Dear Third World Charities...where the heck are the governments?

In My Humble Opinion
1

The letters for charity donations start pouring in, and looking them over, I noticed one thing: no mention of the countries government. Governments are completely absent from the picture. Build a school, a hospital, a vaccination programme, an orphanage? Of course that is the task of a charity organisation.

So excuse me, but isn’t it the core business of governments, even in Uganda, Chad, India, or wherever, to build and maintain schools, hospitals, vaccination programmes, orphanages, and provide relief after natural disasters? What do those governments do, if they don’t do that? Why do people support them?

FWIW, I know that churches and individual people from the country itself usually are the backbone of such humanitarian endeavours. I just seldom hear about the governments help in this.

It may be some sort of conspiracy of silence of charities not to mention the national programmes that already exist, for fear of people in the West reducing donations, but this is getting ridiculous. What, am I supposed to enable a corrupt and blatantly incompetent African government to keep on misspending because they know that Western Charities will keep picking up the slack?

2

Governments subsist on tax dollars from their citizens, supported by the competence and integrity of government officials, and supplemented (in the case of developing countries) by the donor community.

Many developing countries do not have fully developed tax codes, nor do they have an honest and prosperous citizenry that pays a useful amount of money in tax dollars. Even assuming honesty and good will all around, the needed infrastructure and the capability simply aren’t there yet - it’s a work in progress. This shouldn’t be surprising when an entire nation suffers from a legacy of bad education, colonialism, and assorted other ills that typically plague developing nations.

Progressive, first-world nations - I’d put the Scandinavian countries at the top of the list myself - work hard to develop good governance, free and fair elections, decent capacity among government officials, and so on. But those are efforts with a view to the long term. Teaching a ministry about better procurement procedures is a very good thing (and something my office is working on right now, in Indonesia.) It won’t feed starving orphans or educate kids in a remote village, however. If governments don’t have the cash or the ability to reach all their suffering citizens, and aid dollars are stretched to the limit doing what they can to help, and there is STILL unmet need, who steps in? Often, it is the charities you seem to dismiss in your OP.

If you don’t want to give to international charities, fine - don’t. But don’t justify this decision by claiming that “the government of Chad should do it - if I give money, I’m supporting a corrupt regime, so I’m actually more moral if I keep the money for myself.”

That’s an absurdly simplistic view of the world. Spend your charity dollars in your own country if you feel more confident that the cash will be better spent. Or educate yourself on which international charities do work that you can support (Doctors Without Borders and Planned Parenthood International are among my favorites, but that’s just me - your own research might lead you in a different direction.)

But don’t justify your decision not to give because you smugly think you are avoiding propping up corrupt regimes. Uganda or Chad or Indonesia or Mozambique could have the most fantastic government in the world starting tomorrow, and there would STILL be unmet needs among children, women, and other vulnerable populations. International NGOs do so much good work to help the most desperate people in the world. Supporting them doesn’t in any way hinder the development of a good national government. On the contrary, it sets a fine example of what organized, competent, caring people and organizations can do in the world.

3

I suspect this is one of those questions that has as many answers as there are countries involved. But I can think of one quick one right out of the gate:

The welfare state is a pretty modern invention, even in developed Western countries. When did universal schooling as a govenment responsibility start appearing - some time around the late 19th century at the earliest, wouldn’t it be? What was the “core function” of government before then? Stopping other dudes with big guns (or, earlier, sharp swords) from coming and taking all your stuff, I’m guessing is the answer. And, in fact, governments of even poverty-stricken third world countries are generally doing okay on that one.

And what do you mean by “people” support them. People in the countries they rule? Often they don’t really have an option short of bloody revolution. People outside the countries? Depends - some for totally selfish reasons, some because the only alternative is a rehash of Afghanistan and look how well that turned out.

Well of course if they’re really corrupt and blatantly incompetent they doubtless don’t give a flying fuck how many of their citizens die of dysentery. So “enabling” isn’t really the right word here - it’s not like a tinpot dictator is suddenly going to start wringing his hands if all the external charities leave and saying ‘oh no, there are poor people dying in my country, what am I going to do?’

And in other cases, they may simply not have the money to do all the stuff that needs to be done. So other people do it instead. And there’s no particular need to funnel external funds through a government bureaucracy specifically - if you’ve got some money and want to do good with it, why not just go do good? Why ought the government be involved, if the money being spent is not through taxation of its own citizens?

