Connect with us

Op-Eds

White Saviours, Black Predators: What an NGO Tragedy Tells Us About Foreign Aid

7 min read.

Sex scandals exposed a culture of exploitation within leading NGOs, themselves deeply embedded in a White Saviour Industrial Complex. But what can we learn from the tragic story of ‘More than Me’? By RASNA WARAH.

Published

on

COCKUPS AND COVER-UPS: Why the #MeToo movement is unlikely to transform the UN
Download PDFPrint Article

A disturbing documentary released by ProPublica on 15 October shows how twisted, ill-informed and unaccountable foreign charities operating in Africa can be, and how Western donors are hoodwinked into supporting causes that may actually be doing more harm than good.

Unprotected tells the story of More Than Me (MTM), an NGO founded in 2008 by Katie Meyler, an American who has received several awards and accolades for helping poor Liberian girls go to school. The documentary’s main focus is on the MTM Academy in Monrovia, where female students were not just getting an education, but were also being systematically raped by none other than the NGO’s co-founder, Macintosh Johnson, a streetwise Liberian who recruited the girls from Monrovia’s poorest slums.

The story first surfaced after a Liberian nurse who worked at the MTM Academy found that many of the girls who came to see her were suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, that they had contracted from Johnson. She initially did not report what she suspected to be sexual abuse by Johnson for fear of losing her job. And the girls did not complain about the abuse because they feared losing their scholarships. However, in 2014, a year after the academy opened, the nurse informed the school’s management, who according to MTM’s website, reported the allegations to the police. Johnson was subsequently arrested and tried but died of AIDS in prison in 2016 while awaiting re-trial.

Unfortunately, such incidents are not unique to this NGO. In recent months, particularly in the wake of the #MeToo movement, the staff of many NGOs and charities, including Oxfam and Save the Children, have been implicated in sexually exploiting women, girls or boys in countries where they operate. Recent cases, such as that of Peter Dalglish, a Canadian who is being tried in Nepal for sexually abusing boys, have highlighted the fact that paedophiles often use the cover of charity work to abuse vulnerable children in poor or strife-torn parts of the world.

However, while Unprotected does a good job of exposing the abuse carried about by Johnson, it also raises important questions about the nature of Western philanthropy in Africa. The documentary – which was also published as an article by TIME magazine – lays out in considerable detail how a young white woman with no experience in humanitarian work or in the field of education managed to raise millions of dollars for an NGO that claimed to be operating 19 schools and teaching 4,000 girls in Liberia. Nobody questioned why this large outfit was being managed by unqualified and inexperienced American administrators and teachers, and a US-based board, most of whose members had never been to Liberia.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the staff of many NGOs and charities, including Oxfam and Save the Children, have been implicated in sexually exploiting women, girls or boys in countries where they operate.

In the documentary, Iris Martor, the nurse who worked at MTM Academy, explains how white privilege allowed Meyler to get away with things that would have not been tolerated if she had been a black Liberian. “They think we are stupid, with little or no education, and our system is fragile, and they can get away with things because their skin is white,” commented Martor.

It is a phenomenon familiar to those who live in Africa: A 20-something white man or woman, looking for adventure in his or her gap year or because life back home is too comfortable or predictable, arrives in an African country for the first time, gets terribly moved by the poverty he or she sees, and decides to form a charity to help poor Africans. Before you know it, the charity manages to raise thousands, if not millions, of dollars and the young man or woman is touted as a saviour. Awards follow as do more donations. (Meyler was named Person of the Year by TIME magazine in 2014 and even had the ear of billionaire philanthropists, such as Warren Buffet, Opray Winfrey and Bill Gates.)

Iris Martor, the nurse who worked at the More Than Me Academy, explains how white privilege allowed Meyler to get away with things that would have not been tolerated if she had been a black Liberian.

Meanwhile, the Africans who are the object of these donations remain as poor or vulnerable as they were before because the intention of these NGOs is not to make them self-sufficient but to create dependency and to make the do-gooder feel good about him or herself.

The Nigerian-American writer Teju Cole dubbed this phenomenon “The White Saviour Industrial Complex”, which he says is not about justice but about having “a big emotional experience that validates privilege”. In an article published in The Atlantic in March 2012, Cole wrote: “Africa has provided a space onto which white egos can be conveniently projected. It is a liberated space in which the usual rules do not apply: a nobody from America or Europe can go to Africa and become a godlike saviour or, at the very least, have his or her emotional needs satisfied.”

