Be the Change You Want to See in the World

By Lindsay Kline

Have you ever thought about participating in a humanitarian program? Wanted to go to Africa, Asia or Latin America to teach English or build houses? What about raise money for relief aid? If so, you have intrinsically approached development aid.  Furthermore, would you question the plausibility of such desires? I question your incentives, because I am seeking to show that development aid has a multi-faceted identity that includes economic, social and political approaches that cannot simply be defined as right or wrong. Rather, aid constitutes various approaches that provide opportunities for people of different backgrounds and motives for methods to participate.

Development aid is often criticized from standpoints of the economy. Belief are that development aid hinders self-sufficiency and political accountability, and that funds are often mismanaged. However, I feel that these criticisms are not satisfactory to the very nature of the existence of development aid. Is it necessary to be so critical? Can’t we just accept development as being a slow moving process that needs time in order to be fully implemented?  In contrast to these critical perspectives, a study from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) proclaims that 78% of Canadians support Canada’s aid program. [1] This staggering statistic indicates that Canada has not taken the wrong approach and that programs are well sustained by Canadians. I raise these points to introduce methods of development aid that have proven to make a difference in developing nations, as well as provide us with evidence and hope that our approach has not been wrong, or right, but simply just different.

Developed nations such as Canada have been labeled as taking a “band-aid approach” with development aid incentives. This means that, we often make quick fixes to long-lasting and complex issues that extend beyond our relief efforts. A specific example of these initiatives includes Oprah Winfrey’s 40$ million dollar all girls school that opened in South Africa in 2007, her goals were to provide education on issues such as HIV/AIDS and further promote the important role of young girls and women in African society. [2] Live-aid that took place on July 13, 1985 is another example of a collaborative effort to bring issues of poverty to the table. Additionally, small-scale operations like World Vision are continually occurring to provide developing countries with clean-water, education, and better agricultural means among many other goals. These “band-aid approaches” allow the average person to participate in making a change. This approach embraces the idea that any form, quality or quantity of aid will help. Wouldn’t you rather stop for a moment and reflect on the changes that have occurred, and feel proud that small differences are continually being made, that at any moment you as an individual have the power to participate in making those differences?

Have you ever watched the film Hotel Rwanda? Shake Hands with the Devil? The Killing Fields? Or even just the Evening News? Have you heard the song Imagine? Or Feed the World? All of these media sources have an integral part in the promotion of development aid. Essentially, they help to educate industrialized nations of the events going on in developing countries. In a 2004 CIDA study related to knowledge of aid programs and information, however, results indicate that 55% of Canadians “do not consider themselves informed about Canada’s aid program for poor countries.” [1] In order to alter this number media’s prevalence in broadcasting world events provide various perspectives, points of view and opinions that should inform Canadians of Canada’s foreign policy. Media’s predominance in society promotes that “information would be best delivered through television, newspapers, and the Internet as these are the preferred sources of information on Canada’s aid program.” [1] The media helps us to learn what’s going on, form opinions and inform others, become involved, question government action or inaction to ultimately increase development aid.  For these reasons, I feel that while our approach to development aid relies much on popular culture, images, and stories produced by the media, isn’t this promoting long term education that citizens are willing to engage in?

Millennium Development goals, government aid and United Nations initiatives have been integral to our approach to development. Have they worked? Not always. Are we wrong for trying? Definitely not. I make this statement for the reason that long-term goals do not necessarily experience the same highs as short-term goals like the “band-aid” approaches or media’s involvement. For example, long-term objectives set forth by the United Nations Millennium Development Goals have eight provisions that adhere to growth and development plans for undeveloped countries to be met by 2015. Current studies indicating success show that “Asia and the Pacific regions are on track to reducing poverty and implementing basic education and that hunger and basic education goals seem likely to be met”. [3] This progress indicates that aid constitutes more than a simple economic approach, rather social and political initiatives promote development by addressing issues at a grass roots level to further build upon a bottom- up approach. This approach provides most beneficial outcomes, however, requires careful time and consideration in order to be successfully implemented as a long-term initiative. Current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently stated “we have made important progress in this effort, and have many successes on which to build. But we have been moving too slowly to meet our goals”. [4] While these goals are far from being achieved I question whether this is our own wrongdoing? Or due to unforeseen international events such as 9/11, natural disasters, war on terrorism or the election of President Bush that hindered the progress of such incentives. The problem with setting long-term goals is that countries committing themselves to objectives are doing-so without recognition that other events can and will occur to hinder these processes. We can become critical of the pledges we make to development when goals have not been met. However, when we realize simply that other occurrences have prevailed along the way. Approaches taken by institutions and governments have not been wrong, as much as they have been too focused on long-term goals. Therefore, my suggestion is to encourage a changing-of-lenses from economic to social and political perspectives to create stable, short-term goals that continually can be met and inhibit questions of why our approach isn’t working. 

The international community has unnecessarily categorized development as having right or wrong qualities. What constitutes development that is right? Has there always been a right way? Have we taken an easy approach that seems best fit for our society? Or historically seems to have been the only way? While these questions provoke thought and interest, they are also intended to help us realize that approaches exist by means of individuals taking advantage of their resources and making something out of nothing. Providing development aid has been our creation and continues to be supported by us, therefore, it is our responsibility to maintain various social and political strategies linking aid reception to developing countries in order to continue making changes no matter how big or small.