Reinventing Development: Translating rights-based approaches from theory into practice. Paul Gready and Jonathan Ensor (eds) Zed Books £16.95 ISBN 1842776495

In the aftermath of the Second World War, mass mobilizations swept the African continent, as people in villages, farms and cities demanded the right of self-determination and an end to colonial subjugation. The independence governments that were subsequently swept into power proposed that the path to self-determination should be through what Western governments described as ‘development’, seen as the universal panacea for the problems of ‘underdevelopment’.

Despite the haziness of the term, it had a certain progressive ring – implicit in the idea of development was that of emancipation, which had inspired millions to support the movement for independence. And it was in this that the modern missionaries – the development NGOs – found their raison d’être.

By the end of the 20th century, the appeal of development had waned. Twenty years of structural adjustment programmes had reversed nearly all the gains of independence, removing the right of African people to determine their own social and economic policies, rendering their governments less and less accountable.

Development NGOs were experiencing a crisis of credibility as their development programmes came to be perceived as part of the so-called ‘Washington consensus’ agenda. Development had lost its emancipatory appeal. It was in need of reinvention.

Amartya Sen was probably among the first to recognize this in his call to reassert the link between development and freedom. [1] Others gradually took up the cry, until even the World Bank became a proponent of ‘the rights-based approach to development’.

The appeal was obvious: human rights has – as development once had – an association with something that is implicitly participatory and emancipatory. But has the new dogma changed anything in practice? Has it led to poverty being recognized as a massive human rights violation that kills millions prematurely every year? Has it resulted in bringing to account those who are responsible for and benefit from the impoverishment of humanity? Has it resulted in international agencies supporting movements claiming reparations for injustices? Has it meant resources being allocated to popular movements so they can exercise their collective power in support of their claims or defend themselves against attacks? What real difference has it made to the struggle for emancipation – the right to determine one’s one future?

With some notable exceptions, there were few answers to be found in this book. This collection of essays does, however, provide a remarkable insight into the current discourse among international development agencies about something that appears to be the new universal panacea for the poor. It shows that, like the term ‘development’ before it, the human rights approach to development has come to mean anything and everything to everyone.

For UNICEF, it is essentially an effective programming tool; for Oxfam International, it is business as usual, but recast using the new rhetoric. For CARE International in Rwanda, it provides a different analytical framework for its work but the solutions seem drearily similar to conventional approaches to development.

In Afghanistan, the rights-based approach is seen as necessary not so much to defend the rights of Afghanis but primarily as an advocacy tool (and, some might say, for strengthening negotiation for funds).

For ActionAid, the rights-based approach is radically different: they show that rights are fundamentally about enabling the poor and disenfranchised to organize, and thereby use their collective power in their own interest.

Instead of the traditional charitable and humanitarian response to the earthquake and communal violence in Gujarat, they understood the ‘need to take sides unambiguously with the poor’. The need for political action in relation to children’s participation is more cautiously acknowledged in Save the Children’s case study from Nepal.

Two valuable essays in this book seem strangely out of place. Ghalib Galant and Michelle Parlevliet from the South African Centre for Conflict Resolution make a strong argument for why conflict prevention and the struggle for human rights are inextricably linked – though how this relates to the rights-based approach to development is not made entirely clear. An excellent essay by Neil Jarman on human rights and peace-building in Northern Ireland discusses how human rights have moved to centre stage following the paramilitary ceasefire – though the term ‘rights-based approach to development’ is not once mentioned!

In addition to a series of case studies, there are more discursive essays on the concept of the rights-based approach – the introductory essay by the editors, an essay by Harsh Mander, an essay on rights and culture by Jonathan Ensor, and a helpful summary and conclusion by Olivia Ball. I was struck by the fact that none of these essays sought to address the nature and scale of human rights violations taking place in so-called developing countries.

Injustice, crimes against humanity, genocide, gender-based violence, child abuse, war, torture, occupation, the use of state sponsored terror and its mirror image of non-state terror – topics that are the normal focus of human rights discourse – were mentioned at best only peripherally, if at all. Do these subjects have no relevance to the discourse on rights and development? Their absence lends weight to the sense that the discourse on rights-based development is just a new spin on an old, and rather discredited, concept of development.

• Firoze Manji is Executive Director of Fahamu and editor of Pambazuka News.

• This article first appeared in the September edition of Alliance Magazine.
Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Notes:
[1] Amartya Sen (1999) Development as Freedom Oxford: OUP.

Pambazuka News is deeply saddened to learn of the untimely death of Chachage S.L. Chachage. Africa has lost a comrade and fighter for freedom, someone who has not only contributed to the struggle for justice and emancipation, but has also been a major influence on the development of critical and creative thinking of generations of African intellectuals and activisits. Below is a selection of voices that speak to his extraordinary contribution.

Connie Ngondi-Houghton
Allavida £10 (outside East Africa)
ISBN 1904167101

There is a dearth of literature on philanthropy in Africa, and this pioneering work on East Africa by Connie Ngondi-Houghton should be warmly welcomed. Ngondi-Houghton starts by looking at what is meant by the term philanthropy, arguing that it has to be understood in the context of the region and its history. She believes that there is an indigenous tradition of giving, ‘an economy of affection’, which has survived the turmoil of colonization, post-colonial compromises, and the devastating results of imposed neoliberal economic policies.

The book then deals at some length with formal philanthropy in the region as it is today. She considers some of the new initiatives such as the Africa Philanthropy Initiative, the East Africa Grantmakers Association, Allavida, the Centre for the Promotion of Philanthropy and Social Responsibility (Ufadhili) and Resource Alliance, many of them driven by non-indigenous institutions. The last two chapters focus on the challenges ahead for philanthropy in East Africa, chiefly the need to link institutionalized forms of philanthropy with the long-standing traditional forms. The final chapter provides a set of recommendations on future research that is needed.

The author’s central argument is that conventional (or Western) definitions of philanthropy have ignored the rich ‘traditional African spirit of community, reciprocity and mutual aid based on the philosophy of ubuntuism’. This spirit is, she argues, ‘the spring of philanthropy among the majority in East Africa’. Many of us working in the region recognize these many forms of generosity that inspire and refresh one’s belief in humanity. I had hoped that the book would at last provide me with documentary evidence to silence the sceptics and those who hold a narrow definition of philanthropy. Unfortunately, there is little data about the scale and impact of such practices. This is a shame as I think that its absence seriously weakens her thesis.

Ngondi-Houghton argues that philanthropy should be seen as something embracing a spectrum of social and individual activities. The opening chapter begins by asserting that philanthropy is a term encompassing activities ‘motivated by the love for humanity and human advancement, and targeted towards the ends of human survival, dignity and fulfilment of all people’. It begins, she says, with the act of giving. She goes on to draw a distinction between charity and philanthropy that I found particularly helpful. Charity, she says, ‘can ameliorate’, but philanthropy ‘seeks to root out causes of poverty, suffering and inequality … it inspires and promotes individual growth as it nourishes human welfare.’

This distinction, however, is lost sight of in the remainder of the book. Indeed, what she mainly writes about is charitable giving. As the book develops, she falls increasingly shy of defining what she means by philanthropy, offering instead examples of the activities it embraces, from microfinance to scout camps, from trade union solidarity to NGOs making money from providing services where the state has retrenched in response to externally driven economic policies.

‘Philanthropy should be what the people of East Africa say it is for them,’ she asserts. While this may be different to how the West would define philanthropy, neither the Western nor the African definition is superior. ‘When viewed this way,’ she says, ‘the issue of spectrum of models, and whether a model at one end of the spectrum better deserves the name philanthropy than one at the other end, ceases to be significant.’ But the issue is not, surely, an argument about the absolute or universal definition of the term philanthropy, but rather about whether the term is used consistently and in such a way that its meaning can be communicated with certainty to the reader.

