There are many reasons why handouts do not work, and why the current pattern of aid should be inverted, writes Bryan Mukandi.
'DON'T YOU care about the plight of those poor people in Africa?"
That was the response of a zealous aid worker I had just turned down. He was, together with a large group of fellow zealots, trying to get people to sign up for a small monthly donation to help poor people in sub-Saharan Africa. They also wanted to pressure western governments to make serious efforts to fix the continent.
He couldn't understand why I, a black man, did not appear interested in helping my own people. So began a discussion on a cold windy evening, on St Patrick's Street in Cork, which lasted hours.
I was reminded of this encounter when I read John O'Shea's article, "We must bypass toxic regimes in Africa when it comes to aid" (Opinion and Analysis, March 14th). I would like to give this African's take on the issue, which is more or less a summary of that conversation in Cork.
I don't like foreign aid, or at least the form in which it is usually presented in Africa. I would like to say that I appreciate the sentiment, but that is not the case either. In most cases, there is something very paternalistic about aid, especially with respect to Africa. It is often viewed as bailing out a people incapable of sorting out their own issues.
Not only does this lead to a perception of Africans as being in some way inferior, it also does something much worse. It often leaves us Africans with the very same idea, that we are not capable of ourselves running our nations and that we are in some way inferior to other races.
The concept of helping someone in need is a noble one. Martin Luther King said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.
It is therefore in everyone's interest to ensure that every part of the world is in relatively good shape. The big issue is deciding how to go about it.
Imagine the Government's reaction were the Swedish health minister to announce that, as far as he was concerned, the Irish health system is not working. As a result, Sweden is taking it upon itself to come up with a system that works, fund it, and implement it. Mary Harney would be outraged, and rightly so.
And yet how often do African leaders suffer such slights? Much of the justification for colonisation was that Africans couldn't rule themselves. It is as though that argument persists.
I am not a blind nationalist. I will be the first to admit that corruption is a serious issue in Africa and, more importantly, there is an incredible amount of human suffering. Were that not the case, people like me may well not be living in this country.
Having said that, there is corruption everywhere; it just so happens that many African countries cannot afford the toll it takes on their fragile economies. And there are some African countries doing well, but they don't get mentioned often. It is important to remember that Africa is a diverse continent, not just one homogenous landmass. To imply that African leaders are "the most untrustworthy and dishonest leaders on the face of the earth" is, to put it mildly, wrong.
The truth remains that a lot of the continent needs help to move forward. Surely, though, it is these countries that should take the lead in charting their future. Surely the people that are best acquainted with the problems are the ones most likely to come up with the right solutions. And yes, some of these solutions may not be best practice by western standards, but who says that Africa should mirror Europe or America?
For example, I have listened to intelligent, well-informed, well-meaning Europeans discuss the Aids pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Although some of them have a good grasp of the subject, some of their conclusions are simply wrong because they do not fully appreciate the realities of things on the ground. The same can be said of World Bank-initiated structural adjustment programmes that have often done more harm thagood.
Respect for a people's dignity and right to self-determination needs to be at the forefront of any talk of aid. Paternalism just breeds resentment.
This is why men like Robert Mugabe wield such support among their peers. It is not that the entire continent is led by a club of dictators. It is the wounded pride of men and women who sacrificed everything to be free of colonial rule only to find that they are still spoken down to.
And what about the millions who are starving and sick? The answer lies with remittances and partnerships. If donor countries genuinely want to help the world's poorest, they should open up their borders. The evidence is unequivocal. Remittances, money sent back home by immigrants, far outweighs aid both in volume and in terms of reaching the intended beneficiaries.
As a doctor who worked in the thick of the Aids crisis, I can assure you that money will do more good in terms of curbing and then eradicating the disease than all the drugs in the world.
Having done that, I believe that the current pattern of aid should be inverted. There should be partnerships that are led by the recipient country. Conditions can be applied, but on both sides, and it should be the recipient, and not the donor, in the driving seat.
Eventually, my argument in Cork ended with us agreeing to disagree. We did agree, though, that we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. As such, it is in everyone's interest to ensure that this issue is resolved or, at the very least, debated further.