Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Leon Kukkuk
"You cannot run away from a weakness. You must sometimes fight it out or perish; and if that
be so, why not now, and where you stand?"
Robert Louis Stevenson (Scottish author, 1850-1894)
Humanitarian assistance and development was subjected to yet another bout of introspection and
criticism with the publication in March 2005 of “Our Common Interest” the report of the
Commission for Africa. The report was commissioned by Tony Blair, ably, one presumes,
assisted by a number of influential people, mostly political leaders, public servants and private
sector representatives from Africa. It was their job to define the challenges facing Africa, and to
provide clear recommendations on how to support the changes needed to reduce poverty.
Sounds familiar?
Reports such as these, all with good intentions, appear about twice or thrice a decade. They all
say more or less the same things, all have a similar logic and all recognise the same weaknesses
and suggest comparable solutions. They are well thought out and often have powerful supporters
and support.
Why does Development not work? Thousands, perhaps millions of hours, had been spent by
many people, intelligent people, discussing this. Pressure on official development assistance
funds and greater demand for public accountability over the last few years have placed greater
focus on ensuring that Development achieves results, yet these pressures never seem to reach
down to the implementation level where they are the most needed.
Why not?
Perhaps the roots of a solution do not lie so much in what is discussed publicly, as it lies in that
which is alluded to constantly in private conversations, yet for some or other reason prohibited
1
Considering the extent of UN corruption that is now, with the Oil-for-Food scam, amongst others,
reluctantly, becoming public, perhaps it is time for this type of discussion to become more open
and direct.
And to realise that even this cannot not do much more than touch briefly upon the tip of the
belief.
How did Development, with all its incurable romantic allusions, its sense of moral superiority, its
utopian faith blended with undimmed eighteenth century idealism regarding the perfectibility of
man, become such an unmitigated embarrassment, the domain of all sorts of freeloaders,
And why is nobody even allowed to talk about it? Partly it must be because one cannot reduce
Nevertheless the first question vexed me for quite a while, until I started thinking, for no
particular reason, about that other great failed human experiment: Communism.
It was in the failure of this system that I saw the similarities with Development assistance as a
human endeavour.
The Commission for Africa report suggests that; “When you are stuck with a really tough
problem, Albert Einstein once said, you have to change your mental approach entirely. More of
the same will not get you anywhere. You have to move your thinking to a different level. The
same is true when it comes to Africa, and the question of how the world is to finance the changes
that are required. The problems we are addressing are huge. They are the result of three decades
of stagnation. To agree a few more incremental steps along the road already travelled will get us
2
Three main entities are mentioned by this report; National Governments, Donors and some
vague thing called the International Community. Weaknesses and shortcomings in the first two
are identified. Donors come in for special criticism when they are told to “change their behaviour
and support the national priorities of African governments rather than allowing their own
procedures and special enthusiasms to undermine the building of a country’s own capacity.”
African Governments are chastised for not being transparent enough, not accountable and not
responsive to the needs of its people, in other words that they are not democratic or that their
democracies are too weak. By the way, and this is a bit of an aside, it is ordinary people that
What the International Community could be is not specifically defined (it will be somewhat
Organisations (INGO´s) for the purpose of this argument. Bob Geldof, Bono and Angelina Jolie
may well be dismayed to find themselves excluded but they form part of a rather separate
argument.), neither is it subject to much criticism apart from the very brief “and the UN must
increase accountability for its performance at the country level” stuck in as an afterthought near
And it is exactly at the level of the UN - not much more than a hornet’s nest of ignorance, sloth
labyrinth accountable to no one - where one finds the bottleneck that is the cause of much of the
What is of importance is also not so much these entities - National Governments, Donors and the
International Community - and their respective weaknesses by themselves, but the way that they
interact with one another. And it is here that the closest analogy can be found with Communism.
Communism in its purest form is characterised by its level of central planning and the major
difference with a free-market system is the extent to which the economy functions as a
3
competition for resources instead of for market share. The most important priority for industry
then becomes access to the central planners, those who can provide them with access to the
resources they require. The customer in effect becomes an afterthought, often irrelevant and even
a nuisance. It is the customer, ostensibly the rhyme and reason for economic activity, which pays
the price in poor quality consumer goods, shortages and a reduced standard of living. The prime
example of this topsy-turvy world is probably the ubiquitous “Five Year Plan.”
These famous five year plans were introduced by Stalin in 1928 to force the pace of
industrialization and build the backbone of the Soviet economy. This enshrinement of a
centralised plan was probably quite well suited to the rapid transformation of a backward but
emerging state into a superpower. Although it ensured rapid growth, exacting heavy sacrifices
from Soviet citizens in the process, it hardly led to the clockwork functioning of the economy. In
the long run it spawned rigidity, waste and lopsided development and proved hopelessly
inadequate for resolving the more sophisticated problems of modernisation which caused the
By the same token, and twenty years after central planning has been discredited, the
Development Goals,” “Vision 2020” to mention but a few - faultless blueprints that would
invariably solve all problems.1 All programmes and projects are always based on a Plan, a plan
government, and always in line with priorities and deadlines defined by a donor.