That said, I found the book stimulated me to reflect on many issues about giving and philanthropy in the region. It could have been much longer, giving the author more space to develop and explain some of her ideas. As it stands, it is full of thought-provoking observations that give you only a taster of insights that, frustratingly, are not developed further. I would also have like to have seen much more information than was provided about philanthropy in Uganda and Tanzania – the book focuses overly on Kenya. Nevertheless, it represents a major milestone for the region, a sentinel starting point for the development of a much-needed literature on the subject.

* Firoze Manji is Executive Director of Fahamu and editor of Pambazuka News. He can be contacted at firoze (at) fahamu.org

This article first appeared in Alliance Volume 11 Number 1 March 2006
To order: Within East Africa, contact Allavida, Email [email][email protected]
Tel +254 020 310 526

Rest of the world, visit

If someone had said to me four years ago that a new electronic newsletter on social justice in Africa would reach a readership three years later of more than 80,000 people every week, most of them in Africa, and that this could be done without forming an alliance with media magnates or multinationals, I would have told them they were insane.

And yet that is exactly what Pambazuka News has succeeded in doing. Almost without realising, Fahamu has become a publisher of news and with a constituency that not only consumes what we produce, but also actively feeds information to the newsletter on a regular basis.

How did this come about? What were the features that led to this modest success? And are there lessons for others from these experiences? Answering the first two questions is relatively straightforward. How far our experiences can be generalised for African publishers seeking to harness information and communications technologies (ICTs) is more difficult to answer: we have used publishing as a means to an end, rather than as an end in itself. And that, perhaps, provides a clue to what others might take from our experiences.

The context

Pambazuka News was the serendipitous offspring of a programme established to harness ICTs for strengthening the human rights movement in Africa. Its birth was intimately intertwined with an attempt to develop distance learning materials for civil society organisations in Africa.

In 1997, Fahamu set out to examine how developments in information and communications technologies can be harnessed to support the growth of human rights and civil society organisations in Africa. Like many others, we saw the potentials opening up with the growth in access to the internet.

Although less well developed than in the industrialised world, access to the internet has spread rapidly in Africa. In 1996 only 16 countries had access; by 1998, 49 of the 54 countries were online, with most African capitals having more than one internet service provider. By 2001, all African countries were online. According to Mike Jensen, the number of computers permanently connected to the internet extended beyond 10,000 in 1999, but this probably grossly underestimated the actual numbers, given the widespread use of .com and .net addresses.

Since the early 1990s, Africa has witnessed a flourishing of numerous organisations of civil society, including non-governmental organisations, membership organisations, professional associations, religious groups and movements. The period has also seen a significant growth in the number of organisations concerned with promoting and protecting human rights. Human rights activism is not, of course, new to Africa. It has been a feature of all democratic struggles in the region both during and since colonial times. However, it has largely been during the last decade that there has been a proliferation of self-proclaimed human rights organisations whose explicit purpose is to investigate, monitor and report on violations or abuses of human rights and to campaign, lobby and advocate for these rights. Our view was that the ability of the African human rights movement to open, maintain and expand an environment in which basic freedoms are respected will depend largely on the establishment of a critical mass of organisations that have the necessary skills both to promote and protect human rights.

Could the new technologies be harnessed to strengthen this movement?

When we first started, the idea seemed simple enough (if rather naive): given the development of the worldwide web, we should be able to produce web-based distance learning materials and establish a web-portal to bring together relevant information resources for this constituency. Human rights organisations would in this way, we thought, be able to access the material as they needed. But before we could launch such a website, we needed to know what kind of training such organisations needed.

Understanding needs

In 1998, we undertook surveys involving more than 100 human rights and civil society organisations in eastern and southern Africa. We wanted to know how such organisations used the internet, what kind of technology they had access to, what their training priorities were, and the way they managed their organisations. We were able to visit the offices of about 60per cent of the organisations interviewed, enabling us to inspect their ICT infrastructure and to test out the problems of accessing the internet.

Although most organisations had access to email, access to the web was found to be much more problematic: organisations expressed frustration with how long it took to download web pages because of low bandwidth, and irritation with the number of times they had to dial in to re-establish connections over the telephone lines. One of the biggest constraints to accessing the internet was found to be the cost of going online: the average cost of using a local dialup internet account for 20 hours a month in Africa is about $60 (including call charges). To understand the relative scale of these charges, $60 is higher than the average African monthly salary.

We found that many of these organisations had difficulties accessing training. In part, this was due to the relatively high cost of course fees. In addition, faced as they are by the day-to-day demands of activism in a frequently hostile political environment, with deteriorating economic conditions, and ever-increasing public demands on a small number of committed and experienced staff, many of these organisations have difficulties in giving priority to capacity building either within or beyond their own institutions. We found that most training undertaken by human rights and civil society organisations in the region was in the form of short workshops. In-depth training was rarely possible without long absences from work, and therefore relatively few have attended longer, residential courses. Given the fragility of many of these organisations, many said that prolonged absences of key staff threatened their viability.

Our survey confirmed the findings of previous studies on the training needs of human rights organisations in the region , . Their priorities included: skills training in fact-finding, investigation and monitoring; knowledge and application of international and regional standards and mechanisms, especially in the field of social and economic rights; strategies for human rights litigation, reporting complaints and adjudication; provision of paralegal services; campaigning and lobbying; documentation techniques and uses of documentation; monitoring of elections and trials; popular education and human rights education.

Because of the problems of access, relatively few organisations at the time had much experience in using the internet for systematic research beyond investigations using the most common search engines. Few had experience of using the internet in their advocacy work. However, most organisations did have computers with a modem, which they used mainly to collect and send emails. Most had at least one computer with a CDROM drive, with 32-64MB RAM capacity as the norm. Except in South Africa, the ratio of computers to staff was about 1:4. The operating systems that were common at the time were Windows 95 and Windows 98. Few computers had sound or video cards.

Most organisations stated that they would be interested in participating in distance learning courses, provided that they did not have to rely on the web.
Our research pointed out clearly what kind of training was required. But how could that be delivered using ICTs?

Developing interactive course materials using ICTs

Any strategy based on offering courses via the worldwide web was doomed to failure, given the difficulties of using what one wag called the 'worldwide wait'. Furthermore, any technologies we developed were going to have to be workable on what were, even then, low specification machines. If the web was not going to be practical, then we would need to develop materials that provided similar interactivity offline. Using some kind of interactive programme stored on CDROM seemed the obvious solution.

If we were to develop distance learning course materials, how would we enable interactions between course participants? How would they communicate with each other and with their course tutor if online discussion via the web were not a practical route? Given the ubiquity of email, it was clear that we would need courses organised to use that form as the principal means of communications.

We designed our courses with three phases. In the first phase (usually lasting about 10 weeks), participants are provided with carefully designed interactive CDROM that helps them to learn the subject at their own pace. They are connected to each other and to the course tutor via an email list where they discuss issues arising in the course of their studies, and where they hold asynchronous discussions on topics set by the tutor. During this phase, they are required to complete and submit via email as attachments a series of assignments. Their work is formally assessed by the course tutor.

In the second phase, those who have completed the first phase satisfactorily are invited to attend a 3-4 day workshop held at a convenient location. As a result of what participants had learned in the first phase, there should be a considerable homogeneity in the participants' knowledge and understanding of the subject. The depth to which the subject can be treated is therefore much greater than would otherwise be the case.

