Healing solidarity: re-imagining international development

Credit: https://www.maxpixel.net. CC0 Public Domain.

What are the first two words that come to mind when
you think about foreign aid? Probably not ‘healing’ and ‘solidarity,’
especially in the context of recent scandals at Oxfam, Save the Children and
Amnesty International and the emergence of the #Aidtoo movement. Yet an online
conference last week was buzzing with over 1,500 people who are actively
re-imagining the values and practices of the international development sector
around these radically different principles.

Fundamental to this process is the recognition that there
will be no change in the ways in which wealth and power are so unequally distributed
in the world unless we do things differently at both the individual and the
collective levels—unless we acknowledge that we are all part of the problem as
well as the solution, however well-intentioned our efforts. And that means
transforming ourselves and the institutions we’ve created if we are serious
about transforming the broader structures that dispossess and discriminate
against certain groups of people, wherever in the world they live.

International NGOs (INGOs) and other aid agencies are
late in waking up to this fact, but why is that, and what can be done to put it

The first issue raised by many of the conference
speakers was that colonial and racist structures still permeate much of the work
of the international development sector, and are both pervasive and strongly rooted.
These attitudes show themselves in the concrete details of decision-making,
governance, spending patterns, staff selection and remuneration beyond and
beneath the rhetoric of NGOs, UN agencies and governments.

Researcher Gemma
puts this down in part to the idea of the ‘perfect humanitarian:’

“This idea that to be a really good humanitarian you
have to be a certain person. And that certain person is the one that’s put out
in all the awareness raising materials of NGOs and charities, often a white,
western aid worker who’s flying from one emergency to another, who’s so
committed [and] doesn’t have any family ties because they’re just there
throwing themselves into their work.”

This archetype continues to pervade the structures
through which many INGOs operate, structures in which the power over decisions
and resources still sits with people in offices in places like London, New
York, Oxford and Geneva rather than those whose lives are directly affected by
poverty and marginalisation.

It’s also reflected in the differentials that often
exist between staff with similar levels of training and expertise but who are
treated differently as a result of where they come from and work. As Wanja
Muguongo, Founding Executive Director of UHAI
(The East African Sexual Health and Rights Initiative) asked the audience:

“Is the Yale graduate that will be employed by a
funder in the Global North different from the Yale graduates that I employ in
Kenya? Because they have the same kind of education…the same kind of thinking
about what their brain is worth but somehow there is an assumption that African
labour is cheaper. Maybe we want to go
back to the historical truism that African labour should be free.”

The second challenge raised by many speakers was the
need to reconceptualise the work of the international development sector from a
frame of benevolence (with all the hierarchies it implies between ‘givers’ and
receivers’) to one of solidarity that’s marked out by equality and horizontal relationships. One way to do
this would be to re-frame foreign aid as reparations for the horrors of slavery
and colonialism. In this frame the right to decide on what happens to money would
stand squarely with those whose lives have been shaped by those horrors,
whether in the past or the present.

There are other ways to operationalise the principle
of solidarity beyond reparations, but the general point is this: so long as we
keep imagining ourselves and our work through a framework of benevolence towards
distant others we will miss the need for transformation in ourselves, in the
ways in which we live and the histories and realties we take for granted. International
aid as it is right now exists because we created a deeply unfair and unjust
world. Working for change in that world therefore means identifying and
addressing injustice within us as much as without.

That was the third theme of the conference: a constant
tendency in the sector to externalise problems and solutions while failing to
provide enough opportunities for self-critique and the self-care that must go
with it to avoid burnout and alienation. Angela Bruce Raeburn,
who previously worked for Oxfam in Haiti, put it like this:

“We don’t lead with our authentic selves. We don’t
lead with the conversations about truth, about race.”

