More Aid Issues

Yesterday's post on whether aid really aids generated a little discussion, or rather the link to it on Facebook did. So I'm doing a brief follow-up for those of you who don't see that link.

First, there's a whole area of study in this area, and I'm no expert, but one gets to hear and read stuff, and some of it raises some concerns. One story that sticks with me, also from the blog I quoted yesterday, is this:

I vividly remember Claire Short visiting our Dfid offices in Dar es Salaam in 2000 and haranguing a young Oxford graduate for still having 5 million in the bank when it should already have been spent in the Tanzanian education sector.
‘I haven’t been able to get hold of the minister’ the graduate complained.
‘Don’t give me excuses!’ she shouted, ‘give me results! That money should not still be in the account, get on with it! It’s a disgrace!’

Some aid money has to be spent, whether the appropriate checks and balances have been put in place or not. And that, obviously, is a problem. Targets of course are good things, but they can cause problems! It can create the problem of needing to be seen to be helping, more than needing to help.

A couple of other issues came up. With permission, I'm using some words from a friend, who has some experience in the world of aid:

Having such a wide range of activities covered under the one word "aid" is tricky because in challenging some of the shocking failings in one area anything else positive gets discredited - baby with the bath water stuff. While there are problems with the system of aid, there are also pressing problems in the world that require solutions, solutions that will likely be imperfect. All too often the critics of aid (generally without specifying details, it's great that this lady is specific) don't offer positive solutions, which is a shame. And while I am completely committed to trade as a solution, simply trotting off the cliched "trade not aid" line is does not count as a solution, it is massively over simplified. From my experience attempts at trade solutions are open to similar abuses and corruption as the aid solutions they are trying to replace. It seems to me that, as you say, so much comes down to trust and relationship. Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised at the priority of relationship over process given its centrality in the trinity...

So, yes, often it doesn't work, but let's not throw that baby...

Another issue that came up was the use of images designed to maximize the portrayal of suffering, when raising money. A link was provided to a very interesting blog entry where the author had asked friends in Malawi to pose for the camera both as doing well, and as destitute. Take a look. Here's how it starts:

We’ve all seen it: the photo of a teary-eyed African child, dressed in rags, smothered in flies, with a look of desperation that the caption all too readily points out. Some organization has made a poster that tells you about the realities of poverty, what they are doing about it, and how your donation will change things.

I reacted very strongly to these kinds of photos when I returned from Africa in 2008. I compared these photos to my own memories of Malawian friends and felt lied to. How had these photos failed so spectacularly to capture the intelligence, the laughter, the resilience, and the capabilities of so many incredible people?

The truth is that the development sector, just like any other business, needs revenue to survive. Too frequently, this quest for funding uses these kind of dehumanizing images to draw pity, charity, and eventually donations from a largely unsuspecting public. I found it outrageous that such an incomplete and often inaccurate story was being so widely perpetuated by the organizations on the ground – the very ones with the ability and the responsibility to communicate the realities of rural Africa accurately.

Carry on reading! Turning Point, who I linked to yesterday, will only use positive images of the children they work with. Good for them! Let's never forget that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity.

Does Aid Really Aid?

I can't really answer the question, but have just read an impassioned piece on a blog,

New UK Government - Please, please DO cut overseas aid!!!which sees most aid money as wasted, or even sometimes doing more harm that good. It's worth reading, whether you agree or not. Here's the opening paragraph:

I may not be best placed to say this, as an expat wife living in Africa - but when I hear on the radio that the new UK Government have pledged NOT to cut foreign aid to developing countries, but instead will look to make cuts in other areas of public spending (IE nurses pay), my blood boils. In fact, absolutely HUGE cuts can be made in development budgets. After eleven years of living around here, I know that the sheer waste in this area makes you want to cry.

