the International Trade Union Confederation, a women’s rights movement or housing association, or a group of concerned employees within Google, let us extend the hand of partnership, guiding and letting ourselves be guided. A truly successful Amnesty movement will be one where self-organised activist groups can take action which is fully aligned with our mission, without any central prompting.

The fourth question is around diversity and inclusion, which is at its heart a question about power. On being bigger, bolder and more inclusive, part of how we grow bigger is by becoming more inclusive. We must recognise that we won’t be successful unless the composition of our movement reflects the societies we want to influence and change. Becoming more diverse and inclusive means being more welcoming, looking at how to welcome members who can’t afford membership fees.

It’s also about power within our movement. While I have been in deep listening mode, I have listened to the voices and the silences. How can we bring out the unspoken opinions in our movement, the voices of the unheard?

The fifth question concerns Amnesty’s added value. When we look at our growing global presence, the way we can connect the local to the global, our brand and reputation, our strengths in evidence-based research, our reach in advocacy, our activism DNA – the challenge is to ask how we can leverage these to greatest effect.

There are many questions for us – how we hold together a global framework and greater local autonomy; how we can all be accountable to and learn from one another; and how we can truly empower our supporters as change-makers.

All of this begins with clarity on what Amnesty is for, our vision as a movement. In the world around us, we see great injustice and great inhumanity. Humanity is the most precious global commodity, in terribly short supply today. So, it is appropriate that I share our freshly minted new brand: HUMANITY.

Our new brand was the outcome of a process of co-creation across the movement. In the youth survey the statement best believed to describe human rights was:

“Human rights are what connect us to all humans”. Human rights are about connections between humans, our solidarity with each other. What is Amnesty for, if not to stand with humanity?

There are four pillars we must build to attract people into this great movement.

First, making human rights relatable. Second, believing change is possible. Third, strength in unity. Fourth, appealing to the moral courage within each one of us to spark action. When we have the moral courage to stand up, speak out, listen to and support one another, we are unleashing humanity which can change us and change the world. DM

Kumi Naidoo is General Secretary of Amnesty International. This is a compression of his speech at the Amnesty International Global Gathering in Johannesburg this weekend.