Most of these charities have little oversight – they are rarely monitored by the governments of the countries where they operate and their board members, if any, are usually citizens of the charity founder’s country, not citizens of the beneficiary country, which means they have little knowledge of the culture, norms or laws of the country whose people are being helped by the charity.

Moreover, most of these charities are less accountable to the host country governments than to their Western donors, who for the most part do not care how the charities they fund carry out their day-to-day operations. This means that the charities are not bound by the rules and laws that govern public or state-run institutions and so can essentially make up their own rules. This leaves the recipients of their largesse completely at their mercy.

On their part, African governments are only too happy to hand over a job they should ideally be doing to these do-gooders. Their thinking is along these lines: Why spend money on a hospital or a school when rich Westerners are only too happy to do it? Who cares if the people who are supposedly being helped by these charities get exploited? At least they get to go to school/do not starve/get free medicine.

It is only now, after the release of the ProPublica documentary, that the Liberian government has launched an investigation into MTM. Meanwhile, Meyler has “temporarily” resigned from MTM and a US-based law firm has been appointed to audit the organisation’s governing structures and administrative policies.

Robtel Neajai Pailey, who used to work for the Liberian government when Meyler started MTM, says that often African governments willingly cede responsibility towards their citizens by encouraging foreign NGOs and charities to do the work of government in their countries. Former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf not only endorsed MTM but also donated an abandoned government building to the NGO so it could build the MTM Academy. The Liberian Minister of Education also recruited Meyler to help Liberia privatise government-run schools.

“What qualified Meyler to a run a number of ‘partnership’ institutions is anyone’s guess,” Pailey wrote in a scathing opinion article published in AlJazeera. “A lot can be said about the failures of More Than Me and its reckless founder. However, Meyler is a symptom of something much more sinister. The biggest disappointment rests with us, Liberians, who neglected to protect the academy’s students from one of our own. We must accept this child rape saga as emblematic of our deeper, societal pathologies. Pathologies of secrecy, paedophilia and impunity. Pathologies of constantly looking outside of ourselves for solutions. Of pandering to clueless foreigners.”

Foreign charities and NGOs operating in Africa also fail to address the systemic and structural causes of poverty in Africa, and conveniently forget that the West contributed to making the continent poor. Slavery and colonialism robbed Africa of its human and natural resources. Neocolonial policies and aid dependency ensured that even after independence African countries were tied to Western capital. And Western corporations and the Bretton Woods institutions have created a situation where African countries are net creditors to the rest of the world.

“What qualified Meyler to a run a number of ‘partnership’ institutions is anyone’s guess,” Pailey wrote in a scathing opinion article published in AlJazeera. “A lot can be said about the failures of More Than Me and its reckless founder. However, Meyler is a symptom of something much more sinister. The biggest disappointment rests with us, Liberians…

“Honest Accounts 2017: How the World Profits from Africa’s Wealth”, a report published last year by a consortium of NGOs, including Global Justice Now and the Jubilee Debt Campaign, found that $134 billion, mainly in the form of loans, foreign investment and aid, enters Africa every year. However, $192 billion, mostly in the form of profits made by foreign companies and tax evasion, is taken out of the continent, which means that Africa suffers a net deficit of $58 billion every year. The report states that in 2015, African governments received $32.8 billion in loans but paid $18 billion in debt interest and principal payments. Africans in the diaspora remit $31 billion to the continent every year, almost the same amount that multinational corporations repatriate to their home countries annually. “The figures show that the rest of the world is profiting from the continent’s wealth – more so than most African citizens. Yet rich country governments simply tell their publics that their aid programmes are helping Africa. This is a distraction, and misleading,” concluded the report.

$134 billion, mainly in the form of loans, foreign investment and aid, enters Africa every year. However, $192 billion, mostly in the form of profits made by foreign companies and tax evasion, is taken out of the continent.

Foreign aid and foreign charities are, as Cole says, “a valve for releasing the unbearable pressures that build in a system built on pillage.” While Africa is systematically being impoverished by the West (and now increasingly by China), aid organisations and foreign charities are working overtime to fill a gap that should ideally be filled by African governments. This leaves African citizens vulnerable to incompetent and predatory foreign NGOs like MTM that end up doing more harm than good.

Foreign aid and foreign charities are…“a valve for releasing the unbearable pressures that build in a system built on pillage.”