In the third phase of the course, participants are required to carry out a practical project, putting into practice what they have learned during the first two phases. They are mentored through this work by their course tutors. They prepare a written report on their project that is then formally assessed.

There were a number of challenges in developing appropriate learning materials. We commissioned authors to write the materials based on an agreed framework of learning objectives and outcomes. Authors were provided with guidelines on, and examples of, the range of interactive exercises and 'tricks' that they could use as part of their courses. They produced their manuscripts electronically in Word or other similar formats. The manuscripts, based as they were on extensive courses that spanned several months, were always substantial in length. The first challenge we faced was to work out how such large quantities of material could be transferred to an interactive medium that could be stored and delivered on CDROM.

After extensive research, we had decided that we would use Macromedia Director as the medium for delivering the course materials. Although this required somewhat complex programming, and although other software programmes are available for this purpose, we chose Director principally because it gave us the flexibility for producing the range of exercises and interactivity that we knew would be required. However, we were also concerned that we should not be imprisoned by the choice of software or platform: what if tomorrow the web became a practical route for delivering our course materials - would that mean we would have to start all over again? What if tomorrow we wanted to move the material on to another platform - for example, on to palmtop computers (PDAs)? How could we 'future-proof' our developments?

The route we eventually pursued was to separate the content of the learning materials from the formatting: we did this by parsing the word documents into XML. The XML was then fed into Director dynamically. This allowed us to work on the manuscript whenever we needed to, using word processing software to edit and revise the manuscripts as required. With a library of interactive exercises developed over time, it became a relatively straightforward procedure to call these up as and when required. This approach resulted in a considerable speeding up of the process of production

At the same time, we felt that any technology we used should enable us to maintain Fahamu's essential design principles: namely, strong designs which run through our publications; inspiration from African art; simplicity; usability; focus on learning/content; use of space; clean; minimal text; consistency; and ease of navigation. We applied this approach to a series of courses that we made available, in the first instance, to southern African organisations.

Pambazuka is born

But learning is more than about studying. It is also about reading, reflecting, commenting on and contributing to a discourse on issues that matter. It is about sharing experiences, and about gaining an authority of those experiences. One of the most powerful mediums for that - at least potentially -is, of course, the internet. There are numerous sources of information; there are numerous opportunities for dialogue and engaging in discussion. But what happens to a community that is unable to access these? People often speak of the 'digital divide' as if this were simply a technical divide. It is deeper than that. It is also a social division that prevents the experiences of the greater part of humanity from being heard, and which, therefore, under-nourishes the discourse of those who do have access to the technology.

If the constituency we have worked with does not have access to the web, would it not be possible to bring the web to them? Would it not be possible to provide them the means to share experiences and information with others on the internet? One of the outcomes of the initiative described above was that we began receiving requests from human rights and other civil society organisations for assistance in finding information on the web, and with disseminating information about their own work. Initially, we responded on a case-by-case basis, sending off the results of searches or disseminating by email information we had received from others to those on our modest contacts list. But soon the demand became overwhelming. We simply could not respond to all the requests we received.

To make the process of response more manageable, we compiled the information in the form of a newsletter, with a number of categories that reflected the subjects that appeared to be of concern to the constituency. To make the newsletter more interesting, we included editorial commentary and opinion pieces from activists in the region and elsewhere.

The newsletter is sent out as an email, with text only format so that even those without HTML enabled email programs can read the content with ease. Each section contains a five-line summary of the item, with a URL pointing to the relevant website. Stories or information announcements sent to us directly are stored on the Pambazuka online database (there are currently some 20,000 such news items and editorials available free online). The newsletter receives more than 200 postings from other newsletters, websites, and various sources each week from that we draw on for the different sections. And each week, there is a vibrant debate on critical issues related to social justice in the region and in response to editorial materials.

By forming strategic alliances with other organisations , we were able to expand the reach of the newsletter. In December 2001, it was named Pambazuka News (pambazuka in Kiswahili means to awaken or arise - as in the breaking dawn). From an initial base of a few hundred subscribers, Pambazuka News has grown to nearly 17,000 subscribers at time of writing, and a readership estimated at 80,000. The newsletter is also reproduced in its entirety at allAfrica.com, with a potential readership probably in the hundreds of thousands.

Our last subscriber survey in March 2003 indicated that about 60% of our email subscribers were based in Africa. Response from subscribers on the extent to which they forwarded and printed out the newsletter led us to extrapolate that the newsletter, or parts therof, reached more than 70,000 people on a weekly basis. Approximately 35% of subscribers worked in the NGO sector, 18% in universities, 11% in international agencies and 7% in government, although this number is likely to have increased due to the work we have done targeting parliamentarians in Africa. The survey revealed that about 20% of readers were directors or senior managers, 15% programme staff and 11% held media-related positions. We don't have reliable information on gender distribution of our readers, but we know that the number of subscriptions from women's organisations has increased substantially as a result of our involvement in the campaign on the protocol on the rights of women in Africa.

Several other factors need to be considered when taking into account the readership and reach of the newsletter. Firstly, we know from our survey that subscribers commonly print out the newsletter for distribution to their networks, indicating that information distributed in the newsletter reaches people in Africa that do not have internet access. Secondly, editorials from Pambazuka News have frequently been republished in print publications, again indicating a cross-over to a wider audience. Lastly, information distributed by Pambazuka News has been used by community radio stations in Africa in their broadcasts in two cases that we know of, again indicating how the newsletter has reached a broader audience.

According to website statistics for the pambazuka.org domain, there have been a monthly average of nearly 200,000 requests over the last six months, These figures indicate a clear upward trend, reflecting the 30% increase in the number of subscribers to the newsletter. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from the actual domain statistics. Individual country domains show low web usage, but many users in Africa make use of yahoo.com or hotmail.com email accounts which could account for the 26.34% of visitors from the .com domain.

The significant growth of Pambazuka News over the last 12 months has been associated with the extent to which the newsletter has been used as a tool for advocacy in the region. We have supported the campaign for the ratification of the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa, coalition of some 17 regional organisations, producing two special issues profiling important aspects of the protocol. These have been successfully used as campaigning tools at meetings of the African Union. In July 2004, an edition of Pambazuka News was delivered to parliamentarians of the inaugural Pan-African parliament in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This edition was also produced as a pamphlet and in PDF version and entitled 'Not Yet a Force for Freedom' . We also developed and hosted a petition on the Pambazuka News website in support of women's rights. This has also involved the development of an SMS function that enables people to sign the petition by SMS and receive SMS updates about the campaign. The numbers of signatories to this petition is approaching 4000. News about the petition has been covered by VOA, BBC, Reuters, SABC, UN-IRIN and African radio and newspaper outlets in at least 20 countries.

In addition, Pambazuka News has supported the campaign for the Remembrance of the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide by producing a special issue that profiled the genocide through a series of ten editorials. Pambazuka News also acted as a forum for the distribution of news and information on the commemorations .

Since its origins, we have stored each news and editorial item on an online database, mainly because this provided an effective resource for production. Over time, we had accumulated so much valuable information that we decided to make the full content of the database available online. The new website was launched in July 2003. The database and the newsletter archives are fully searchable, and access is free. We are as yet unclear what the impact of this has been: we know that there are still difficulties within our primary constituency in Africa in accessing the web. Making the database available means that it is those with easy web access who benefit most.

Lessons

We are reluctant to offer our experiences as a 'model'. We have not been 'successful' in the sense that the term is often used today: we have not made millions, we have not reached millions, and still less, we have not (yet) managed to transform the lives of millions. But we believe that there are certain features of our approach that others may find useful.

