Debate and Review

The most recent World Bank Report, The World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development, released on Monday (April 11) has called on governments and international agencies to shift focus from poverty alleviation, health and education to securing stable government, justice and police reform.

But is what is happening in the Middle East and elsewhere a call for help from the outside, or is this a domestic response to domestic problems that can only be resolved by those involved?

There is a stark difference between sending food reserves after an earthquake or helping vaccinate school children from deadly illnesses and helping reform the governance of a country. This blending of humanitarian aid and politics is not only a dangerously presumptive project; it is quite likely a useless one.

In this new report the World Bank poses conflict as a ‘development’ problem, thereby, placing it within the realm of thousands of international development NGOs. But while there is a strong correlation between conflict, corruption, high poverty, and a lack of women’s rights (to name a few), using this correlation to justify engaging in reform from the outside does not necessarily follow.

Nor is this the first time that such a theory has been proposed. Britain invested GBP 100 million in a Governance and Transparency Fund to be spent between 2007 and 2012 by NGOs working on good governance related projects. The impact of this fund has yet to be evaluated, but is already being criticised by some. In a recent report, Corporate Watch interviews Madhuri Krishnaswammy about why she is rejecting funding from Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID) for her local NGO.

In summary Krishnaswammy feels that civil movements work better when people’s motivations are rooted in the cause and not because they get a free train ticket to a march or a salary as an NGO campaigner.

DFID in India claims to be helping “Indian civil society organisations assist people in the poorest and most backward districts of India to realise their rights more effectively and in a sustained manner”, to this Krishnaswammy responds that, “‘poverty and backwardness are consequences of 200 years of territorial imperialism, followed by 60 years of neo-imperialism and a ‘development’ model that has allowed the west and local elites to continue to control and exploit our resources.”

Similarly, Nigerians do not need a lesson in neo-imperialism. Oil companies from across the ‘developed’ world support a corrupted Nigerian government through lucrative joint ventures on oil extraction with one hand while their governments come in offering aid to prop up a struggling development sector with the other.

The oil industry in Nigeria has precipitated not only bad governance but devastating conflict in the Niger Delta region. The oil extraction itself has caused the destruction of traditional livelihoods through extensive environmental damage and incites violent conflict over natural resources and their revenues.

The World Bank itself has been spent billions on budget support over the last decade in Nigeria despite clear signs that these funds were being misspent. Despite all this, the greatest step towards better governance is being made when millions of Nigerian citizens come out to participate in what appears at this early stage to be the most open and free election since democratic rule resumed in Nigeria.

But some examples are less clear cut. A counter argument might be posed by Sweden’s involvement in the recent controversy over the Ugandan Government’s recent Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which proposed making homosexual acts punishable by death. Sweden threatened to cut the USD 50 million they give to Uganda in aid annually if their Parliament went forward in passing the Bill on the basis that it infringed upon human rights of citizens.

Regardless of your stance on the issue, Sweden’s threat was a direct imposition of their views on Uganda’s domestic policies, which would affect many Ugandans who might otherwise benefit from that aid (although it’s not clear where this money was intended to go.)

There is no right answer, human rights would undoubtedly be infringed by this Bill if it were passed, but if the majority of Ugandans are in favour of this Bill, has real progress been made? And by who’s standards?

The impact conflict is having in countries across the world is well documented, particularly now with new media allowing us access to up-to-the-minute coverage of ongoing civil wars, rebellions, protests and coups. Just as Facebook, Twitter and i-witness allowed Nigerians to log inconsistencies at polling station registries during the recent election, Kenyans can alert the new crowd sourcing website Ushahidi by text of any violent incidents so they can chart them online and inform authorities, and Iranians can text and upload evidence of police brutality on YouTube for the whole world to watch.

There is more information than ever on how conflict affects people across the world. While these technologies are not affordable to everyone, for those who can, they have been critical in serving as a channel of information and support in the struggle for better governance and ultimately a better quality of life.

There are no perfect examples of revolutions to explain how it should be done, or even better, how a peaceful transition to good governance is carried out. Bad governance is messy and so is the clean-up job. But citizens of Tunisia and Egypt are trying and they’ve done more in a few weeks than most international organisations have accomplished in 50 years of ‘development’ work.

For Nigerians reading this, you can be proud of being a part of a transition that while not problem free, has the potential to be largely peaceful and completely Nigerian.

Citizens fix bad governance, that’s a lesson we’re learning right now. The best thing anyone on the outside can do is to help spread the word, not injecting millions of dollars into governance or conflict prevention programmes without even an invitation from those countries, but letting the citizens themselves do the work and enjoy the glory of having turned the tide in their nation’s history. As Mahatma Ghandi said, “If through our wisdom we could secure elementary human needs, there would be no need for weapons of war.”  And let’s be clear, when he said “our” he wasn’t talking to the World Bank.

Vanessa Alexander

Abuja, Nigeria