It's a subject that African Expat Wife (who seems to live in the same part of Nairobi as us, in Karen) has dealt with before, in fact more than once. And it's not an indictment of all attempts to help. She lists Turning Point Trustamong her favourite Kenyan charities (and I'd agree). It seems to be the big money, and the lack of local knowledge, that are the problems. [By the way, the links are triggering a new line for me - I'm not sure why]

In our daily lives here, the issue of who to help and when can be quite complicated. It turns out that we are more likely to help people we know and trust - not very surprising really. Being caught between wanting to be generous, and being scared of building dependency (or being conned) probably means we're not very consistent.

Overcoming Barriers for African export

I've just read an interesting article in the Economist about the challenges faced by the only African coffee company to export processed coffee to the UK. Here's a paragraph:

'Although Mr Rugasira pins part of the blame for his struggles on trade barriers against African products, he reserves much of his criticism for outdated attitudes to Africa in the West. When he first started pitching Good African coffee in Britain he ran into “50 years of prejudice”. His firm was founded in Uganda, which meant that when Mr Rugasira turned up at meetings “people were expecting Idi Amin”. People also “assumed we were trying a scam; assumed I was looking for handout; couldn’t believe there could be value added in Africa,” he recalls. “No one makes any distinction between older generations of African businessmen and the new generation.'

Africa makes great coffee. Java and Dormans are two good Kenyan brands. It's a shame that other African coffee producers haven't been able to break into the UK market yet. Let's hope that changes, and that any prejudices against this won't continue.

Writing about someone else's country

This blog is, as the name suggests, primarily about living in Kenya. And I'm not Kenyan. That's not bad, because often the outsider can notice things the insider doesn't (the converse also applies). But it can also go badly wrong, in that any negative comment, or any comment that can appear to be negative, can be taken as evidence that writer looks down on, is contemptuous of, Kenya (or Kenyans). And being from the ex-colonial power, it might not be too hard for someone to believe I'm working from a colonial mentality. And believe me, that's not my goal. Like anywhere, good stuff happens here, as well as bad stuff.

The main problem for this blog is that it makes me less willing to tackle issues where I might like to say something, for fear of offending Kenyans. Just thought I'd let you know!

Why I love Kenyan English ('Hellos everyone')

Lucy Oriang' starts a rather good piece in today's Nation with these words:

"Archbishop Tutu is on record as saying that the truth hurts. If that is so, it has started paining rather too soon for the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission – and those who want to see this nation heal in their lifetime."

Notice anything Kenyan, not standard British or American English? The verb 'to pain'. It's not in my active vocabulary, but everyone here uses it - even my children. And why not? Each country that uses English has its own form, its own flavour, and 'paining' is part of what I think of as Standard Kenyan English.

When I suggest to my students that there might be such a thing as Standard Kenyan English (hey, let's call it SKE.. or KSE?), they generally look very dubious. While Kenyan English has yet to make it into Microsoft's list of valid varieties, which, last time I looked, included Zimbabwean and South African, I don't think Microsoft should be the arbiter of what's standard and what isn't (though often they are judged to be: realize is just as good as realise in British English, but not according to Microsoft). Kembo-Sure of Moi University argues more strongly for SKE in African Voices (co-authored by Vic Webb).

Expressions such as 'to pain', 'wananchi' (= people, as in the common people, from Swahili), and other Swahili-derived expressions such as 'fundi' (artisan), are used on TV news, in the newspapers, by people with degrees, many of whom speak better English than anything else. My first instinct soon after arriving here when finding such words in assignments was to 'correct' them, but I no longer do so - their use is only proper in Kenyan English. Also, the years of the last decade are uniformly said (even by the president) as 2-0-7, a usage which seems to be common around Africa - a Finnish colleague, just to test the usage, deliberately said 2-0-0-7 to a South African sommelier, who laughed. And some things are pronounced differently: it's a 'sack-red' ibis, not a 'sake-red' one.

And some expressions have different meanings. Soon after arriving here I passed by some people I vaguely knew carrying a heavy load. Would they like a lift? 'It's OK' came the reply. So I drove on. Woops! 'It's OK' here (and in other parts of Africa like Sierra Leone) means 'Yes', not 'I'm fine'. I've told this story to Kenyans a few times, who found it hilarious. I doubt the people I left behind felt the same way.