African governments must bear the responsibility for this. They are the ones who enter into contracts with foreign mining companies that exploit Africa’s natural resources on unfair terms that mostly benefit the companies. They are the ones who take out huge, unsustainable loans that sink poor countries into debilitating debt. Much of Africa’s wealth is also siphoned by corrupt African leaders who deposit their loot in offshore tax havens. And because these leaders and their governments fail to provide essential services, such as education, to citizens, women like Meyler and her NGO fill the vacuum, often with devastating consequences.

Rasna Warah
By

Rasna Warah is a Kenyan writer and journalist. In a previous incarnation, she was an editor at the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). She has published two books on Somalia – War Crimes (2014) and Mogadishu Then and Now (2012) – and is the author UNsilenced (2016), and Triple Heritage (1998).

Op-Eds

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Published

on

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive
Download PDFPrint Article

The tyranny of numbers, a phrase first applied to Kenyan politics by one of Kenya’s most well-known political commentators, Mutahi Ngunyi, was repeated ad nauseum during the week of waiting that followed Kenya’s 2013 general elections.

In ads published in the run-up to the 2013 elections by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), people were told to vote, go home and accept the results. Encouraged by a state that had since the 2007 post-electoral violence dominated public discourse and means of coercion, the military pitched camp in polling stations. Many streets in Kenya’s cities and towns remained deserted for days after the polls closed.

According to Ngunyi, the winner of the 2013 elections had been known four months earlier, that is, when the electoral commission stopped registering voters.

In a country whose politics feature a dominant discourse that links political party and ethnicity, the outcome of voter registration that year meant that the Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto-led coalition, the Jubilee Alliance, would start the electoral contest with 47 per cent of the vote assured. With these statistics, their ticket appeared almost impossible to beat. For ethnic constituencies that did not eventually vote for Uhuru Kenyatta – the Jubilee Alliance presidential candidate in 2013 – a sense of hopelessness was widespread.

For them, a bureaucratic, professionalised, dispassionate (even boring) discourse became the main underpinning of the 2013 elections.

This was not the case in 2017.

Uhuru Kenyatta, pressured by opposition protests and a Supreme Court ruling that challenged his victory and ordered a re-run, met with Raila Odinga – his challenger for the presidency in the 2013 and 2017 elections – and offered a settlement. It became known as the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI).

In his 2020 Jamhuri Day speech, Uhuru reiterated that the purpose of the BBI process is to abolish the winner-takes-all system by expanding the executive branch of government.

As he explained it, the challenge to Kenya’s politics is the politicisation of ethnicity coupled with a lack of the requisite number of political offices within the executive branch that would satisfy all ethnic constituencies – Kenya has 42 enumerated ethnic groups.

The revised BBI report that was released on 21 October 2020 (the first was published in November 2019) has now retained the position of president, who, if the recommendations are voted for in a referendum, will also get to appoint a prime minister, two deputy prime ministers and a cabinet.

Amid heckles and jeers during the launch of the revised BBI report, Deputy President William Ruto asked whether the establishment of the positions of prime minister and two deputy prime ministers would create the much sought-after inclusivity. In his Jamhuri Day speech, the president conceded that they wouldn’t, but that the BBI-proposed position of Leader of Official Opposition – with a shadow cabinet, technical support and a budget – would mean that the loser of the presidential election would still have a role to play in governance.

One could not help but think that the president’s statement was informed by the fact that Odinga lost to him in both the 2013 and 2017 presidential elections –  this despite Odinga’s considerable political influence over vast areas of the country.

The 2010 constitution’s pure presidential system doesn’t anticipate any formal political role for the loser(s) of a presidential election. Raila held no public office between 2013 and 2017, when he lost to Uhuru. This did not help to address the perception amongst his supporters that they had been excluded from the political process for many years. In fact, Raila’s party had won more gubernatorial posts across the country’s 47 counties than the ruling Jubilee Alliance had during the 2013 elections.

While Raila’s attempts to remain politically relevant in the five years between 2013 and 2017 were largely ignored by Uhuru, the resistance against Uhuru’s victory in 2017 wasn’t.

The anger felt by Raila’s supporters in 2017 following the announcement that Uhuru had won the elections – again – could not be separated from the deeply-entrenched feelings of exclusion and marginalisation that were at the centre of the violence that followed the protracted and disputed elections.

The reading of Kenyan politics that is currently being rendered by the BBI process is that all ethnic constituencies must feel that they (essentially, their co-ethnic leaders) are playing a role in what is an otherwise overly centralised, executive-bureaucratic state. This is despite the fact that previous attempts to limit the powers of the executive branch by spreading them across other levels of government have often invited a backlash from the political class.