The Plan is then proffered as the key to scientific management of manpower and resources, the
unerring lever for achieving maximum results, the Utopian device for the co-ordinated function
of a system ostensibly to solve some of the world’s most intractable challenges. The Plan
becomes the fundamental law, one of the most incessant incantations of the Development world.
1
Yet this does not prevent the Commission for Africa report to predict that “the Millennium Development Goals
will perish as yet another pious aspiration.”
4
Publicly, the Plan is treated with almost mystical veneration, as if endowed with some
superhuman faculty for raising mortal endeavour to a higher plane, freed from human weakness.
And with the Plan comes all the weaknesses associated with Communism; their Central Planning
and “Five Year Plans.” A co-ordinated plan, and a central financing procedure, is perhaps not
such a bad idea for responding to emergencies, man-made and natural, but as a mechanism for
responding to the far more complex, long term demands for sustainable development it is
hopelessly inadequate, spawning, as in the case with Communism, rigidity, waste and lopsided
development.
With variations and embellishments programmes and projects follow the same trajectory with
Arbitrarily defined goals and outputs are followed religiously, pursuing equally arbitrarily
defined deadlines, in spite of the reality, often in the face of changing circumstances and more
often than not bulldozing over any comments, and even complaints, that beneficiaries and local
In a village of fewer than three hundred people, only periodically accessible by road, three
schools are being built by three different organisations, each complying uncritically with the
demands of their respective Plans, to build twenty-five or fifty schools (these are always nice
round numbers). The fact that, in addition to the lack of possible pupils, there would also be no
desks, books or even teachers is not considered; it is not in the Plan. The representative of one
organisation, upon hearing that a non-descript building in the same village had once been used a
school, becomes ecstatic with the possibility that this can also now be rehabilitated. In addition
to having to build schools, his Plan also requires him to rehabilitate a number (always a nice
round number) of schools. Where they should be and how all of this must fit into the educational
policy and priorities of a government is not stipulated in the Plan, therefore irrelevant. His only
5
priority is to meet his targets. These targets develop an iron logic all its own, totally divorced
In addition, the chronic problems that bedevil all projects in spite of planning is staggering,
protracted bickering over priorities within and between different organisations, on all levels,
means that even if work do proceed swiftly, and has at least some relevance, the price is paid in
quality.
Projects can be self-defeating in ironic little ways. An eighteen month Water and Sanitation
Project worth €1.8 million has no expenses for nine months but the recruitment and subsequent
dismissal of a series of engineers. They are being dismissed because their recommendations run
counter to the irrational demands of the Project Director, a fully qualified Graphic Artist, to save
money for the donor. With no scientific training, and negligible relevant experience, combined
with a total disregard for local people, her recommendations fall well within the realms of the
absurd. Criticism and suggestions for improvement are countered by intimidation, humiliation
and serial dismissals. Towards the end of the project this farce reaches its climax in an orgy of
hasty, ill-conceived, “money saving” construction that succeeds only in depriving communities
from access to water. Everything is done for the benefit of the donor, thousands of kilometres
The only thing donors know from all of this, are their brief visits to elaborately staged “Opening
Ceremonies,” to water systems that deprive people from water; hospitals without equipment,
beds or doctors; clinics with no nurses or medicine; schools without teachers; micro-credit funds
that function as pyramid schemes and loan-sharking operations; all hidden behind glossy reports
that wax eloquent about successes but fail to stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. This
fanfare is often only a way of whipping up fervour and projecting prestige in order to be able to
6
Behind all of it lies a level of deceit that is obscene. From the distance at which donors view
things everything can appear fine and nobody of any importance or relevance are ever allowed
up close to where all this frantic activity reveals itself to be but window dressing. Projects belong
to no-one, not to donors, or governments, or beneficiaries, and certainly not to the organisations
Constant haggling and hassling over targets and objectives, short-changing, phoney figures and
systematic deception exist on all levels. Cover-ups are the order of the day.
At the Danish Refugee Council in Angola, from whose amateurish and inept fiascos the above
examples are taken, the most persistent mantra happened to be that “We do not lie to the donor.”
What they meant by this in fact, was that under no circumstances whatsoever would they report
anything other than outstanding success in any of their endeavours, even if this required them to
systematically lie and misrepresent themselves and what they are doing. Likewise, persistent
claims that they had excellent relations with their main donor, DANIDA, did not mean that these
relations were based on open and honest discussions on their activities, discussions to adapt
unintended, negative consequences or any other signs of the give and take normally associated
with good relations between any two entities. What it meant was simply that they could get away
with any degree of deceit without any sanction whatsoever from the donor. For the Danish
Refugee Council, any notion of accountability and answerability began and ended with the donor.
This organisation is singled out simply because I have some experience of them, and thus the
documentation to substantiate these claims, not because they are in any way fundamentally
has to pretend that all is well. And then the money keeps on flowing.