And as Lisa VeneKlasen Executive Director of JASS added, nothing will change:

“unless you really change the culture and how we see
ourselves. And that means changing who we are and being comfortable to be able
to step into something that maybe we didn’t know…[otherwise] we’re not going
to be able to contribute to major, major shifts. So it is really about changing
who we are but from a place of much deeper politics.”

One of the reasons why deeper work of this kind is so
rarely prioritised is the drive towards ‘value for money’ in the sector, a
drive which emanates from the headquarters of aid agencies and funders rather
than from the communities and people affected. “It’s as if you shouldn’t be
paying salaries—you should just be doing work” as Muguongo pointed out, an
attitude that actually devalues

It is hard to see how such inequitable frameworks
consolidated by corporatised INGO and other aid agency structures can be fit
for the purpose of transforming inequity in the world, but what should replace
them? A plethora of ideas emerged from the conference, all of which seek to re-distribute
power and centralise wellbeing and an ethic of care throughout our work.

Speakers included representatives of two other funds which,
like UHAI, have found ways to develop decision making processes in which those
whose lives are affected by the resources they allocate can be involved in
making decisions about how those resources are utilised. At FRIDA (the Young Feminist Fund) and the
Stars Foundation,
participatory grant making processes are accompanied by a focus on, and a willingness
to fund, wellbeing and self-care for the activists and organisations they
support: when people are involved in making decisions they are also being
valued in and of themselves.

Secondly, whilst INGOs
are not social movements
and are by nature institutions that are not
representative of the communities they serve, we should be willing to take more
of our inspiration from their flexibility, responsiveness and commitment to
challenging power rather than following in the footsteps of corporate brands
and the planning processes, communications strategies and funder demands they
impose. Muguongo put it like this;

“If philanthropy structured itself as a partner and
came to the table from a place of humility, of ‘Hey, this is what I bring in
the room, what do you bring in the room and how can we work together?’ I
actually think that would resolve a whole load of problems.”

In short we need to lead in the practice of re-distributing power and wealth and not just the
theory. Jennifer Lentfer, Director of Communications at Thousand Currents and Founder of the How Matters Blog, called on those of us
working in the sector to acknowledge the lived histories of colonialism and
patriarchy in our own lives and those of our ancestors:

“Working in Africa eventually
necessitated…understanding the place where my people are from, and the
genocide and removal and erasure of native Americans that created the ‘manifest
destiny’ so that my great great great grandfather could own that land.”

An awareness of our own stories and histories seems an
essential first step in reforming our actions and seeking to be in solidarity with
others in ways that actively re-distribute power and resources. “I don’t know
that in our lifetimes we can right that wrong,” Lentfer added, but “I do know
that we can acknowledge that wrong.”

True solidarity of this nature may not be able to
operate within the large INGO structures which—as researcher and consultant Tina Wallace
reminded us during the conference—only took on their current corporatised nature
in the 1990s and 2000s. But none of these reforms require us to expend
ourselves in service to some imagined other—only that we accept the concrete practice
of solidarity rather than paternalism in everything we do. The message of the
conference is that we can start to re-imagine our sector by paying due care and
attention to ourselves and each other, and by developing a commitment to honest
reflection about our own roles and histories.

That requires that we put people and relationships
first, and in doing so acknowledge that they have legitimate needs for rest,
fun and happiness. Jessica Horn, writer
and Director of Programmes at the African Women’s
Development Fund
spoke pointedly to the fact that in 17 years working in
the sector she had seldom heard anyone speak about “African women’s happiness;”
instead we expect only ‘resilience’ and continual hard work, as well as placing
the risks and responsibilities for fighting injustice on their shoulders. We
have to do better.

If we can be much more open about things we have
struggled to talk about for so long, then we can begin to shift our practice
towards one that prioritises actual justice rather than colonial benevolence,
takes its lead from activists and communities rather than the corporate bodies
that cause so much of the harm we are fighting, and places humility and
self-development at the heart of all the work we do.

Find out more about the conference and access recordings from it at healingsolidarity.org.

Comments are closed.