A Personal Perspective on Humanitarian Aid from a CIHA Blog Editorial Assistant

by Edwin Asa Adjei

“Aid” connotes generosity, beneficence, advocacy, support, humanitarianism, and a variety of other positive, if not altruistic, intents. Rhetorically, this word is very powerful. But behind it are often unexamined motivations for providing assistance. Altruism is accompanied by self-interest, and power differentials underlie the need for aid as well as the motivations for offering it. Actors and institutions use these diverse currents in a variety of ways. First, the inequalities structuring the need for aid are manifest differently across time and space. And second, the concepts of aid itself, as well as the mechanisms used to implement aid programs, are also historically and culturally contingent (Nelson, 2005).

As a graduate student who works with the Critical Investigations into Humanitarianism in Africa (CIHA) Blog, I have had the opportunity to work with several people—like the blog editors and other editorial assistants from Ghana, Cameroon, South Africa, and the United States—and to interact with them on their views on humanitarianism and other issues related to the continent of Africa. I have also read widely on these issues, which has taught me a lot about the events and politics around humanitarianism in Africa and the world. The CIHA Blog accepts submissions which may be theoretical or conceptual, policy related, artistically inspired, commentaries on current events, or a combination of any of the above. This has exposed me to various styles of writing, and I have learnt a lot from the various writing styles I have been exposed to. With a goal of making the blog a forum for humanitarians and students of humanitarianism across a wide variety of expertise and disciplines, in Africa as well as the West (and elsewhere), I will say, I have been very much enlightened by the things I have read on the blog so far. I used to think that humanitarian aid was sent only to places where there have been disasters or to people who were in dire need of either financial or material aid. My work with the blog has opened my eyes to the fact that even though people in such situations do receive help, the aid does not always end up with those who need it or to those it was intended for. Institutions entrusted with distributing aid to those who need it do not always do as they are supposed to but sometimes enrich themselves or individuals at the expense of those who are in dire need of humanitarian aid.

Graduate students have a huge role to play in the future of Africa and the world, and a good understanding of the issues and politics around humanitarianism is important to prepare us for an issue that is, at times, central to discourses in and about Africa.

In the postcolonial era, foreign aid has been one of the main vehicles for the rich countries to promote better living conditions in less developed parts of the world, with alleviation of poverty and narrowing income disparities having been viewed as its main goals. Yet the effectiveness of foreign aid has been often questioned, much recent research focusing in particular on the average growth effects of foreign aid.

In my personal experience as a church worker who works with children and youth, I realized that humanitarian aid was being brought to the church, targeting children and youth, but this aid did not fulfill the target for which it was sent. An example is Samaritan’s Purse, which comes to my church annually. Samaritan’s Purse is a nondenominational evangelical Christian organization that provides spiritual and physical aid to people in need around the world. Since 1970, Samaritan’s Purse has helped meet needs of people who are victims of war, poverty, natural disasters, disease, and famine with the purpose of sharing God’s love through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is very commendable, as it demands a lot of sacrifice on the organization’s part to bring help to those who need it. My experience with the Samaritan’s Purse, however, has taught me that aid does not necessarily reach to those who need it but might often go to with those who have the ability to lobby.

My church is the circuit/district head of my vicinity, and the children’s service has a population of four hundred during school times and seven hundred to eight hundred children during vacations. My church can be counted among the affluent churches in the circuit, which is why it is also the circuit head. When aid from Samaritan’s Purse is sent, it is first sent to the diocese, which distributes it to the various circuits under it. My church is a regular recipient of some of these ‘gifts’ because it has representatives on the diocesan executive body who lobby for these gifts. Meanwhile, there are very poor societies in the circuit where it is obvious that these things are needed more.

Samaritan’s Purse also has introduced a Bible study course which beneficiary churches must run and have certificates awarded from the Billy Graham Ministry if they are to continue receiving continual aid. The programme is intended to reach unsaved children, and churches that run the programme must do so in its entirety and cannot object to portions of it. Unfortunately for my church, only twelve or fifteen certificates are brought for presentation, which is woefully inadequate, so church elders give the certificates, signed by Billy Graham, to their favourites. The purpose of these Bible study programmes is therefore defeated.

Last December, my church did not receive either the gifts or the certificates. My enquiries revealed that the gifts were not sent for two reasons. When the Bible course and certificates were sent, the church was unable to take some children through the course. The church was also accused of not including pictures of the distribution of the gifts and of the awarding of Bible study program certificates as proof. This taught me that even though the gifts were supposed to be free and accountability was expected of recipients through the pictures, there was a string attached, which was the compulsory Bible study course.

All examples from my experience as given above are things that I used to take for granted. Recently, I have taken the step of explaining to other teachers about the need to let these forms of aid go to other needy societies in the circuit instead of appropriating them for ourselves. This has not, however, gone down well with the church administrations, who have threatened to personally use their finances to secure these things for the children in the church, rather than let them be given to other societies in the circuit. My examples here are indicative of the complicated nature of humanitarian aid, with the desires, pressures, and allegiances that face both donors and recipients.

Humanitarian aid, however, can still be beneficial. For example, it may improve the lot of poorer populations. It may help to alleviate poverty and equalize income distribution, without necessarily having a discernible average growth effect. While both constitute major objectives of aid giving, to my knowledge, there is surprisingly limited formal empirical evidence on this issue. My example shows that there are many steps to go through, and recipients and senders need to take responsibility with how they use aid.

Reference:
Nelson, N. L. (2005). Ideologies of Aid, Practices of Power: Lessons for Medicaid Managed Care. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 19 (1), 103-122.

Edwin Asa Adjei is an MPhil student at the University of Ghana-Legon and is an editorial assistant with The CIHA Blog.