7
It is all a pose but true to this intellectual environment everybody seems oblivious to the
disquieting reality or the implications of their inability as they spout catechisms of optimism
“The government hears only its own voice while all the time deceiving itself, affecting to hear
the voice of the people while also demanding that they support the pretence,” said Karl Marx in
1842. In his time there were no NGO´s and no UN, but undoubtedly he would have been able to
recognise this not only in the largely undemocratic governments of his time, but also the
Many of these organisations, quite properly, have taken it upon themselves to chastise us for
being wasteful of consumer items with built-in obsolescence and for squandering natural
resources, the environment and energy. But even the most wasteful society is not as bad as the
Development industry of people and ideas; which stifle not only critics but anybody with an urge
to improve the system, able managers, researchers and technicians, whose ideas are regularly
aborted or stillborn because the system so rigidly resists originality. The deep suspicion, the
overreaction and narrow escapes from drastic actions to things trivial, quietens any possible
dissenting voices; it is just too dangerous to speak out. Thousands of ordinary, dedicated people
that do work hard, often with no outside funding, to make meaningful differences in their
communities - people who experiment, evaluate, learn and improve - are frequently ignored,
their efforts sidelined and often destroyed to make space for an International Organisation.
The top-down structure is essentially to blame, but not all bottlenecks can be blamed on the
system. The Commission for Africa is not far wrong in its assessment that “African voices often
fail to be heard within the development sector, including in international processes. This is partly
due to an arrogance that expert outsiders or domestic elites ‘know best’ and partly due to
institutional pressures for quick, consensual and anticipated results,” but fails to delve deeply
8
The Plan is certainly the brake on its own growth and the donor driven agenda may explain why
allocating aid to African countries remains “haphazard, uncoordinated and unfocused, why
donors continue to commit errors that, at best, reduce the effectiveness of aid, and at worst,
undermine the long-term development prospects of those they are supposed to be helping. It may
explain why rich countries pursue their own fixations and fads, often ignoring the needs
prioritised by African governments and why the amounts they give are so unpredictable. It may
explain why they are insufficiently flexible when it comes to reallocating aid to new priorities in
the face of a national emergency, or why they don’t respond quickly, or appropriately, when
natural or economic disasters strike, such as droughts or floods, unexpected hikes in oil prices or
What it cannot explain is the growth of a huge parasitic, criminal enterprise that has
demonstrated its willingness to misrepresent political, social and cultural facts for financial gain,
ignores charges of sexual abuse and harassment, even paedophilia within its ranks, turns a blind
eye to its own obvious and at times devastating failures and to participate in inexcusable fraud
and corruption.
The problem with this Development Enterprise is the fact that any organisation can mandate
itself to participate in it absolutely without merit and without any risk. (UN Agencies like to
claim that they are mandated by the General Assembly and accountable to this body, but that is
simply a roundabout way to say that they are accountable to nobody.) And not only can they
participate, almost entirely on their own terms, but they can compete against governments for
funds with a comparative advantage, not based on any real results from their past performance,
or representing anybody, but based purely on the perception of their integrity; a perception based
on and perpetuated entirely by their own reports and their own propaganda about themselves.
They operate almost entirely in an ethical vacuum of their own making, being legally and
9
morally accountable to absolutely nobody and functionally immune to any possibility of
prosecution.
Bizarrely there are now a huge number of public servants, none of whom are democratically
elected, making decisions and affecting policy for countries of which they themselves are not
even citizens.
Within the UN a widespread sense of impunity and the confidence of not having to face the
consequences of one’s actions, knowing that one can run from however much trouble one causes
in one country simply by being promoted to a position in another country, is so pervasive that an
entire generation of UN officials considers this sort of behaviour to be the most effective avenue
A Dane working for a French organisation funded by American money, based in Kenya and
running projects in Somalia or Sudan is effectively as outside of the law a Libyan, planting, in
Although the need for reform is recognised, it assumes that the International Community will
reform and regulate itself, and to perpetuate the pretence a whole plethora of self-regulating
organisations and coalitions have sprung up such as the “Humanitarian Accountability Project,”
“Sphere Project,” and the “One World Trust.” All of them make a lot of noise about
accountability, but none of them has ever pointed a finger at any of their members, nor do they
have any executive powers with which to oblige their members to follow their guidelines. All of
them are based in European capitals and run by Europeans. Since the 1950´s, the UN, for
example, has faced a constant barrage of management studies, policy reviews, reform proposals
True African voices, truly African investigations, local solutions based on local knowledge are
This mentality does not invite an adequate response to the challenges facing these organisations.
10
Furthermore, the very language used throughout their texts tends to be imposing, demanding and
intimidating in many ways. It often suggests there are consequences associated with a failure to
deliver the ideal outcomes as sought by donors. The language speaks for itself: “performance
review,” “consistency,” “goals,” “objectives,” “results and ‘performance indicators’ that meet
The result of being confronted with a rapid succession of such words is to create a language
suggestive of a parental relationship. The pressures to perform (as opposed to learn and grow) –
real or perceived – are considerable. It is not difficult to understand why – given this kind of
language – project staff might bend over backward to tell a donor what it wants to hear.
