Dewesternising aid
In Africa, where its role is emblematic, international solidarity is
sometimes viewed with ambivalence: is it valuable support or cultural
domination?
by Léon Koungou
May 2013
Though Africa has been attracting international solidarity since the 1960s,
the work done, especially by non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
sometimes seems paternalistic. For example, the planning and implementation
of programmes aimed at fighting poverty or major pandemics often takes no
account of local realities and cultures. Yet African societies have
strengths and resources that could help make international action more
pertinent, and so more effective.
African institutions, starting with the African Union, follow the principle
set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration: “Those who suffer or
who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most” (
<
http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/16sup#nb1> 1). This vision echoes traditional
African values, which emphasise mutual aid and social cohesion in
communities. According to the Ivory Coast philosopher Tanella Boni,
solidarity is the opposite of individualism as defined by Alexis de
Tocqueville in the 19th century: it relies on a code of altruistic behaviour
and specific values, linked to local traditions (
<
http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/16sup#nb2> 2). Boni makes clear that “the use
of the word ‘solidarity’ is not restricted to a few experts on development
or initiates in some other field.”
Africa has always had associations — some more formal than others — whose
aim was to coordinate ordinary people’s efforts in the struggle against the
difficulties they faced. People are taught to believe that they owe
everything to a “family”, to whom they have a moral debt — for material
support, healthcare, agricultural cooperation, sharing of food resources,
and so on. The benefits they receive depend on the way of life in their own
particular community.
This approach is based on a past experience whose validity has been
confirmed repeatedly, regardless of social changes or the passage of time,
and which, in today’s Africa, can be seen in both rural and urban contexts.
It is part of a tradition, far removed from the short-term, neoliberal model
that circumscribes international solidarity. Boni says: “Observers who
imagine or think of relationships between human beings from different
backgrounds do not accept that those relationships are reciprocal. For
example, they see them in terms of ‘those who help’ and ‘those who are
helped’. Action in solidarity, in an imbalanced world order, is action that
places human beings on an equal footing, recognising the finiteness and
vulnerability of each, regardless of their different affiliations and
origins.Action in solidarity therefore takes into account a shared destiny,
and this can only happen when the idea of gratitude is accepted” (
<
http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/16sup#nb3> 3). International aid is necessary
largely because of the failings of the state (see
<
http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/14sup> Sweet sound of global philanthropy):
the less public authorities fulfil their basic missions, the more civil
society must do for itself.
Since the UN is ever more active in encouraging solidarity, NGOs could be
seen as the incarnation of a world order — as vectors for domination.
Sometimes they are accused of paternalistic or neo-colonialistic behaviour.
Take the French NGOs Médecins du Monde and Handicap International: neither
has produced a local association, and they act with total disregard for
local values and practices. Europe Aid (the European Commission’s framework
for the delivery of aid) already takes this into account in its calls for
proposals, by requiring NGOs to have a local partner.
The Red Cross system, by contrast, is trying to adapt. It is based first and
foremost on local resources. Each country has its own Red Cross or Red
Crescent society, which acts directly.
The projects undertaken by NGOs often illustrate the one-way traffic of the
western model of development. They are designed to “format” the societies
where they are implemented — for the most part fragile states with few
financial resources. In fact, international aid often bypasses the state,
preferring to have its projects implemented by NGOs. Moreover, NGOs promote
rapid democratisation and equal rights as conceived in the West, without
taking into account the values and history of local societies. In the 2000s,
the planning of some campaigns for the use of condoms as a way of combating
the HIV pandemic failed to involve village authorities and local
associations. The campaigns were badly received by rural populations, in
Cameroon for example. Humanitarian aid workers were reproducing a ready-made
biomedical model and exporting a model of relations between medical
professional and patient.
“Humanitarian relations tend to be ethnocentric,” explains former Médecins
du Monde chairman Pierre Micheletti. “They are also shaped by the complexity
of the aid being delivered and the notion of ‘victim’.”Within the framework
of emergency intervention, it is easy to make blunders. “Steeped in a
culture learned in western universities, medical teams intervene in a way
that does not always respect local medical professionals, or the people
being cared for’s own perceptions of health and sickness; there’s a
difference between what the SAMU [France’s emergency medical service] does
and the quasi-veterinary medicine that gets administered in these
catastrophe situations” ( <
http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/16sup#nb4> 4).
However, NGOs can contribute to the opening up of some authoritarian
regimes. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International talk where people are
silent, or forced to be silent. Recently the French Catholic Committee
Against Hunger and for Development (CCFD-Terre Solidaire) and Transparency
International have identified a link between the corruption of political
elites and growing poverty. Their recommended solutions are “good
governance” and democratisation. In reality, NGOs cannot by themselves solve
all the problems that cause them to intervene, problems that usually have
political causes. This is why they take an interest in public policies.
But trying to exert influence through political pleading can be seen as
interference. What NGOs say is often badly received by political elites,
because it forces them to face up to their duties. Kenya and Zimbabwe’s
leaders frequently talk of western plots against sovereign states; this is a
crude manoeuvre when it comes from authoritarian governments such as that of
Robert Mugabe. Even so, it is true that the international humanitarian
movement is dominated by western NGOs. This is because of the financial
resources at their disposal and media coverage of their work, but also
because the management of teams on the ground is regulated by strict
guidelines and roadmaps imposed by international organisations, especially
financial ones.
Solidarity seems to divide the world into those who feel a moral obligation
to intervene, and those who simply receive. But this perception no longer
corresponds to international realities, since we must take into account
local competencies, and especially the organisation of African civil
society. As Micheletti maintains ( <
http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/16sup#nb5>
5), the legitimacy and efficacy of international action depends on NGOs
taking local perceptions into account. Shouldn’t we de-westernise the
approach to international solidarity?
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Fri May 03 2013 - 20:50:00 EDT