The revolution in information and communications technologies (ICTs), and in particular the internet, has potentially transformed the way people can organize, relate, discuss or debate with each other, and the way they exchange, find, retrieve, and disseminate information - even the way in which information itself is produced. Our work has been driven by a purpose outside of and beyond technology. We have sought to contribute to the building of a movement for social justice. ICTs are, we believe, only one means to that end.

We publish not because we are or want to become publishers: publishing is only the means for supporting a particular movement. Although we have devoted much energy to developing the technology that we needed, we are not a technology company. We see technology as a manifestation of social relations, rather than as an end in itself. Our work has been guided by the desire to support a particular movement. As with the products of all previous technological revolutions, the technology itself is not 'neutral'. It serves the interests of those who exercise control. All technological developments have the potential for either contributing to the emancipation of humankind, or serving the self-interest of a minority (often with socially destructive consequences). The extent to which the technology may be used for either purpose depends both upon the power of those who control it and the extent to which organized civil society concedes that control or itself harnesses the technology. Our work has essentially been an exploration of how the movement for social justice can harness that technology.

Firoze Manji is Director of Fahamu and Editor of Pambazuka News

Please send comments to [email protected]

Some 120 years ago, in 1884-85,, European governments met in Berlin to 'negotiate' the carving up of Africa - a meeting that in essence was very little different to this week's G8 meeting in Gleneagles. Had Bob Geldof and Comic Relief been around at the time, would they have held pop concerts in Paris, London, Berlin, Brussels, Lisbon etc. calling on their rulers to be nice about carving up the continent, to ensure that a few more crumbs fell off the table into the mouths of the poor while they carried out their project of occupation, colonisation, military subjugation, looting and genocidal slaughter? The very idea sounds absurd because we have the benefit of hindsight.

But why are things any different today? In many post-colonial countries real per capita GDP has fallen and welfare gains achieved since independence in areas like food consumption health and education have been reversed. The statistics are disturbing. In Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole per-capita incomes dropped by 21% in real terms between 1981 and 1989. Madagascar and Mali now have per capita incomes of $799 and $753 down from $1,258 and $898 25 years ago. In 16 other Sub-Saharan countries per capita incomes were also lower in 1999 than in 1975. Nearly one quarter of the world's population, but nearly 42% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa, live on less than $1 a day. Levels of inequality have also increased dramatically but worldwide. In 1960 the average income of the top 20% of the world's population was 30 times that of the bottom 20%. By 1990 it was 60 times, and by 1997, 74 times that of the lowest fifth. Today the assets of the top three billionaires are more than the combined GNP of all least developed countries and their 600 million people.

Since the early 1980s, economic and social policies of African countries have been subverted to serve the interests of the west - the repayment of debt, and the opening up of the countries to the needs of voracious international capital. Africa has abundant natural resources, yet their exploitation by capital has not lead to the development of the forces of production nor to the improvement of life chances or life expectancy for the majority. Instead, the countries with the richest resources are the ones that have been torn apart by civil war (Angola, DRC, Sierra Leone, Liberia etc) or subjected to gross environmental degradation (as in Nigeria).

The western media and the western 'development' agencies feed us with a diet that makes us think that "poverty" is the problem. But poverty is not the problem. It is the looting, theft and frank exploitation that forces Africa's people into destitution, that impoverishes them, and prevents millions from realising their full potential as humans.

Just look at the looting involving aid and debt. According to the OECD, total resource flows to developing countries between 1982-1990 was $927 billion. In the same period, developing countries remitted $1,345 in debt servicing alone - a difference in favour of the west of $418 billion. To understand the size of that, it's worth noting that the Marshall Plan transferred to Europe the equivalent of $70 billion in today's prices. In other words, developing countries are providing through debt servicing alone the equivalent of more than two Marshal Plans every three years. And that is assuming that all aid sent to developing countries was actually spent there. ActionAid calculates that only one third of G7 official aid in 2003 was 'real' aid. The rest was 'phantom' aid which may have achieved other goals, but did not help to fight poverty. Only 10 cents of every dollar of US aid is 'real' aid. The 'best performer', according to ActionAid, was the UK - but even there, nearly a third of aid was found to be phantom. And substantial proportions of that aid is used to hire private consultancy companies whose task is the privatisation of water supplies.

The G8 meeting should be seen as a gathering of the descendants of the Berlin Conference. Their agenda is fundamentally the same. We shouldn't be begging them to be nice about it. We shouldn't be begging them to carve us up 'fairly'. Let's end this charade about 'fighting poverty': turn, instead, to fighting those who cause and profit from impoverishment.

* Firoze Manji is director of Fahamu and Pambazuka News editor

* Please send comments to [email protected]

"True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity. False charity constrains the fearful and subdued, the ‘rejects of life’, to extend their trembling hands. True generosity lies in striving so these hands – whether of individuals or entire people – need be extended less and less in supplication, so that more and more they become human hands which work and, working, transform the world." Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1970

"Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural, it is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. And overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice." Nelson Mandela at a public rally in Trafalgar Square, London, February 2005

A funder said to me recently that ‘the poor are so busy trying to survive that they don’t have the luxury of being concerned with human rights or social justice’. Under any circumstances, I would have been mildly irritated by this remark, but that it was made during a visit to Rwanda – a country that experienced in 1994 a genocide that annihilated nearly a million people in the space of a few months – left me profoundly shocked. What, I wondered, would those who watched their impoverished and undernourished children being butchered with machetes have made of this remark? What about the thousands of women who were sexually violated before being slaughtered? Were they too preoccupied with where the next meal was coming from to care about their rights?

But her remark made me wonder why it is that we are not shocked by the effects of poverty, which take more lives than civil wars or political violence: 11 million children die each year before they reach the age of five because they are not immunized, or because they do not have access to safe drinking water, or as a result of the debt crisis. [1] In many developing countries, complications of pregnancy and childbirth are the leading causes of death among women of reproductive age – 585,000 women die every year from such causes, fewer than 1 per cent of them in developed countries, demonstrating that these deaths could be avoided if resources and services were available.[2] Why is it that such atrocities are not considered an injustice?

Poverty as a violation of rights

The difficulty is that poverty tends to be viewed as a problem that is infinite and incurable, and to do with standards of living, and debate then turns around what is a ‘minimal’ or ‘acceptable’ standard – is it $2 a day or more? And who determines that standard? The crassness of the debate can be illustrated if we look at a parallel: how much freedom should men allow women? Should the extent of their liberty be set by men at some ‘minimal’ or ‘acceptable’ level? Why then should the ‘haves’ determine what standard of living should be afforded to the ‘have-nots’?

If poverty were regarded, argues Pierre Sané, ‘as a massive, systematic and continuous violation of human rights, its persistence would no longer be a regrettable feature of the nature of things. It would become a denial of justice. The burden of proof would shift. The poor, once recognised as the injured party, would acquire a right to reparation for which governments, the international community and, ultimately, each citizen would be jointly liable. A strong interest would thus be established in eliminating, as a matter of urgency, the grounds for liability. This might be expected to unleash much stronger forces than mere compassion, charity, or even concern for one’s own security.’[3]

The limits of the rights approach

The so-called ‘human rights approach to development’ has become a catchphrase among both development agencies and funders in recent times. But what exactly does it mean? Is it, as Pierre Sané suggests, a process of declaring poverty to be a gross and repulsive violation of human rights, requiring us to support social movements to claim reparation for injustices suffered by the millions? Or is it a way of dressing up the ‘business as usual’ of development in more radical-sounding vocabulary?