The result, I maintain, is to create a culture, not of mutual learning (and there is a lot to be learnt
from Africans), but rather to establish a relationship that is less than helpful to the improvement
of institutions and practices relevant to development assistance. In the real world of development
work, criteria and expectations that have currency in a donor’s context can be problematic amid
Development should be for people as much as about them and the institutions that are supposed
to serve them.
Yet nothing will be meaningfully reformed as long as those who are responsible for creating
these needs, whose mismanagement has resulted in the abuses so endemic within the system, are
also responsible for driving the reform process. They certainly do not support a thoughtful and
constructive reform process aimed at creating stronger and more effective institutions.
Throughout the Commission for Africa report the weaknesses of the International Community is
glossed over, ignored or it is assumed they will magnanimously sort themselves out.
The report assumes that the forces that create poverty, exclusion and injustice exist only in
governments, public policies and market institutions. They lie within the so-called International
Community as well. The large number of common deficiencies with the services provided by
11
this sector include: limited coverage; variable quality; amateurish approach; high staff turnover;
lack of effective management systems; poor cost effectiveness; lack of co-ordination; and poor
INGO´s and UNA´s have had a choice in the way they respond: they could acknowledge that it is
precisely in times like this that it is important for them to reset standards, that the only way to
have largely been ignoring calls to clean up their act; choosing instead to perpetuate the rather
unhelpful attitude that they are “superior.” They encourage us to think that their organisations
behave in ways that are inherently different from other kind of organisations, such as donors,
Yet all accountability mechanisms presume that the integrity of organisations is not protected by
good intention or by a heavenly gift, but are acquired by hard work, vigilance and respect for
good practices. Both governments and business function in an environment of risk; the risk of a
backlash by the population for failed policies, the risk of periodic elections, the risk of
prosecution and imprisonment for bad business practise and deceit, and especially the very
immediate risks of losing market share and legitimacy. Within the International Community no
INGO´s and UNA´s may be different from other organisations in some respects, but in many
others they operate in the same way, and are subject to the same universal human weaknesses
and temptations.
Because the Development Industry is now more powerful - certainly the sector considered as a
whole, but often as individual organisations in their own right - they should apply this reasoning
to their own behaviour. They should stop seeing themselves as fundamentally different from
other kinds of organisations, somehow cleaner and more immune to the diseases of power and
12
privilege. They should accept that they have similar responsibilities to report on their activities,
follow agreed principles of behaviour, and be accountable when they fall short. Even if their
motives are more idealistic, they are no less subject to human imperfection. These values may, in
certain instances help them to perform well; this does not mean that precautions against short-
sightedness, self-interest, temptation, even incompetence and irrelevance, are not necessary. On
the contrary, respect for the values that this sector represent requires, if anything, a higher sense
Although the analogy with Communism may well explain many of the weaknesses in the
Development Community, it falls dramatically short when trying to find solutions. The
weaknesses of Communism can be overcome by moving to a lesser or greater extent into free-
market systems. Nevertheless the strengths of the free-market system do not readily translate
itself into solutions in the development context. A free-market system in theory responds to the
demands of the market, in other words the consumer. One must also realise that economic
endeavour is perhaps the most important activity for the development of societies and for
individual fulfilment and that it is this very importance that provides the impetuous to make it
work. Also it generates much of its own resources with which to regulate and police itself. In the
areas where it fails to look after itself, the government is usually sufficiently motivated by the
importance of the economy for its own survival, to regulate - and finance the enforcement of
A plethora of gatekeepers and regulators keep watch – lawyers, auditors, commissioners; a wide
Conceded, things still go wrong; Multinational companies indulge in slave labour practices in
China and Indonesia; there is Enron, WorldCom and ImClone. Yet high level officers of the
economy loose their jobs, they do get prosecuted and sometimes even go to prison.
13
Even in Africa, where formal justice systems can be weak, the economy is based to a large extent
on cultural and social networks that are founded on reciprocity, trust, dependability and above all,
None of this can be usefully applied to the concept of Development assistance. In a sector that
diligently strives towards mediocrity and avoiding responsibility; pointed questions are rarely
asked of its leadership, no one has ever been prosecuted and a number of individuals that should
be in prison hide behind immunities they do not deserve and should not have.
supporting, reciprocal arrangements and benefits, where one person’s raw materials are another’s
end-product, where the line between consumers and producers is blurred, a complex self-
that things had gone wrong, and often had gone wrong dramatically; with donors, and their
priorities, at the one extreme, and beneficiaries, and their demands, at the other.
The Commission for Africa echoes many other voices in its constant repetition that “It is also
about delivery and results. These are powerfully strengthened when local communities are
It is a noble idea, one that would require the International Community and donors to respond to
the demands of their beneficiaries, in theory; “the People,” in practice; hundreds of thousands or
even millions of clamouring and disparate voices, largely the poor and disenfranchised, by
In line with our economic analogy it would also need to assume that beneficiaries of Aid, like
consumers who can choose whether or not to buy a product, can choose whether they accept Aid
or not, or from whom they are prepared to accept it. That would mean that different
organisations would need to compete with one another for a share of the beneficiary market, in
14
the same way that commercial enterprises do for customers. It is not certain that such a model
Yet another significant difference with the economy is that the customer is also the one with the
money. The beneficiary of any product or service in essence has absolute control over that
product or service through the very simple expedient of having the financial power to purchase it
or not.