Kenya’s independence constitution had provided for a Westminster-style, parliamentary system of government, and took power and significant functions of government away from the centralised government in Nairobi, placing significant responsibility (over land, security and education, for instance) in the hands of eight regional governments of equal status known in Swahili as majimbo. The majimbo system was abolished and, between 1964 to 1992, the government was headed by an executive president and the constitution amended over twenty times – largely empowering the executive branch at the expense of parliament and the judiciary. The powers of the president were exercised for the benefit of the president’s cronies and co-ethnics.

By 2010 there was not a meaningful decentralised system of government. The executive, and the presidency at its head, continued to survive attempts at limiting their powers. This has continued since 2010.

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Beyond the minimum of 35 per cent of national revenue that the BBI report proposes should be allocated to county governments, it is less clear whether the country’s leaders are prepared to decentralise significant powers and resources away from the executive, and away from Nairobi.

Perhaps the real solution to the challenges of governance the BBI process purports to address is to follow the prescriptions of the defunct Yash Pal Ghai team – it went around the country collecting views for constitutional change in 2003-2004.

According to a paper written by Ghai himself, the Ghai-led Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) had no doubt that, consistent with the goals of the review and the people’s views, there had to be a transfer of very substantial powers and functions of government to local levels.

The CKRC noted – much like Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga now have – that the centralised presidential system tends to ethnicise politics, which threatens national unity.

Kenyans told the CKRC that decisions were made at places far away from them; that their problems arose from government policies over which they had no control; that they wanted greater control over their own destiny and to be free to determine their lifestyle choices and their affairs; and not to be told that they are not patriotic enough!

Yes, the BBI report has proposed that 5 per cent of county revenue be allocated to Members of County Assemblies for a newly-created Ward Development Fund, and that businesses set up by young Kenyans be exempted from taxation for the first seven years of operation. However, this doesn’t amount to any meaningful surrender of power and resources by the executive.

In emphasising the importance of exercising control at the local level, Kenyans told the CKRC that they wanted more communal forms of organisation and a replacement of the infamous Administration Police with a form of community policing. They considered that more powers and resources at the local level would give them greater influence over their parliamentary and local representatives, including greater control over jobs, land and land-based resources.  In short, Kenyans have always yearned for a dispersion of power away from the presidency, and away from the executive and Nairobi. They have asked for the placing of responsibility for public affairs in the hands of additional and more localised levels of government.

This is what would perhaps create the much sought-after inclusivity.

But as the BBI debate rages on, the attention of the political class is now on the proposed new positions within the executive branch. And as the debate becomes inexorably linked to the 2022 Kenyatta-succession race, questions centring on political positions will likely become personalised, especially after the political class cobbles together coalitions to contest the 2022 general elections.

Meanwhile, ordinary Kenyans will be left battling the aftermath of a pandemic, and having to deal with the usual stresses brought on by a political class seeking their votes for another round of five years of exclusion.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others

The coming election in Uganda is significant because if there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment.

Published

on

Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others
Download PDFPrint Article

Western powers slowly tied a noose round their own necks by first installing Uganda’s National Resistance Movement regime, and then supporting it uncritically as it embarked on its adventures in militarism, plunder and human rights violations inside and outside Uganda’s borders.

They are now faced with a common boss problem: what to do with an employee of very long standing (possibly even inherited from a predecessor) who may now know more about his department than the new bosses, and who now carries so many of the company’s secrets that summary dismissal would be a risky undertaking?

The elections taking place in Uganda this week have brought that dilemma into sharp relief.

An initial response would be to simply allow this sometimes rude employee to carry on. The problem is time. In both directions. The employee is very old, and those he seeks to manage are very young, and also very poor and very aspirational because of being very young. And also therefore very angry.

Having a president who looks and speaks like them, and whose own personal life journey symbolises their own ambitions, would go a very long way to placating them. This, if for no other reason, is why the West must seriously consider finding a way to induce the good and faithful servant to give way. Nobody lives forever. And so replacement is inevitable one way or another.

But this is clearly not a unified position. The United Kingdom, whose intelligence services were at the forefront of installing the National Resistance Movement/Army (NRM/A) in power nearly forty years ago, remains quietly determined to stand by President Yoweri Museveni’s side.

On the other hand, opinion in America’s corridors of power seems divided. With standing operations in Somalia, and a history of western-friendly interventions in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and even Kenya, the Ugandan military is perceived as a huge (and cut-price) asset to the West’s regional security concerns.