Elsewhere I have argued that development organizations have long played a role in depoliticizing poverty. In the past, this discourse was framed ‘not in the language of rights and justice, but with the vocabulary of charity, technical expertise, neutrality, and a deep paternalism (albeit accompanied by the rhetoric of participatory development) which was its syntax’.[4] While the language may have been modified to incorporate the vocabulary of human rights, there is little evidence of any change in the types of programmes or projects that are funded and implemented. Are human rights about to become depoliticized in the same way as poverty? If that is the case, it’s hardly surprising that many in the South are deeply cynical about the nature of the ‘rights-based approach to development’.

International human rights organizations claim that human rights are universal. But, as Issa Shivji points out, rights tend to be universal in their proclamation but limited in their application.[5] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed in 1948 when the vast majority of the world’s population was enchained by colonial rule, and had neither a say in its formulation nor rights conferred by it. And what are regarded as ‘rights’ in a particular society at any given time, and incorporated into legislation as such, may not necessarily equate with social justice. In a society where slavery was tolerated, for example, ensuring that the rights of slaves were properly protected would ignore the larger injustice of the existence of slavery at all.[6]

Today, there are still polarized debates about the precedence and priority of rights: in market-based economies, greater weight is given to civil and political rights, with pride of place going to private property rights. In the third world, much greater emphasis is placed on social and economic rights. Redress for the former can be sought in court by individuals, but no mechanism exists for seeking reparations for infractions of social and economic rights. Also, violations of social and economic rights apply not just to individuals, but to large sections of the population. This is why the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights is an important milestone in the history of human rights instruments because it goes some way towards recognizing the rights of groups, including the family, women and children, and the aged and the disabled, who are given the right to special measures of protection in keeping with their physical and moral needs.[7]

Solidarity

Given the problems associated with the term ‘rights-based approach’, many prefer to speak instead about social justice. Social justice is not just about the promotion and protection of human rights. It also incorporates the idea of the struggle for emancipation from social, political and economic oppression. That is to say, it is premised on the belief that those who suffer injustice must themselves be involved in actions to eradicate it. The change that social justice seeks to achieve is based on the principle of self-determination. It is not men who will liberate women but women who will liberate themselves by actions determined by them. It is not those who benefit from keeping people poor who will alleviate poverty, but the ‘poor’ themselves who must challenge the systems that enchain them. The motive for funding social justice comes, therefore, not from noblesse oblige (or ‘false generosity’, as Paulo Freire puts it) but from solidarity (Freire’s ‘true generosity’).

Philanthropy, the market and social justice

The market and philanthropy have a long association. The first and most celebrated period of ‘free trade’, from the 1840s to the 1930s, was also a high point of charitable activity in the most economically powerful countries. Private philanthropy was the preferred solution to social need and private expenditure far outweighed public provision. It is not surprising then, with the resurgence of free market economics since the 1980s, that we have witnessed the emergence of philanthropy on an unprecedented scale.

In the colonial era, philanthropy in Africa may have been motivated by religious conviction, status, compassion or guilt; it was also motivated by fear. In Britain and the colonies alike, politicians frequently alluded to the threat of revolution and actively encouraged greater interest in works of benevolence as a solution to social unrest. In short, charity was not designed just to help the poor, it also served to protect the rich.[8] And it still does. A critical approach needs to be made of the role of today’s philanthropy in shoring up social systems, in which gross inequalities of wealth are enshrined and perpetuated.

Not all philanthropy or social investment is concerned with social justice. This is not surprising. As Gary Craig points out in his article (see below), social justice is (or should be) about addressing structural issues and social change. It requires, he argues, an analysis of the causes of injustice and a strategy for addressing them. Structural issues matter, he suggests, because it is the rich and powerful who control these structures and processes. But since it is the rich and powerful who have the means to establish philanthropic foundations, we should not be surprised that relatively few have an explicitly social justice agenda.

The reticence of foundations

The Urgent Action Fund-Africa (UAF) (see interview with Betty Murungi above) is a good example of social justice funding. What is unusual about UAF, however, is that they are overt activists and funders of social change and proud to be so. Relatively few foundations are so bold, especially in the current US political climate where support for social change is increasingly viewed with suspicion and, at worst, seen as potentially seditious. Fear, rather than explicit legislation, leads to reluctance to express views that might mark them out for criticism.

The position for many foundations is therefore not easy, despite the wish of some to be true to their beliefs about social justice. The result is that it makes it difficult for applicants to identify foundations that might support their cause, and it wastes the opportunity for funders to proclaim their vision and to encourage other funders to support these causes. Initiatives such as those of the International Human Rights Funders Group, which have sought to encourage foundations to support human rights and social justice, are therefore important in providing a basis for solidarity between like-minded philanthropists.

Funding for social justice requires much greater flexibility than conventional grantmaking. Most grants are focused on supporting projects rather than causes. Projects usually produce some kind of physical or tangible result or product (bridges, hospitals, latrines or wells, etc) within a relatively short period, often within 1-3 years. But the outcomes of social justice initiatives are often much longer-term. That is not to say that their achievements are not measurable, but the changes they achieve are more often qualitative than quantitative. It is in recognition of this that many social justice funders prefer to make grants that are not assigned to specific activities but provide core funding for the grantee. This approach requires courage on the part of the funder and it is one that should be more widely practised.

Speaking the same language

But the problem doesn’t always lie just with the foundations. Foundations have their own agenda for what they wish to achieve and grantees are the means by which they achieve it. Unfortunately, organizations applying for funds often mistakenly believe that foundations are there to help them achieve what they want. Organizations whose work focuses on social justice often fail to do their homework about how to engage funders in a dialogue when their vocabulary may differ. Foundations that don’t see themselves as social justice funders may nevertheless be interested in supporting initiatives that will contribute to social justice ends, but the work has to be presented in a language that resonates with what the funders themselves want to do. That is not to say that organizations need to change their missions and objectives to suit the funder (although many do precisely that), but rather that they need to find the vocabulary to articulate their needs in terms that allow a dialogue. The less explicit foundations are about their own agenda, the more difficult the dialogue between the two sides becomes.

A case of schizophrenia: funders and fundraisers

A particular set of difficulties arises with organizations that sit, as it were, on both sides of the begging bowl – who are both funders and fundraisers. These include international development NGOs such as Oxfam, Save The Children, ActionAid, Christian Aid and Comic Relief. This duality often leads to a form of schizophrenia. As funders of social justice initiatives, they will require their ‘partners’ (their current euphemism for grantees) to involve the poor or the oppressed in the formulation and implementation of the work for which funding is sought, to work in solidarity with the oppressed, to renounce all attempts to present the poor as objects of pity. Yet these same organizations, in their role as fundraisers, will dispense with such requirements: the poor are never involved except as objects of pity. Thus ActionAid, with its radical agenda of social activism, raises funds through child sponsorship; Oxfam reduces its programmes to widget-sized micro-initiatives (£10 will buy X amount of whatever). One of the founders of Comic Relief once complained to me that fundraising for disability was really difficult because the disability lobby simply wouldn’t allow Comic Relief to portray disabled people as objects of pity. Presumably, this organization succeeds in raising millions by portraying pathetic images of Africans, using what Rotimi Sankore has termed ‘development pornography’, because it is too far from Africa to feel the ire of the African lobby![9]

Creating a relationship of equals?

Foundations that fund social justice – that is, support the transformation of power relations in society – need to address the question of the relations of power they have with their grantees. Many donor agencies have grappled with the challenge of involving their ‘partners’ in the decision-making process. Some have devolved grantmaking to local representative organizations. Others, especially those wanting to reduce the cost of processing multiple small grants, have experimented with awarding block grants that a local organization or consortium then administers in smaller grants to grassroots organizations. But this in itself creates a problem: an NGO working in the katchiabadis of Karachi with a range of grassroots organizations in the slums, once explained to me that they refuse to accept such block grants. To do so, they argue, would be to dramatically alter the nature of their relationship with the grassroots organizations. The moment they hand out money, they become donors, and their grassroots partners become recipients. And that, they feel, is a relationship of unequals, a relationship of power over others. They value their relationship with their genuine partners, and are therefore wary that money would change their relationship.