Throughout the Commission for Africa report we are told “for accountability to be effective, a
government’s policies, actions and systems need to be open to scrutiny by its people. This
openness is not just a question of attitude; it has to be woven into the very systems through
Yet scrutiny by itself is meaningless, and without a significant change of the system, ordinary
people will remain helpless and only able to express its outrage at the situation.
The report states further that “Clearly, the responsibility for managing resources lies with the
state. But the international community also has a role to play in maintaining high standards of
governance. If it does so in its own activities – and demands it in the activities of private sector
agents, like the multinational companies active in developing countries – then it will be better
positioned to encourage similar high standards in the way African countries manage the cash
But in order for the International Community to play a role in running world affairs it must also
be able to run itself. It has emphatically shown that it is not able to do that.
Giving voice to people - and assuming that those that need assistance most are able to articulate
their needs and thus receives assistance instead of the International Community simply assisting
only those most able to articulate themselves - consistently run into the difficulty of who these
people can complain to. A government may be unresponsive but there always exist the
15
possibility of complaining in the international press and embarrassing the government;
government officials are known by their names; there are also demonstrations, strikes, passive
resistance, even revolutions and armed uprisings if necessary. Governments have nowhere to run
to, dictators may in some cases disappear to become ordinary citizens or fugitives in other
countries, but as a rule they tend to hang around and try to reach a compromise with their people.
Unreasonable civil servants can be replaced with more reasonable ones. Even dictatorial
governments know that power through fear is inherently unstable and strive to gain power by
Unfortunately much Development for all intents and purposes these days rests with a plethora of
NGO’s and United Nations Agencies over which weak and struggling governments in Africa
often have very little, if any, control. They are completely removed from ordinary people. They
can have a lot of power, but it is a strange sort of power based not on fear or consent or
legitimacy, but a power based on agreements made entirely amongst themselves and a power that
they can exercise on any number of different stages; invariably the most convenient stage at any
moment in time being the one where they cannot be held accountable. They have no connection
to people, no constituency but themselves, and an uncanny tendency to disappear when funds dry
up or when they had caused so much resentment through consistent failure and arrogance as to
make their further presence untenable (to then reappear somewhere else).
Many of the Commission for Africa recommendations sound excellent but have no possibility of
success under current practice. For example: “(I)mpact has been greatest where they integrate
with public health systems. African governments should enable community involvement to
Perhaps because the health sector provides such excellent opportunities for pretending to do any
work, and because it is a relatively simple activity that so obviously appears to be doing good,
there exist today several hundred so-called Emergency Health Organisations. The overwhelming
16
majority of them have absolutely no capacity to respond to any emergency and usually appear in
droves after an emergency2 (or even in places where there has never been an emergency) to
provide a haphazard, inconsistent, very expensive and very basic service just when a country
needs sustained, co-ordinated and cost effective effort to improve their health services.3 They
invariably stay for as long as they have funds; usually three to six months, sometimes up to a few
uneducated as to the needs of the people that they are supposed to serve it is inconceivable to
imagine any of them listening to the voices of anybody but themselves. The last thing that they
want is for their actions and systems to be open to scrutiny by people. These are the
quintessential vultures of the Humanitarian Aid world, arriving in that window of opportunity
after every emergency, when it is safe enough to operate and travel but before the emergency
funds have dried up or had been redirected to development (sometimes they manage to attract
some of these funds to only then work totally outside of their emergency mandates, and cause
even more harm). Invariably these organisations, as well as a number of disaster tourists, have
their eyes firmly fixed on the donor and are ardent followers of the “Plan,” the plan in this case
often being a project proposal written and submitted for funding months before they had even
arrived in a country.
Whatever people may have to say would be very unlikely to be included in the “Plan,” in other
words irrelevant to them. Even in the unlikely event that people could have the resources to
identify and track down the managers and leaders who make the decisions that affect their lives,
these individuals would in all likelihood be surprised and probably offended that “People” would
2 Emergency – A sudden condition or state of affairs calling for immediate action. In other words a war, a
flood or a tsunami, amongst others. AIDS, in spite of constant claims to the contrary, is not an emergency; it
is not a sudden condition and it does not call for immediate action but for sustained effort.
3
There can be up to a hundred such organisations in a single country.
17
For all the Commission for Africa’s urgent lamentations that the voices of people should be
heard, and as noble as this may appear, the sad fact is that the majority of decisions made on
behalf of people in the developing world are made, not by elected officials, but by the self-
disturbingly large segment of this management tends to be arrogant, contemptuous and racist.
Even a short visit to any African country by any concerned individual, quickly and amply
demonstrates the extent to which many international organisations are managed through fear,
humiliation and intimidation of local authorities, staff and beneficiaries. Drawing once again
from my experience with the Danish Refugee Council whose staff had for a number of years
raised a series of concerns over the way in which the organisation was mismanaged by the fully
qualified graphic artist and the abuse they suffered from her. Their concerns were supported and
echoed by the authorities, by beneficiaries and even by other NGO’s, local and international.
