For forty years, I was able to travel to various African countries to conduct technical assistance missions. The day of reckoning has (almost) come. Not my own: it is up to others to do so, but of development aid. The question is: Should we continue to helpAfrica?
Start with "donors". There are many, so much so that aid programs are conducted in a cacophony maintained both by donors who do not cooperate with each other and recipient countries which multiply their requests. This " organized bazaar " works like forty years at the discretion of influence peddling and political cowardice.
Imperfect as it is, the "bazaar" must remain open. It can still make a difference. The worst would be to stop everything. What do we want? Even more chaos? More conflict and poverty? Underdevelopment? The donor countries certainly are not angels, they represent national interests and find advantage to float above their standard. It started well before colonization and continued well after. International organizations are considered heavily bureaucratic. Their officials seem indeed more concerned with their career and their well-being. But all these players must remain and even grow. The World Bank has traditionally been the subject of fierce criticism, especially from those who know nothing of its action and confuse it with the IMF! To light their lanterns, say development approach has evolved over the years. They built fewer roads and infrastructure. They are now more concerned with governance and capacity building. Who could validly criticize such an approach? Are northern countries not themselves engaged in a similar process of administrative reform?
Then there is the question of the "experts." Donors do not engage in general operational work but "let do." Among the consultants fielded, some do their job with minimum modesty and a sense of listening. Others steeped omniscient, know what needs to be done before arriving in the country, use an arrogant tone and die wrapped in their own certainties. Peace to their souls. I tried to place myself in the first category. However, I do not ignore my limits: a certain impatience to get things done leads me to sometimes put too much pressure on my interlocutors. It is difficult to change. And pardon to my African friends not to have been able to meet all their expectations as we, of the North, are sometimes perceived by them as magicians or omniscient experts, which is far from always the case.
I do not forget NGOs. They are part of the landscape of emergency and longer term aid. These are useful, but media players and sympathy they enjoy in the opinion conceal their real impact ... and their defects. Logistics of emergency operations is probably to completely review: Instead of sending at great expense goods purchased in northern countries, it would be preferable in some countries to "buy local." It would be more convenient and better meet the real needs of people. As for development activities, it may be - I am aware there to throw a stone into the pond - remember that NGOs that operate in states with governments ultimately responsible priorities, ie they do not have to settle wherever they wish to do what they want, without any transparency. Health, education, nutrition, water supply policy which emerged from NGOs, private actors must comply. The right of interference which they allege must be accompanied by information and consultation.
Come, last but not least, the countries themselves. Everyone knows the air of corruption sung by the Afro-pessimists from all sides. "No more help, they sing, it is useless" ... What do they say? Of course, the great corruption of diverting public funds and property, the fact to hire the son of the family or "clients" who have nothing to do in the position, is unacceptable. What about petty corruption, which can supplement low wages or one that puts the oil in the wheels for faster service or a benefit? Let's be frank: it is virtually impossible to eradicate. It acts as a lubricant. Everyone makes the situation turns to his advantage. Moral stances will change nothing.
And then it all starts to do well. Who are those who set themselves up as vigilantes? Some of these "good minds" do not even know or perceiveAfrica as through television or books. They speak of Africans as a single entity, and doomed to final depravity with phrases like "That'sAfrica! ". Draped in virtue, rich countries believe legitimate to criticize the South. It is well known that in the North, all is order and harmony. Everything is transparent, public, fair. We ignore cronyism, inequality, lobbying. Truce of nonsense: the moral judgment by the North to the South is null and void. This is the biblical story of the straw and the beam. We would do well to look at ourselves.
And within the African elites, there are, I said, men and women workers of integrity. As despisers and other self-proclaimed experts go for a ride in Africa, they will see that there are also officials involved and knowledgeable ... Many are brilliant and would blush some of our “énarques” asleep on their laurels and vegetating in their jurisdictions. And in Africa, at least, is still spoken fluent French and people work in a suit and tie, clean shaven and not open shirt with a stubble ...
Certainly, development aid is costly to our taxpayers. But the co-development that allows to start is better than uncontrolled migration flows. The vast majority of Africans prefer to stay in the country. They know that the North will do them no favors and that the road to integration is more uncertain than ever. This is why it is better to give them their chance locally and not up to thousands of kilometers from their cities and their campaigns. So I say: Yes, we must continue to helpAfrica! We have no choice and it is not necessarily money down the drain. That said, all aid actors must examine their role and react against ideological considerations and ego-centric financial appetites.
|