4

I’d never think that, I’‘m not that cynical. However, I often think that I would like my charities to put my money into more structural, governance-oriented efforts. Can’'t the Red Cross, for instance, whenver there is a lull in natural disasters, step in and help organize the damned Ethiopian or Chad government to make the next disaster at least a little bit better organized, governance-wise?

I would actually give more if my money went into improving governance, because in the end that should lead to better help all around.

5

No. The government is not “disorganized”, it is corrupt. In many cases they are not hurting for money at the government level, they have no desire to institute governmental reforms necessary to spend money on the populace to improve access to clean water, healthcare, food, or anything of that nature.

6

If governmetns are unwilling, of unable, does not really matter. In both cases, charity organizations have their work cut out for them. If it is unwillingness, they have to exert pressure. If the problem is knowledge or lack of structures, they should teach or do some social engeneering. All of those should help more, in the long term, then building another orphanage. It just seems mopping up water while the tap is running, to use a Dutch exprssion.

And yes, I know that many autocratic states only allow charity organizations to do their work as long as they don’t criticize the government or become too much of a power base. But damn, isn’'t it possible if all the carities banded together, to get a little more power in that regard? Even the most cynical dictator, if it got sold to him the right way, should see some merit in setting up a better social infrastructure for relief disaster and hospitals.

My dad, who has worked in Third World developement all his life, has a lot of admiration for how the religious charities have always walked that fine line of helping while not becoming a threat to the (corrupt, or even just primitive) government. But why do they even have to walk that fine line at all? Isn’t it time for the checks and balances to shift in that regard? And as long as all the charities keep firmly in the camp of "we do nothing that can even be remotely regarded as interfering in the governments business’’ that won’t change.

It’‘s been how long since Governments (not charities or ngo’s, but national governments and the IMF) started making demands of countries receiving aid, in terms of civil liberties? Ten, fifteen years? And those governments have complied. Isn’‘t it time for charities to band together and do the same thing? And why don’'t we, as their funders, demand that of our charities?

7

::PM-ing even sven::

8

Not necessarily, no. The governments you speak of exist largely to enrich the dictator, his inner circle, and whichever tribe or social class is his power base. They do not exist to promote justice, well-being, or human rights. To the contrary, those Western values can be a threat to the dictator’s rule, by being perceived as weaknesses. The dictator must be perceived as strong and merciless to keep armed rebellion to a minimum.

They must walk the fine line because all the power is in the hands of the government. The charity can be expelled, what pressure can the charity place on the government? Checks and balances check and balance power, the power is all on one side here.

9

The dictator can’t admit too openly that he doesn’t care about the powerless classes, right? So there’s the base for the power of the charities.

10

They do far worse than admit they don’t care. Often their rule is predicated on persecution of tribes or ethnicities other than that which forms the dictator’s power base.

Idi Amin of Uganda persecuted the Acholi and Lango peoples, who’d supported his opponent, Milton Obote.

Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire ordered the Tutsi people to leave Zaire on penalty of death.

Théodore Sindikubwabo of Rwanda helped carry out the Rwandan Genecide of the Tutsis.

And on and on it goes. These aren’t class struggles, this is tribalism, which defines sub-Saharan African politics.

11

Then the power of the charities would lay in boycotting help to the tribe that the dictator does care about.

“if you don’t allow us to police our own distribution of aid the next disaster, we will withdraw help from the regions with your power base”.

12

The US has a fairly robust and reliable taxation and public works/welfare system. There are still plenty of charities running around and filling in gaps where the government either doesn’t provide services or doesn’t provide enough services. I’ve volunteered with a church-run homeless shelter (no, I didn’t belong to that church or even adhere to their denomination, they didn’t care). There are a few government run homeless shelters here, but there isn’t enough space to fit all the homeless. What about the Salvation Army? What about the YMCA? They’ve been here since the (US) Civil War and they aren’t shutting down anytime soon. The American Red Cross was active on the battlefields of Virginia during the Civil War and they run disaster relief programs in the US today, and also collect blood.

13

So you really think that charities should be in the business of negotiating political change in countries where people are dying from lack of access to food, water, or medical services just to prove a point. This is stupid. Their primary goal is providing services when governments fail for whatever reason. It is not nation building. Not to mention, the charities have zero leverage whatsoever to enact the types of improvements you’re expecting to see. I don’t know why you think it’s hard to believe that a country would kick an organization for any reason whatsoever, let alone meddling with internal politics and trying to embarrass a militarized dictator.

This whole thread seems like the epitome of naivete to me.