This organisation dealt with these complaints by heavy-handedly, and often brutally, threatening
staff, prompt (and illegal) dismissals sending a clear message that no criticism will be tolerated.
In the words of one local staff member: “We are barely considered as human beings, much less
as individuals who can think for ourselves and express an opinion. Whenever we do express
ourselves, this mere fact causes such offence within the management that any notion of redress
or response becomes out of the question. Their only reaction is immediate and severe
punishment.”
The last thing that managers and staff of many of these do-good organisations want is for the
“victims” in question to really end up making a contribution to whatever gets done in their name
- and, God forbid! - to cease to be victims. All that is really expected of them is to merely stand
around whilst foreigners erect meaningless structures all around them and screw up their water
supplies.
18
Even the new jargon of ‘rights-based programming’ simply lead to labelling poor and vulnerable
communities as essentially powerless victims or potential victims of crisis rather than as actors.
More and more studies are exposing organisations that are supposedly in charge of looking after
the poor and excluded but instead guilty of extensive violations of the rights of those dependent
upon them.
For far too long too many donors and leaders of both the developed and developing world were
content to allow this foolishness to continue, and to continue funding it. And it will only stop
when a sufficient number of concerned people, and organisations that do in fact represent the
aspirations of ordinary people, point to this collective ineptitude and insist to put an end to this
For all the emphasis that the report place on Democracy - an emphasis based no doubt on the
general regard and prestige that democracy enjoys (and in most instances deserve) – and the
consistent harping on accountability – a word threatened to loose any meaning unless it can
become associated with consequences – it should recognise that Democracy has its limitations.
Assistance in Development is inherently an un-democratic affair where people with money offer
to assist people that do not have any money. In such a scenario there will always be a stronger
It is our inability to move away from the notion of “charity” - and the arrogance that comes with
it - and closer to a notion of assistance and co-operation that lies to a very large extent at the root
of the problem.
Little good ever comes from charity. Historically, it is hard work that rescues the poor and
unfortunate from their plight, not charity. If the poor, the marginalised and the incapable ever do
have much success at looking after themselves, it will be largely to be through their own efforts,
and through the fact that they are fortunate enough to live in societies where they are entitled to
sell the results of their own efforts, however small the effort and however miserable the price.
19
The only important contribution made by the benevolence of richer people is that these have very,
very occasionally had the good sense and the decency to understand this elementary truth about
poverty and how to relieve it, instead of merely salving their unthinking consciences by throwing
If Development is the moral imperative of the developed world to assist the undeveloped world it
is the moral responsibility of the Development world to hold the agents that act on their behalf
legally responsible for their actions and to punish them if they do not act in morally responsible
way; in other words they should be held accountable. It is a management and leadership issue,
not a democratic one, and the structures required should be enforcement (investigating and
arresting wrongdoers), judicial (putting them on trail) and punitive (sending them to prison). If
African governments are to become more democratic and more accountable to their people as the
report urges, it is imperative that they be allowed the tools and the authority to monitor and,
when necessary, take steps against foreigners and International organisations spending other
peoples’ money on behalf of their citizens. A report that can suggest how this can be done would
be far more useful than the current one with its emphasis on truism and hyperbole.
This brings us to three specific aspects of the Commission for Africa report that should be
Under the heading “Delivering existing commitments, better international leadership and co-
ordination of aid” one hopes to start reading about many of the arguments elaborated above, alas,
only to discover that the authors of this report is simply using it as a ruse for asking for more
money and accusing “the international community (for) not coming up with the money to match
its promises.”
The report appears to be a bit vague, and contradictory, when talking about money. The authors
do not mention how much money they think is being spent currently on Development aid. Either
20
they do not know, as I do not myself know, or they are not saying, but they remain persistent, if
“we call for an additional US$25 billion per year in aid, to be implemented by 2010. Donor
countries should commit immediately to provide their fair share of this. Subject to a review of
progress then, there would be a second stage, with a further US$25 billion a year to be
implemented by 2015.”
“That is why we are suggesting a doubling of aid to Africa within the next three to five years.”
“The major programme of reform we have outlined – in governance, public investment and
“Aid to sub-Saharan Africa should increase by US$25 billion per annum over the next three to
five years.”
“Aid to sub-Saharan Africa should be doubled, that is, increased by US$25 billion per annum,
over the next three to five years to complement rising levels of domestic revenue arising from
growth and from better governance. Following a review of progress towards the end of this
period, a further US$25 billion per annum should be provided, building on changes in the quality
“Within these aid budgets, particularly in the context of a potential global increase in aid of
US$50 billion. . .”
Whatever one wants to make of all these statements, it is clear that the amount of money
currently being spent is not small - it should be in the order of US$30-40 billion per annum - and
the issue probably more appropriately discussed under the heading “Delivering existing
commitments, better international leadership and co-ordination of aid” should perhaps be why
More importantly it should be asked first how much money can be untied by making the system
more effective, instead - and definitely before - asking for yet more money.