And then there are the common expressions which you won't find in the newspapers, but which many people use. When greeting more than one person, say 'Hellos', or 'Good Mornings', or 'How are Yous?'. Probably not SKE, but non-standard, while being very friendly. I really enjoy using these expressions. How about yous?

Of Leopards and Mosquitoes

My second blog entry discussed the dangers of sharks and elephants, so now it's time for another couple of topical tropical beasties.

Much excitement was caused in our little neighbourhood this week by the sighting (but I don't know who by) of a leopard ('lay-oh-pad') a few nights ago. Tracks were found and identified by... someone. Our househelp, who lives a short walk away, was woken in the middle of the night by 'what sounded like a person' on the roof. Her neighbour poked a stick under her door, trying to shoo away what she thought was a dog, being barked at by other dogs. She wondered why the 'dog' didn't move on, but thankfully didn't open her door. The following evening our househelp wanted accompanying home after babysitting for us - a first. I braved the four-minute walk back home on my own. But I did check around while heading back, I have to admit. I've not heard anything about that beastie for the last few days, so it's probably moved on to another part of Karen... Interestingly, the Kenya Wildlife Service said they had to deal with a lion in Ngong first - a much more frightening feline.

And then today I ended up taking a little kid with a fever to a clinic. Later on his dad popped by, and told me the little one had malaria. And they'd not been anywhere, so this was quite a surprise. People here often refer to a fever as 'malaria', just like people back home refer (annoyingly to my mind) to a cold as 'flu' (though not as 'influenza' - that sounds far too diagnosed). But dad's puzzlement showed that wasn't the case here. Real, live, malaria, caught here in Karen, at 1800 metres. It's not the first time this has happened, but it's rare enough not to think about taking prophylaxis, common enough to use a mosquito net. Though that's probably more because mozzie bites are a pain.

But which causes more worry, announcements, chatter? The leopard. Leopards don't attack people unless provoked. We walked within 5 metres of one, with the children, at Crater Lake. It was the leopard that ran away. Mozzies, and the malaria they can (most don't and can't) carry, aren't big and scary, don't cause panic, but are far more dangerous. Our oldest obviously doesn't really believe this, the number of times I find her asleep with the mozzie net up. It tends to be the things we don't fear that get us, not those that do.

Do elections matter?

The other night a friend commented that they weren't sure what difference it would make whether Labour or the Conservatives won the upcoming UK general election. My instinct was to disagree - I have what others might define as a tribal loyalty to the Labour party. I was a member for a couple of years, while in sixth form (and remember taking a girlfriend to a party meeting... hmm). It's the party that friends at home are active in, going as far as standing for parliament. But apart from that, I've not been active, beyond voting. In fact I voted Lib Dem in the last election, not being able to bring myself to vote for the particular Labour candidate, being one of a few hundred who could have been accused of 'letting the Tories in'. Maybe I'm not so tribal after all?

Well, there would be differences of course. But the Tories seem to have some difficulty in making clear what those differences would be, as if they're scared of offending anyone (on that score, they could always bring back Maggie and Norman Tebbit. Maybe not). Health and education have been Labour emphases, and in my humble opinion they've done a pretty good job. But I don't think a Conservative victory would bring great differences to most people's lives - it wouldn't stop Britain being Britain, the way it is to be a modern Brit. So actually, I found it difficult to disagree with my friend, and didn't - the point was valid.

Some people involved in politics might be aghast at what I've just agreed with. I'm not saying that the Tories' ideas and policies would be as good as Labour's. But I see that all the major political parties in the UK are led by people who generally believe in what they're saying, and, while they are not all necessarily people of the highest integrity, there's a real possibility that if they're not, they'll be found out, and end up in jail, like Geoffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken. Just deserts. The press and the courts can be good at holding these people accountable, as we've seen recently.

Any party that thinks it has a right to power, becomes too used to power, will move towards corruption. Maybe that's starting to happen with elements in the Labour party. Elections, while not always replacing a bad government with a better one, help to stop the rot. The British normally turn against a leader who seems too powerful, no matter what they've achieved. Witness Churchill's massive defeat at the polls in 1945. I think similar things happened with Thatcher and Blair, who were initially very popular.