14

This is true. But that’s not much power. If you’d have gone to Idi Amin with the threat “Let us help the Acholi and Lango or we won’t help the Kakwa [Amin’s people]”, you’d be promptly ejected from Uganda, or worse. Which means no one gets helped. This is why charities play ball with the dictators, so someone in need gets aid.

Bear in mind that these nations don’t have a free press, thus there’s no way to undermine the ruler via shame.

This about sums it up: the charities have little to no leverage, and the sort of political manuevering Maastricht advocates would cost the charities their moral high ground, as well as a claim to being politically-neutral NGOs that are able to operate in most nations. The direct effect would be more human misery, not less.

Perhaps not naivete, but frustration. It must be kept in mind that the rulers and peoples of Third World nations differ from the West not just in material prosperity, but in mindset and outlook as well. Actions that seem evil and irrational to you seem fair-minded and justified to them.

15

The part that was naive to me was the whole “why don’t those charities just go in there and fix the governments and then there’s no need for charity!” thing. Like the only problem with third world governments is that they just don’t know how to take care of their people, and once they’re shown how, everything will be cool. “Now you just hang on one minute mister! If you don’t shape up, we will just go find another group of desperately poor individuals to assist!” And the leaders are supposed to be all “oh shit, no, then we’ll have to step in and form some semblance of a welfare state to keep people from dying from preventable illness? No no, please stay, we’ll do whatever you want!”
No, it’s not like that at all. Those despotic dictators really don’t give a shit about their people dying at the expense of their own personal wealth. Failed states are so named for a reason.

16

That is really the same line of thinking as individual workers and small unions had, before the rise of big, powerful unions. As long as charities don’t stick together, you are right that they don’t have power, and they let themselves be controlled by a dictator who has taken his suffering people hostage. That is why I say that they should band together and should take more power. To do otherwise, is, in my eyes, real naivite and short term thinking. And I think that we, the public who donates to charities, should be vocal about wanting them to at least look at their options.

That is different in these post-internet times. The same lack of free press was the case in Arab countries, and look what social media and the Internet did for the Arab spring.

17

You’re under the impression that the country won’t simply kick them out. In the US, if you’re striking your employer, the employer can’t simply decide to remove you from the country. The two situations are not analogous, because the country is not dependent on the charities for anything. The people who are suffering do. There is no power to take, and they go to great pains to ensure that they aren’t seen as meddling in the country’s internal affairs due to the fact that it will quickly result in them being removed from that country.

18

There probably is a small element of “don’t know how to take care of their people” at work. Rather than model themselves upon successful nations, most of Africa in particular settled on a sort of authoritarian, corrupt socialism. The leaders come and go, but the system seldom changes. None of the elements that improved the lot of the common man in Europe and America are in place: Democracy, peaceful transfer of power, a constitution or other guarantee of basic rights, checks and balances, economic freedom…all missing.

So, while I agree with your broader points, I don’t think someone like Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, even if he awoke one day with a mission to improve his peoples’ lives, would make much headway. The necessary elements aren’t in place; more likely, he’d be seen as weak and vulnerable and ousted.

19

Good thread…the 2010 earthquake in Haiti is a good example- over $2 billion poured in…most of which was wasted. You have the usual government corruption, shakedowns, but also total incompetence. In the case of Haiti, the government never did much except steal from the people, so no one expected much. Anyway, there was a good example…the people needed housing…so a group went in, found some land, and started building small houses. Unfortunately, nobody bothered to provide any bus service to the place, so the people could not get to their jobs. Also, the location wasn’t near any markets, so the people could not buy food (Haitians are too poor to have refrigerators-they buy food every day). So the development stood empty-till local thieves vandalized them and stole the windows and doors. $2 million thrown away for nothing.

20

Ok, let’s try and frame this in a concrete, real-world way. We have Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, whose policies of “land reform” (confiscating productive farms from the white minority, and giving them to those loyal to his rule, who have not made the farms productive), coupled with hyperinflation (caused by printing bills to pay his soldiers and police, who maintain his rule), have thoroughly wrecked his nation. How would an alliance of the world’s great charities address these problems?

True, but there is a vast difference between a popular uprising from within, and medlding agitation by outsiders, particularly wealthy, mostly-white outsiders.

Furthermore, the employees have power, in that the business needs them to function. Most African dictatorships are supported not by tax revenue, but by state-owned industries, mostly in resource-extraction and agriculture. Thus, the common folk truely are expendible, as far as the dictator is concerned. All he needs is his army and his state-owned (i.e., dictator-owned) oil company. All he needs the people to do is not openly rebel, which can be forestalled by divide-and-rule, choosing which tribes will be the least impoverished and impressed: the most loyal ones.