21
It is not unrealistic to believe that up to 80% of current funds are lost because of unaccountable
budgetary processes that prevent the people of Africa to see how money is raised and where it is
going, the lack of the kind of transparency that can help combat corruption; money and assets
stolen from the people of Africa by corrupt leaders and managers that must be repatriated. It is
widely known, although one is not allowed to admit it, that money given to any United Nations
percentage could probably be found in the bank accounts of UN officials should the Commission
for Africa’s recommendation of “Foreign banks must be obliged by law to inform on suspicious
accounts” be followed up. Simply releasing the funds currently lost or misspent in misguided
effort would provide more than sufficient funds to kick-start the development of Africa.
For an industry that has failed so spectacularly, in spite of receiving such large amounts of
money, it is remarkably naïve, not to say arrogant, to ask for even more money. And if
development aid is to start providing results, as the report promises, the amount of aid needed
over time should become less and less and not more and more as the report is requesting.
In spite of the inconsistencies in the report’s lament that more money should be given; it is when
this report starts to offer suggestions as to where this money should come from that they seem to
Granted it does suggest that to “provide the critical mass of aid . . ., the aid should be front-
loaded through the immediate implementation of the International Finance Facility,” perhaps not
such a bad idea in principle and one that could be discussed further. Yet the report does not
elaborate on this idea, harping rather on the notion that “Rich nations should commit to a
timetable for giving 0.7 per cent of their annual income in aid.”
It then goes further to say that “Several nations have recently committed themselves to reaching
the UN target of giving 0.7 per cent of their national income in aid. Other G8 and EU nations
should now follow this example and announce timetables for reaching the 0.7 percent target.”
22
It is important to note that the United States, perhaps by far the largest provider in absolute terms
only about 0.1 percent of their Gross National Income, the G8 on average only 0.3 percent with
only five countries, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden having reached
the target by 2003. Recently, Finland, Spain, the UK, France and Belgium had announced
timetables to reach this target. America refuses to try and reach this target; preferring to
concentrate rather, with high level support from Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on the
improvement in the quality of aid. Unfortunately, even in this instance, improvement in the
Quality of aid is intimately linked to American Foreign Policy and almost totally divorced from
This magic number of 0.7 percent is something recommended by the Pearson Commission in
1970. I must admit that I had never read the report of this commission, at the time my reading
was limited to Noddy books, and do not know the reasoning behind this particular percentage.
But just to put this into context; the report was written before the 1973 oil crisis, before the
Nixon-Brezhnev ‘Détente’; a decade before Gorbachov’s ‘Glasnost’ and the Ethiopian famine;
almost two decades before the collapse of Communism, three decades before 9/11.
It is remarkable that the only justification that the Commission for Africa, in spite of their
supposed influence, can come up with is a recommendation made by a report written thirty-five
years ago.
That is clearly not good enough but not nearly as frightening as an alternative suggestion hidden
in a few afterthoughts and asides scattered throughout the report. The report suggests
legitimately that “A number of other innovative proposals have been suggested to help address
the funding gap. Further work should be undertaken to come up with specific practical
proposals,” but then goes further with “Practical proposals should be developed for innovative
financing methods such as international levies on aviation, which can help secure funding for the
23
medium and longer term” and “An additional and complementary approach is to raise finance
through international taxes, levies or lotteries. One example would be a voluntary levy on airline
This is a continuation of a notion from Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the early 1990’s to give the UN
The idea then was to raise taxies by charging for shipping lanes or a small percentage of
speculative transactions that would raise the UN income to potentially hundreds of billions of
Dollars. Other ways of raising additional funds for the UN that have come up in the past include
levies on arms sales, transnational currency transactions, international trade (or sectors of it, such
as polluting materials, mineral raw commodities), and international air or sea travel, an annual
“United Nations Communications Day” with levies on all postage charges and telephone calls
accruing to the UN, and an annual UN lottery. Zealous and misguided supporters of the United
Nations are simply trying to give the organization powers it does not need and should not have.
They assert that imposing a global tax on “speculative” currency transactions is an idea that
deserves consideration. Such “speculative” transactions, a term that is not defined, could easily
net some $150 billion a year for the United Nations’ coffers.