And therein lies the problem for philanthropic institutions that are keen to support social justice initiatives. To be effective, they need to be as close as possible to those whose struggles they support. Ideally, they want their grantees to be involved in the decision-making process. But the moment their grantees become part of the funding process, their own relationship with their constituents is potentially altered.

1 www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.aspr />

2 UNICEF (1996) The Progress of Nations UNICEF, New York.

3 Pierre Sané, ‘Poverty, the next frontier in the struggle for human rights’, in F Manji and P Burnett (2005) African Voices on Development and Social Justice Mkuki na Nyota Publishers, Dar es Salaam, pp210-214.

4 F Manji, ‘The depoliticisation of poverty’, in Development and Rights, in D Eade (ed) (1998), Oxfam GB, Oxford, pp12-33.

5 I Shivji (1989), The Concept of Human Rights CODESRIA, Dakar.

6 The Greeks and Romans held slavery to be just, and therefore made laws that protected the rights of slave owners. The same was true centuries later in Europe and the US.

7 K Kibwana, K A Acheampon and M Mwagiru Human Rights and Diplomacy in Africa: a critical perspective, see http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/research/kentp
apers/kibwana.html

8 F Manji and C O’Coill, ‘The missionary position: NGOs and development in Africa’, in International Affairs 78/3 (2002), pp567-83.

9 R Sankore (2005) ‘Behind the image: poverty and “development pornography”’, in Pambazuka News No 203. See www.pambazuka.org

* Firoze Manji is Executive Director of Fahamu, an organization committed to using ICT for social justice (www.fahamu.org), and editor of Pambazuka News, the electronic weekly newsletter and forum for social justice in Africa (www.pambazuka.org). He can be contacted at [email protected]

* This article was first published in the June 2005 issue of Alliance Magazine, which has a special feature on 'Funding Social Justice', for which Firoze Manji and Gary Craig are guest editors. To find out more, visit www.allavida.org/alliance

* Please send comments to [email protected]

One of the things that the disability movement has done successfully in the UK and in many other countries has been to put an end to the patronising, paternalistic approach that presents them as victims and objects of pity. On one disability rights website, I came across the wonderful slogan ‘Never about us Without us’. That should be the rallying cry of the African mobilisation for the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP- Africa) that was launched recently at a meeting attended by representatives of some one hundred organisations from 25 African countries.

Plans for mass mobilisations, concerts in African countries, television and radio programmes are well on the way across the continent, conceived of and organised by Africans for Africa. Would the Geldofs and Comic Reliefs of this world have launched a call for mass mobilisation about disability without the involvement of the disability movements? So how come they can do this in relation to Africa? What is it about us that allows these folk to behave so? For how much longer can we allow Northern development agencies and charities to portray us either in the form of ‘development pornography’, to use Rotimi Sankore’s words (see the Pambazuka News article at or as mere bit-players, extras on the film sets of their fundraising operations? African diaspora organisations and other black organisations in the UK have already protested about the virtually all white line up of artists selected for the Geldof roadshow. Isn’t it time that we added our voice of protest to demand: NEVER ABOUT US WITHOUT US!

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

First of all, thanks to all of you for the support you have given Pambazuka News recently – we continue to receive news, information and letters of support from our readers, as well as donations.

Since we last wrote to you, we have:

* Contributed to worldwide mobilisations to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda Genocide through a special section in Pambazuka News and by producing a special commemorative issue of Pambazuka News

* Armed African parliamentarians with crucial information for the first meeting of the Pan African Parliament in Addis Ababa. Some 260 printed copies of the special issue of Pambazuka were distributed free to every parliamentarian attending that meeting – our thanks to Oxfam for their support for printing and distribution

* Organised a petition to the Africa Union on freedom of expression

* Sounded the warning bells about the massacres in Darfur

* Provided a platform for critical debate and discussion in the region and a means for sharing information

We are about to run a campaign to have the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa ratified by African countries. This campaign is being organised jointly by Equality Now, the African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET), Credo for Freedom of Expression & Associated Rights, Oxfam’s Pan African programme and Fahamu. Fahamu is developing an online petition facility and we are investigating the possibilities of enabling people to sign using SMS/Text messaging technologies.

Pambazuka News is quickly becoming an influential tool for the struggle for social justice in Africa. Pambazuka News has more than 12,000 subscribers and a readership estimated to be at least 60,000 (excluding those who read it online at AllAfrica.com and at Pambazuka.org).

But all of this costs. We need your help.

There are many ways of improving both the service that Pambazuka News provides you as well as the effectiveness of Pambazuka News in promoting the cause of social justice.

So far, we have provided this service for free.

Now, we want to ask you to support us by making a regular donation for your subscription - especially if you aren't based in Africa.

So here’s what we ask: make a donation for your subscription to Africa's best social justice e-service.

* Individual: at least $20 per year (that's less than 50c an issue)

* Institutions: at least $50 per person per year (about a dollar an issue)

* Donor agencies: at least $100 per person per year (about $4 an issue)

We know that some of you are not able to pay. That’s ok.

But there are many of you who can pay. If you don’t pay ... well, you’ll still get Pambazuka for free - of course. But the price you will pay will be the pangs on your conscience each time Pambazuka News arrives in your mailbox!

But we know that many of you who can pay, will pay. For example, we asked Comic Relief to take out subscriptions at the donor agency rate – and they agreed. So thanks to Comic Relief for showing what can be done!

So make your contribution to the cause of social justice: donate now at

But if you can't pay, there are other ways of helping:

* tell others about Pambazuka News - get them to subscribe
* make sure your local parliamentary and local government representative takes out a subscription to Pambazuka News
* get a free copy of Proposals that make a difference by getting 30 new subscribers to Pambazuka News

We look forward to your continued support.

Firoze Manji
Director, Fahamu
Co-Editor, Pambazuka News

This week there is no Pambazuka News for you, apart from this letter. The empty space below shows what impact we'll have on the cause of social justice if we don't get your help.

Pambazuka News is published by Fahamu (www.fahamu.org)

This 150th issue of Pambazuka News is dedicated to the international mobilisation on Remembering Rwanda. This marks the 10th anniversary of a human catastrophe of gigantic proportions that led to the massacre of nearly a million people in Rwanda in the space of a few months. It was an event that was made all the more shameful for the criminal negligence of the international community, in Africa and beyond, to intervene - despite their full knowledge of what was happening. 1994 marked a tragedy that unfolded in Rwanda whose repercussions continue to be felt throughout the Great Lakes Region.

The focus on Rwanda is important not only as an act of solidarity with the survivors of the genocide. It should also be a reminder of the unfolding tragedy in the Great Lakes, particularly in the DRC, when many millions more have been and are being massacred.

Rwanda has been, as Mahmood Mamdani says in 'When Victims Become Killers', the “epicentre of the wider crisis in the African Great Lakes. Tied together by the thread of a common colonial legacy - one that politicized indigeneity as a basis for rights - the region has little choice but to address the Rwandan dilemma, if only to address its own dilemma. ... [This] will require a regional approach through a regional agenda that approaches the centre as firefighters would approach the heart of a raging fire, from outside in.”

With the recent establishment of the Pan African Parliament there exists the potential mechanism for fighting the raging fires that consume both DRC and Burundi. But will there be a sufficient political will to engage?