The DRC, in particular, with its increasing significance as the source of much of the raw materials that will form the basis of the coming electric engine revolution, has been held firmly in the orbit of Western corporations through the exertions of the regime oligarchs controlling Uganda’s security establishment. To this, one may add the growing global agribusiness revolution in which the fertile lands of the Great Lakes Region are targeted for clearing and exploitation, and for which the regime offers facilitation.

Such human resource is hard to replace and therefore not casually disposed of.

These critical resource questions are backstopped by unjust politics themselves held in place by military means. The entire project therefore hinges ultimately on who has the means to physically enforce their exploitation. In our case, those military means have been personalised to one individual and a small circle of co-conspirators, often related by blood and ethnicity.

However, time presses. Apart from the ageing autocrat at the centre, there is also a time bomb in the form of an impoverished and anxious population of unskilled, under-employed (if at all) and propertyless young people. Change beckons for all sides, whether planned for or not.

This is why this coming election is significant. If there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment. Even if President Museveni is once again declared winner, there will still remain enough political momentum and pressure that could be harnessed by his one-time Western friends to cause him to look for the exit. It boils down to whether the American security establishment could be made to believe that the things that made President Museveni valuable to them, are transferable elsewhere into the Uganda security establishment. In short, that his sub-imperial footprint can be divorced from his person and entrusted, if not to someone like candidate Robert Kyagulanyi, then at least to security types already embedded within the state structure working under a new, youthful president.

Three possible outcomes then: Kyagulanyi carrying the vote and being declared the winner; Kyagulanyi carrying the vote but President Museveni being declared the winner; or failure to have a winner declared. In all cases, there will be trouble. In the first, a Trump-like resistance from the incumbent. In the second and the third, the usual mass disturbances that have followed each announcement of the winner of the presidential election since the 1990s.

Once the Ugandan political crisis — a story going back to the 1960s — is reduced to a security or “law and order” problem, the West usually sides with whichever force can quickest restore the order they (not we) need.

And this is how the NRM tail seeks to still wag the Western dog: the run-up to voting day has been characterised by heavy emphasis on the risk of alleged “hooligans” out to cause mayhem (“burning down the city” being a popular bogeyman). The NRM’s post-election challenge will be to quickly strip the crisis of all political considerations and make it a discussion about security.

But it would be strategically very risky to try to get Uganda’s current young electorate — and the even younger citizens in general — to accept that whatever social and economic conditions they have lived through in the last few decades (which for most means all of their lives given how young they are) are going to remain in place for even just the next five years. They will not buy into the promises they have seen broken in the past. Their numbers, their living conditions, their economic prospects and their very youth would then point to a situation of permanent unrest.

However, it can be safely assumed that the NRM regime will, to paraphrase US President Donald Trump, not accept any election result that does not declare it the winner.

Leave things as they are and deal with the inevitable degeneration of politics beyond its current state, or enforce a switch now under the cover of an election, or attempt to enforce a switch in the aftermath of the election by harnessing the inevitable discontent.

Those are the boss’ options.

In the meantime, there is food to be grown and work to be done.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Uganda Elections 2021: The Elephant Website Blocked Ahead of Poll

For about a month now, some of our readers within Uganda have been reporting problems accessing the website. Following receipt of these reports, we launched investigations which have established that The Elephant has been blocked by some, though not all, internet service providers in the country.

Published

on

Uganda Elections 2021: The Elephant Website Blocked Ahead of Poll
Download PDFPrint Article

Dear Readers/Viewers,

For four years now, The Elephant has been one of the premier online sources of news analysis in the East African region with a fast-growing readership across the African continent and beyond.

For about a month now, some of our readers within Uganda have been reporting problems accessing the website. Following receipt of these reports, we launched investigations which have established that The Elephant has been blocked by some, though not all, internet service providers in the country.

We have further ascertained that the directive to do so came from the Uganda Communication Commission (UCC) and was implemented beginning 12 December 2020, when we noticed a sudden traffic drop coming from several providers in Uganda, including Africell and Airtel. A forensics report, which provides technical details on the blocking, is available here.

We have written to the UCC requesting a reason for the blocking but are yet to receive a response.

The Elephant wholeheartedly condemns this assault on free speech and on freedom of the press and calls on the Ugandan government to respect the rights of Ugandans to access information.

We would like to assure all our readers that we are doing everything in our power to get the restrictions removed and hope normal access can be restored expeditiously.

As we do this, to circumvent the block, a Bifrost mirror has been deployed. Readers in Uganda can once again access The Elephant on this link.

Thank you.

Best Regards

John Githongo
Publisher

Continue Reading

Trending