More important than elections is the rule of law, but this is difficult to maintain if politicians think they are untouchable (and that tends to occur where there are no free elections), and can influence the courts [this seems to me to be the weak point in the otherwise commendable US constitution, with the highest judges being political appointments]. But here in Kenya, politicians seem to be above the law, and that only exacerbates the impunity on which corruption thrives. Sunny Bindra, my favourite Kenyan political commentator, has argued that political parties don't really exist here, just matatus, minivans of convenience for politicians to jump on and then jump down from. The alliances are temporary, not based on principles or values, but as vehicles for personal advancement.

At least we know what Labour, the Tories (and maybe even the LibDems) are meant to stand for, and choose, at least notionally, what we're voting for. Maybe the election won't make much difference, but the fact that it's there, that it's fought by groups that stand for something, that it means that judges can be secure in prosecuting politicians where necessary, makes a difference.

Sleeping through Gunfire, Waking up in Rain

It's been raining through the night, so I'm awake a little earlier than normal. The sound of the rain on the tin roof isn't exactly deafening, but it often wakes me up.

On Tuesday night however there was gunfire which woke two friends, living at least a kilometre apart. We slept right through - I don't think it was that close. I noticed in the morning that I'd forgotten to close one of our doors, with a reminder to self to check more carefully in future, reinforced when I heard about the gunfire. Funnily enough I still couldn't find out what had happened last night (with the gunfire - not the rain). Often bad news spreads very quickly.

A few months ago friends had robbers in the compound. When they got up, they realised that one of their doors was not only unlocked, but had been standing ajar all night. The robbers just hadn't noticed. I guess they were in a hurry.

Weakly constitutional

I'm no constitutional expert, but I wanted to follow up on my last posting here. In the meantime, Onesimus Online has written a thoughtful piece on wider issues of politics and faith, covering both the US and the issue of Kadhi courts here in Kenya. I don't think I'll do much more on this, but I'm still working out what I want to put on here. Ideas from one of my two readers appreciated...

Last week, various church leaders issued a press release dealing with barriers to their support to the proposed constitution. It's worthwhile seeing what they say:

CHAPTER ONE – SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE AND THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

Article 8 provides that “There shall be no state religion”. However, previous draft constitutions had two important principles: One, “That state and religion shall be separate”; and, Two, “That the state shall treat all religions equally”. These provisions were deleted mischievously to accommodate parochial and sectarian interests in the draft constitution. We propose that Art 8 be amended to read as follows:

8 (1) State and religion shall be separate.

(2) There shall be no State religion.

(3) The State shall treat all religions equally.

Overall this seem quite sensible, though the analysis of why the section was revised seems unnecessary, especially the word 'mischievously'. It fits fine in a blog such as this perhaps, but church leaders accusing the politicians of being mischievous in an open statement doesn't feel quite... well, right to me. Not very diplomatic perhaps. True though, but never mind about that. But whether the editing was mischievous, I'm just not sure.

Hang on a minute, though. I just checked the draft constitution, and it already says all that. Are we working from different texts here? Moving on to the Bill of Rights (there's also a problem with numbering)

CHAPTER FOUR – THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Article 24 (4) provides that the Provisions of the Bill of Rights shall not apply to persons who profess the Muslim religion. The Church believes that no person should be denied or exempted from the provisions of the Bill of Rights whatsoever. We propose that Art 24 (4) is deleted.

Well, I was horrified to learn that the Bill of Rights wouldn't apply to Muslims. But the text of the draft constitution doesn't say this. It says:

The provisions of this Chapter on equality shall be qualified to the extent strictly necessary for the application of Islamic law to persons who profess the Muslim faith in relation to personal status, marriage, divorce and inheritance.

That is somewhat different; the press release is (deliberately?) misrepresentative of what the draft says, whether one likes it or not.