This issue of Pambazuka News takes a different format from usual. We have a series of editorials from a number of international experts and activists, and provide resource materials for those wishing to learn more about Rwanda and what is being done for the anniversary of the genocide being commemorated this month.

Jenerali Ulimwengu, journalist, activist, and an example of committed citizenship, has been rendered stateless by the Tanzanian Government in a move that is clearly motivated as a means of silencing an individual who has been brave enough to expose corruption and scandals of leading individuals in the government.

Jenerali has been a prominent member of Tanzanian civil society, having served in various Governmental positions including being a member of parliament. Since graduating, he has been an active member of the ruling party TANU, and later CCM (Chama cha Mapinduzi) of which he was a member of its National Executive Committee from 1992 to 1997. He was a founder of the first independent Kiswahili independent weekly Rai, one of the most popular radical magazines in the country. All those who know him speak of his courage in expressing critical, yet constructive, stances against those who sought to oppress the disadvantaged and marginalised not just of Tanzania, but worldwide.

There can be little doubt that Jenerali Ulimwengu has been denied citizenship because of his Pan-Africanist, patriotic and progressive politics above factionalism and unscrupulous partisanship; because of his unwavering struggle for the rights and dignity of the dispossessed, says the petition against this outrage. The Tanzanian government has refused to give reasons for the decision to deny him citizenship.

Writing from New York, Mahmood Mamdani writes: What, I have often wondered since I left Dar-es-Salaam in 1979, made Tanzania so different politically from other countries in the East and Central African region? Whereas ruling circles everywhere in the region seemed keen to identify and expel one or another group as not indigenous, Tanzania resisted.

A strong reason for this exception, I think, has been the political legacy of Mwalimu Nyerere. Mwalimu heralded a reform of the colonial state one may say its decolonization -- by transforming its juridical and political basis. Mwalimu faced a colonial legacy of group-based legal and political identity, and thus a state structure that combined a racialised civic law and authority in towns with ethnicised customary laws and native authorities in the countryside.

The greatness of the Nyerere era was that it transformed this legacy into a non-racial and non-ethnic law and administrative authority. With it, Mwalimu's Tanzania also transformed the nature of citizenship and rights from an attribute of groups considered indigenous to that of individuals with a residence in and a membership of the political community called Tanzania.

This is why the denial of citizenship to Jenerali Ulimwengu goes beyond the injury being done to one individual, Jenerali, a gifted and dedicated Tanzanian, African and indeed man of the world. Its real significance is that this injury marks a turn for the worse in the political history of the country. This land that pioneered an era of freedom seems ready to fall in line with the worst of tendencies in the region, why this development should be a source of grave concern to all.

What, I wonder, was the political and moral force of Jenerali's conduct that the powers of the day are willing to sacrifice an entire political legacy to silence it?

We urge all readers of Pambazuka News to sign the petition (see the link below) and make their voices heard by writing to the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania directly or protest through your own government representatives (http://www.tanzania.go.tz/index.html).

* Firoze Manji, Fahamu - learning for change

About 200 organisations from around Africa, including representatives NGOs, trade unions, women's organisations, farmers and young people's groups met in Bamako, Mali, recently to prepare African inputs to the World Social Forum held at the end of January.

They resolved, among other things, that globalization is just a new and more acceptable term for imperialism, that double standards were being applied with the selective imposition of rules about trade to the detriment of Africa. They expressed concern that the "New Partnership for Africa's Development" (NEPAD) was based on accepting the neo-liberal analysis and strategies of the rich countries and was therefore not acceptable as a basis for planning Africa's future.

The importance of the African Social Forum was in presenting development in Africa as a political issue about power to decide on Africa's future. For too long development has focussed on the physical consequences of this unjust world order and has limited itself to addressing the lack of water, health, incomes, basic services etc. This has led to NGOs becoming instruments of neo-liberal globalisation that have colluded in undermining the state by providing services and using funding destined for them. (For a fuller report see below).

Sustainable development is about much more than the rise and fall of GNP. It is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential under conditions where there is respect for human dignity and human rights. The goal of sustainable development must be human freedom, and the measure of its success must be a measure of the extent to which citizens of a country are able to exercise that freedom. But, as Professor Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, has argued in his book 'Development as Freedom', "Freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means." Development should be seen as a process of expanding freedoms. "If freedom is what development advances, then there is a major argument for concentrating on that overarching objective, rather than on some particular means, or some chosen list of instruments". To achieve development, he argues, requires not only the removal of poverty, lack of economic opportunities, social deprivation, and neglect of public services, but also the removal of tyranny and the machinery of repression.

Such a view is in contrast to what has become the 'conventional wisdom' of development that sees economic growth as both the means and the end. Development, the story goes, is possible only if there is growth. And growth is equated with the 'right' of a minority to amass wealth. Only when this freedom is unrestricted will others in society benefit from any associated spin-offs (the trickle-down effect). All other freedoms are only achievable if such growth occurs. The purpose of 'development' is, therefore, to guarantee 'growth' so that ultimately other freedoms can, at some indeterminate time in the future, be enjoyed. Such a view has increasingly been associated with the international financial institutions (IMF and World Bank) whose influence on economic policy - especially in Africa - has been so pervasive. State expenditure, according to this view, should be directed towards creating an enabling environment for 'growth', and not be 'wasted' on the provision of public services that, in any case, can ultimately be provided 'more efficiently' by private enterprise. This is the approach that, as Professor Sen points out, makes socially useful members of society such as school-teachers and health workers feel more threatened by development policies than do army generals.

Such an approach to development has had dire consequences for the developing world in general and Sub-Saharan Africa in particular. Of the nearly 5 billion people in the developing world, more than 850 million are illiterate; 325 million boys and girls are denied schooling; 2.4 billion have no access to basic sanitation. More than 30,000 children under the age of 5 years die each day from preventable causes. And some 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. Add to that the fact that more than 36 million people were living with AIDS. Of the 36 million people living with HIV/AIDS, 70% are to be found in sub-Saharan Africa.

Only 60% of adults in Sub-Saharan Africa are literate in the region, as compared with 73% in the rest of the developing world. Life expectancy at birth is less than 49 years, and nearly half the population survives on less than $1 a day. Economic growth in the region has fallen during the last 25 years, with GDP per capita growth averaging -1%. Per capita income in 1960 was about 1/9th of that in high-income OECD countries, but by 1998 it had fallen to 1/18th.

Sub-Saharan Africa's massive external debt, estimated at more than $300 billion is perhaps the single largest obstacle to development and economic independence. The 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa spend $13.5 billion each year repaying debts to foreign creditors. Over the last 20 years, African countries have paid out more in debt service to foreign creditors than they have received in development assistance or in new loans. Trade liberalization associated with the Structural Adjustment Programmes may have increased the importance of international trade for Africa, but the region's share of world trade has declined.

But it is not that sub-Saharan Africa is devoid of wealth. There is abundant mineral wealth in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), in South Africa and elsewhere. Yet it is this very abundance of natural resources that has led to vicious competition for access and control, frequently supported by outside vested interests. The result has been armed conflict, mass displacement of people, torture and ill treatment, and frank impunity for the perpetrators. Unarmed civilians have frequently been the victims of such conflicts with killings, amputations, rape and other forms of sexual abuse and abductions being rife in countries such as Sierra Leone, the DRC, and Burundi. Angola, which has seen an estimated 500,000 people killed since 1989 and an estimated 3 million refugees. It is also being torn apart directly as a consequence over the competition for resources such as diamonds and offshore oil, with various factions fighting for these prizes.