This is sold as a means to give the United Nations an independent source of revenue so that the
organization would not be dependent on payments by member states. Advocates of the tax assure
sceptics that it would be imposed at a rate of only 0.1 percent, a minuscule burden on wealthy
international currency speculators. One shudders to think what is likely to happen if the United
Nations ever gains the power to tax. Merely redefining what constitutes a “speculative”
transaction could net the United Nations additional hundreds of billions of dollars. Leaving aside
the danger of escalating taxation, the United Nations should not have an independent taxing
authority on general principle. The member states already have precious little say over what the
24
corrupt, unaccountable and ill-managed UN bureaucracy does. They would have no input
Whilst the injection of hundreds of billions of Dollars into humanitarian assistance may seem to
be a good idea, it would be frightening to put this sort of money into the grubby little paws of
Nevertheless, the arguments presented here may be seen by some as a radical, perhaps
vindictive, attack on conventional development practice. As such, they will inevitably be treated
with a certain degree of scepticism, given our fear of the unknown, our resistance to change, and
the sense of the impossibility of adapting and modifying a vast and complicated system which
has been dedicated to pursuing a particular approach. The daunting challenge is that of shifting
the paradigm of both the approach and the system - organisational, procedural, and
methodological. Yet if the challenge is rejected on these grounds - and there are no other grounds
on which to base a rejection of at least the possibility of the validity of these arguments - then
there is little option for anything other than an increasing cynicism with respect to this
development endeavour. We know already that the development sector is struggling to achieve
its supposed goals; it is difficult to escape this conclusion when looking at the achievements, or
rather the shocking lack thereof, to date. Cynicism, manifested as an increasing dependence on
confirmations generated by adherence to, and so-called “successful” applications of, current
organisational realities rather than on developmental impact itself, is already rampant within the
development sector. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we cannot deny this creeping
paralysis. Alternatives are called for. It will require enormous effort of will for individuals to
begin to challenge the conventional. And there can be no doubt that change will depend on
individual initiative - the system will not change all at once, and it will not change unless
25
Prof. William Easterly, an economist that used to work for the World Bank, warns that: “This is
bad news for the world’s poor, as historically poverty has never been ended by central planners.
It is only ended by “searchers”, both economic and political, who explore solutions by trial and
error, have a way to get feedback on the ones that work, and then expand the ones that work, all
Perhaps a few pre-conclusion comments may be in order here and worth adding in the form of a
personal note.
I am uncomfortably aware that many of my lamentations are not very well received in the world
of humanitarian aid and development assistance. All I can say in my defence is that I have given
a lot of thought during recent years to the issues I have elaborated. I have pondered how I and
my associates can contribute effectively and ethically to the development of our continent, who
wants it, why, and why it makes sense for people to accept and appreciate our efforts, and how,
and how I can find satisfaction, perhaps even fame and riches, through being and having been
involved in this endeavour. In other words the advice I give to others is advice I am trying to
follow myself.
One of the most serious criticisms I face, and face routinely, is my insistence on associating the
essential goodwill of others with crime. In general, many of my remarks about the criminality of
aid are based upon critical introspection and not merely an attempt to offend or stir controversy.
Of course aid, development assistance and crime are not the same thing. Morally they are
absolutely distinct. But what they both have in common is that they are both something-for-
nothing sorts of activities, that the receivers on the one hand of aid and on the other hand of ill-
gotten gains are in neither case giving much, if any, thought to what they might give to the world
Criminals after easy pickings naturally gravitate towards an industry in which there are the
combination of large amounts of money and very little, if any, controls, over where that money is
26
going. Aid, just like crime, feeds on the non-productive; it empowers the criminals in their
battles against their most typical victims, the productive poor. It is acted out on a tragic scale in
the Third World where entire countries have become the possessions of criminal gangs, who live
Potentially profitable societies are wrecked without a second thought, either by direct thieving,
or else by follies paid for by foreign donors, which derange local markets and divert scarce local
resources into ill-conceived fantasy projects. Of course, I consider that whenever one claims to
be doing one thing when actually, intentionally or unintentionally, doing something very
I know all about the temptation to describe moral failures as evidence of moral excellence.
Perhaps one of the reasons you read so little about the idiocy of aid, and why the blame for
rampant fraud and corruption is routinely shifted onto governments and recipients of aid, rather
than on the givers and administrators of that aid, is that the kind of organisations that should
publish pieces like this one tend to be organisations themselves depended upon the current
Even so, I maintain that helping people is difficult. To help even a very small number of people -
really to help them and not just throw money at them - demands huge commitments of time and
intelligence. Also, given the complexities of human society, it requires a great deal of learning in
the characteristics of that society merely to avoid making matters far worse, with projects which
only seem helpful on the surface but which are in fact enormously harmful. If, despite all of our
best efforts, huge human problems remain, this should not prove that we are wicked. It should
The simplest answer is that aid is not all stupidity. It is, however, something difficult to restrain,
and for that reason much more harmful, a sensible way of behaving that has gotten out of hand.
27
Just as aid and goodwill have a way of merging into each other, so, in a morally opposite setting,
The world needs no more big reports by important people telling us what the problems and
challenges are and how to solve them. It has become time for the poor and marginalised to define
their own problems and to embark on the journey to have these solved and for us to discard the
patronizing confidence that the Planners, those who had put themselves in charge of our
collective destiny, know how to solve other peoples’ problems better than the people themselves
do.
Everybody, especially the poor, understand the need for democracy and accountability. There
should not be any more demands for more money, by people who have amply demonstrated that
they are unable to spend it where it is most needed. Reduced poverty and human suffering comes
from the self-reliant efforts of the poor themselves in free societies. Make sure somebody is
actually held accountable for making THIS intervention work in THIS place at THIS time.
institutions that make grand promises and then fail to deliver are held to account; and if they
cannot explain themselves, prosecute them and put them in prison if necessary.
28