Jumping over sections on right to life and religious liberty, we come back to the Kadhi courts. Here's what the press release says:

CHAPTER 10 - JUDICIARY

Art 169 (b) provides that subordinate courts include Kadhis Courts. This is unacceptable. If the Proposed Constitution shall contain any reference to Kadhis Courts, we shall REJECT the draft in total. To avoid another rejection of the draft constitution at the referendum, we propose that Art 169 (b) be deleted. Providing for Kadhis Courts alone in a multi-religious society is a recipe for chaos, is repugnant to justice. In the interest of justice for all Kenyans and in consideration of the need for the Kenya to get a new constitution, the Church extends an olive branch with regard to the Kadhis Court.

In this regard, we propose that a new Article 160 (3) and (4) be inserted to read as follows:

(3) The constitution shall recognize the jurisdiction of religious courts in matters relating to personal status, marriage, divorce and inheritance where all parties subscribe to the same religion and agree to submit to the jurisdiction of such courts.

(4) No state resources shall be used for the establishment or the operation of any religious courts.

Art 170 provides for the jurisdiction of the Kadhis Court. We propose that Art 170 is deleted.

So... there's an olive branch which says that they can have Kadhi courts after all, but just don't mention the word...? And what's more worrying is there seems now to be a desire to establish other religious courts, which is something that the NCCK a few weeks ago was specifically campaigning against. Bizarre. True, the text concerning Kadhi courts doesn't specifiy it's only for Muslims who want to be subject to them, which would be an improvement.

I don't have anything else to say. Again, if I've got something wrong, correct me. But there'll be no need to accuse me of being mischievous.

Constitutional disquiet

While politicians are trying to agree on a new constitution for Kenya, Christians, or at least their leaders, seem to have united against two proposals. A Christian myself, I have some feelings of disquiet about this unity (I hope I'm not promoting disunity here, but a lack of debate often covers up weak arguments) and about some of its direction.

The biggest issue seems to be the place of 'Kadhi' (ie Muslim) courts in the constitution. Now, of course, if they are to exist, mentioning them in a constitution is a good thing. I'm not a specialist on these things, but they exist at the moment, and govern matters of civil law within the Muslim community, but don't have power of enforcement. And they've been around in Kenya for a very long time - it must be over 1,000 years. The NCCK, quite a respectable institution, is very much against them being mentioned in the constitution, and a leaflet I was handed used some nice-sounding (as opposed to rabble-rousing) arguments against them - the constitution and the laws of Kenya should apply to all people, regardless of creed. Fair enough. But one can (or will be able to) also register one's marriage as monogamous, or polygamous (under traditional practices), and no-one seems to be getting very agitated about that. So what's the difference between Muslim family law courts, and family arrangements made under traditional (ie neither Christian nor Muslim) practice?

To be honest, this smacks of intolerance and/or antagonism towards Muslims, hardly being a case of 'loving one's enemies' (the argument here is not that Muslims are an enemy, but that even if they were, Christians should love them). This whole hullabaloo doesn't make Christians look very loving in Muslim (or liberal) eyes. Why not respect the right of other communities to do as they see fit, where it doesn't impinge on others' liberty (or on the liberty of members of their own communities who don't want to be part of it)? I don't know of any case (and I'm open to correction) where a Kadhi court could trump Kenyan law. Thankfully, the NCCK, and other bodies, have not expressed their concern in terms of Christian theocracy, which would not disquiet, but terrify, me. But I've heard individuals talk that way once or twice.

The other issue is abortion, which is illegal here. The churches want to go further and have a clause in the constitution saying that life begins at conception. I guess there's a perception that if it's not in the constitution, it's not a very important law, which seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what a constitution is. But now the die has been cast, and if this clause doesn't get into the constitution (don't count on it), it will look like a defeat for the anti-abortion cause. So it's hard to stand down on that. Woops. It could be an example of the churches shooting themselves in the foot, and looking like they're trying to impose certain views on the whole nation - focusing more on judgement than love. Does the church want to be an enforcer, or a liberator?

To end I'll paraphrase a Kenyan Christian friend's Facebook update, which said that he wished that Kenyan Christians would spend as much time and effort battling corruption as they did battling the Kadhi courts. Amen to that!