But, as Mahmood Mamdani has pointed out, despite the current dogmas, "the story of independent Africa is not one of unremitting decline. The first two decades of independence were decades of moderate progress. Between 1967 and 1980 more than a dozen African countries registered a growth rate of 6% […] To be sure there was a downside. That was that the failure to transform agriculture, and thus to bring the vast majority of the population into the development process. This shortcoming in economic policy went alongside and was sustained by a political authoritarianism."

The economic policies followed by many African countries, frequently under pressure from international financial institutions, have resulted in high levels of income equality. And it is this that has created instability in the region. Development policies have, it is true, resulted in enrichment. But it has been the rich in these countries who have been getting richer, while the poor have become poorer. According the UNDP, "In 16 of the 22 Sub-Saharan countries with data for the 1990s, the poorest 10% of the population had less than 1/10 of the income of the richest 10%, and in 9 less than 1/20." Marked, and growing, inequalities have had serious consequences on the social fabric of these countries. It has resulted in massive social exclusion, the growth in organized street crime, disillusionment with the political process, and the growth in the appeal for the use of violence for political ends. Faced with growing discontentment, corruption, abuse of state power, many governments have become intolerant of legitimate protest and political opposition. The use of excessive force to deal with public and political discontent has become all too common, as vividly illustrated by the current crisis in Zimbabwe where, as a result of recent legislation, it has become illegal to criticize the president.

Time has come for there to be substantial changes to current approaches to development. Ten years ago at the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro, Governments committed themselves to a plan of action known as Agenda 21. Principle 5 of that plan stated that:

"All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world."

"But commitments alone", as the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Anan has put it, "have proven insufficient to the task. We have not yet fully integrated the economic, social and environmental pillars of development, nor have we made enough of a break with the unsustainable practices that have led to the current predicament."

The Jury at the International People's Tribunal on Debt, convened at the recent the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, called for the external debt to be declared "as fraudulent, illegitimate and the cause of the loss of national sovereignty and the quality of life of the majority of the population of the South". Similar proclamations are needed in the build up to the World Social Summit on Sustainable Development scheduled to be held in Johannesburg 26 August to 4 September. One hopes that the alternative view from African civil society organizations will be heard loud and clear. Southern African NGOs have already organized. We hope in forthcoming issues of Pambazuka News to provide regular coverage to statements from African civil society organizations.

Firoze Manji, Fahamu - Learning for change

http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/web_pages/prepcom_one_statement_by_sangos.pdf
South Africa to hold Rio+10 Summit: http://www.un.org/rio+10/web_pages/rio+10_summit.htm
Text of the UN General Assembly Decision: http://www.un.org/rio+10/web_pages/resolution.htm
The Rio+10 Summit Meeting: http://www.un.org/rio+10/flat/riosummitmeeting.htm
Earth Summit 2002 website: http://www.earthsummit2002.org/www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk/search_by/subject/wssd4.htm

Publication of this week’s newsletter was delayed because of the tragedy that took place on Tuesday in US. All of us were deeply shocked by the loss of innocent lives by sickening acts of terrorism. Our thoughts are with the families and survivors of this tragedy whose pain and grief must be immense.

But we also feel a deep sense of unease that the horrors of war and of state sponsored terror in the south, and especially in Africa, that claim millions of lives each year, somehow do not register in the same way. Is the overwhelming response to the current tragedy, then, an expression of shock that such an event could take place at the heart of the most powerful state in the world? Or is it that different values are given to human lives depending on their geography and closeness to capital?

Terrorism always plays into the hands of the Right. It justifies hysteria, prejudice, bigotry and even the use of terror against sections of humanity in the name of vengeance rather than justice. The shock, horror and anger at the attacks in the US is understandable. There is equal anger and despair amongst the survivors of massacres in Africa – only they are denied the voice to make their anguish heard.

What is frightening about the reaction in the USA is that these acts of terror are being used to justify vengeance against the ‘perceived’ perpetrators. It took less than a millisecond to point the finger at Islam. As we go to press, there is still no clarity about who the perpetrators were. A climate is growing where very soon anyone “who is, or ever has been, a member of” an Islamic organisation will be viewed with suspicion and fear. Such prejudice will be given a boost if it turns out that Bin Laden or some other extremist Islamic terrorist group was responsible for the attacks in the USA. Somehow that is seen as “understandable”. But why is it anymore understandable than writing off all whites or Christians as potential terrorists after the Oklahoma bombing?

The US and NATO have declared the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon as acts of war. The response, in their view, should be retaliation, not bringing the perpetrators to justice. But will bombings or invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq or Sudan or wherever really diminish the potentials of further acts of terrorism against the US and its allies? Will “taking out” what the US believes to be “rogue states” really diminish the risks? Or will they only fuel the already burning fires. Can terrorism be countered by state-sponsored terror without leading to a vicious spiral?

Outside of the US, few are really surprised that the US has become the target of terrorist attacks. For many, the real rogue state is the US. American foreign policy, its collusion with and financing despotic and totalitarian regimes and dictators, its disregard for international treaties, and, through the international financial and trade institutions, its profiteering at the expense of the poor – these are really the real causes of the latest round of attacks on the US. If America is serious about declaring war that will minimise the threat of further terrorism, then it is against these causes that it must act. There are severe consequences of US retaliation that could lead to general destabilisation, especially in the Middle East, with implications for north Africa and the horn of Africa. The impending global recession could have serious implications for developing economies; and further degeneration of international relations. This could be an opportunity for the west to begin to attend to the causes of such acts, but are they likely to take it up?

The last decade has seen the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. While the average income of the top 20% of the world's population was 30 times that of the bottom 20% in 1960, by 1990 it was 60 times, and by 1997, 74 times that of the lowest fifth. By the late 1990s, 20% of the world’s population had 86% of the world GDP, while the bottom 20% had 1% “The assets of the top 3 billionaires are more than the combined GNP of all least developed countries and their 600 million people.” Nearly one quarter of the world's people have an income that is less than $1 a day - a proportion that is rising. The UN Development Programme calculates each year the human poverty index based on a series of measures including the prevalence of illiteracy, life expectancy, degree of malnourishment, and access to health services and safe water. In 1996 over a billion people fell below this measure, the position worsening in 30 countries - the worst figures since UNDP began calculating the index in 1990. Unless concerted action is taken against the growing impoverishment of the majority, then desperation and frustration will inevitably result in violent reactions such as US has witnessed these last couple of days.

Terrorism in all its forms must be opposed. But that applies as much to state-sponsored terrorism as it does to terrorism of armed groups. Last week saw the conclusion of the World Conference Against Racism that spawned its own set of contradictions. Why, for example, should the genocidal terror carried out by Europe during the Slave Trade during which tens of millions of African were uprooted or killed be viewed as acceptable just because the perpetrators declare that the act was “legal” at the time? The whole Colonial ravage of Africa was little other than legitimised terrorism. Why was it so difficult at the World Conference on Racism to declare outrage and condemnation of these vast acts of terrorism in Africa, but so easy to find our humanity when the act is carried out in New York and Washington?

Does terrorism have the effect of revealing not only the barbarism of the perpetrators but also of our own value systems?

US rallies the west for attack on Afghanistan

U.S. Bent on Revenge for Terror Attacks

Reaction from Africa: AllAfrica.com
http://allafrica.com/specials/wtc/index.html
Africa's sorrow over US terror attacks

Christians and Muslims Clash in Nigeria
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,551103,00.html
Jubilation in Nigeria on US
http://allafrica.com/stories/200109120127.html
They can't see why they are hated
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,551036,00.html
The best defence is justice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550464,00.html
OneWorld Special reports: after the US terror
http://www.oneworld.net/specialreports/terrorism/front.shtml