In the book “How to Write about Africa” Kenyan writer Binyavanga Wainana argues that although so-called “love for Africa” fuelled donations and campaigns across the continent, it ultimately served to silence the voices of the people donors aimed to save: 

“In the years since [the ‘We are the World’ song], much love has poured into my city, Nairobi. For the Girl Child, for the many hundreds of Awarenesses, for Poverty Eradication, for the Angelina Jolification...The most loved people in Africa are the tall, thin, noble people who were once or are still nomads and who live near Wild Animals...what you can be sure about in all those love projects is that it is easier for a ridiculous slip of some 30-something Scarlett O’Hara to decide who the Masai will be to the world, than a PhD wielding, Masai-speaking, Masai person. Because that is the Power of Love.” (Wainana, 2008, pg. 42-44)

If, as Wainana argues, communities have the right to narrate their own story about who they are and their own visions for their future, it is imperative that humanitarian actors dismantle the power relations implicit in the current aid architecture, including changing the way communities are framed as mere recipients of aid (“beneficiaries”) to communities as citizens and rights-holders with the responsibility, skills and knowledge to actively participate in decisions that affect them. In the humanitarian sector, “capacity building” and “local empowerment” are seen as essential strategies for fostering civic participation, yet, as Wainana suggests, the voices of affected communities in decision-making and leadership continue to be sidelined or quieted altogether.

In an effort to gain a deeper understanding of the practical realities that either foster or inhibit participation and the assumptions that underscore “capacity development” approaches, this paper examines a capacity development approach that was co-designed by the Regional Humanitarian Analyst at Save the Children East Africa Regional Office and the Project Director for the IRC-UoN Partnership for Education in Emergencies.

Project Background:

In 2009, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) established a partnership with the University of Nairobi (UoN) for the purpose of building a hub of expertise in the East Africa Region to respond to humanitarian crises, with a particular focus on the field of education. The first graduate programme of its kind in the world, the Masters in Education in Emergencies (EiE) is specifically designed to build specialized skills and qualifications to assist governments, international organizations, and local communities to prevent and better prepare for emergencies and provide quality education during emergencies and in the aftermath of conflict and crises. The programme aims to bridge theory and practice through case studies, student-led field research projects, and involvement of EiE practitioners in co-teaching and through the EiE Seminar Series. While it is currently not a programme requirement, students are also strongly encouraged to participate in an internship to gain practical experience in the sector and develop their professional network.

In support of the UoN graduate programme’s mission to build regional expertise, the Humanitarian Affairs Unit in Save the Children’s East Africa Regional Office invited four students from the Masters in EiE programme to participate in a three-month mentorship arrangement with the department. The initiative was designed to support Save the Children’s efforts to include and amplify voices of southern practitioners in the debate about key humanitarian issues. In light of the fact that current platforms for debate are structured around policy briefs or essays, the main objective was to develop students’ skills in research and writing such that they could substantively contribute to the discussion. 

Perspectives of the humanitarian sector in Kenya

Rose Nyambura Kagachu and Belindah Jeruto Kibias are two experienced educators who have worked in a wide range of education settings across Kenya and participated in the mentorship scheme at Save the Children East Africa regional office. They both hope to work in education policy and planning in the humanitarian sector.

The following section was derived from writings exercises and interviews conducted with Belindah and Rose.

Who Profits?  Observations of how humanitarian principles are translated

“The variation between the theoretical principles and the reality of how NGOs interact with national governments, donors and communities is so great that NGOs, for the most part, do not work on the Dunantist principles they profess to be governed by. One of the key areas of discrepancy is the lack of independence of many, if not most, NGOs in the sector. We have seen that national governments often use their influence to dictate the need to which NGOs must respond and the areas and conditions in which they work, to ensure that NGO programmes correlate to their personal and political priorities. This undermines the impartiality of NGOs, as they are subsumed into operating along political or even ethnic and tribal lines to serve the interests of the government, powerful people and their allies.  This reality calls into question the integrity of many these so-called social change enterprises:  while some are competent implementers who are able to achieve sustainable change through an effective business model, some are solely motivated by monetary gains or political influence, and do more harm than good. 

While nationally, aid instrumentalization [1] may be used to pursue political objectives and monetary gain, internationally it can be used as a geo-political tool. We have seen how international donors can use aid for advancing political agendas– namely in the promotion and spread of western model of democracy, as is the case of South Sudan, or during President Moi’s tenure as President in Kenya, when we witnessed donors withdrawing their support to programmes in Kenya as a result of the government’s human rights abuses and poor electoral system.  We have seen bilateral agencies impose specific conditions connected to aid, leading to changes such as government downsizing, review of electoral systems, and so on. While these changes may in fact be what are needed, gradual implementation and consultation is critical.

Another example of where aid is often driven more by donor priority rather than community need is the focus on access over quality services, particularly in education. One reason may be that NGOs need to demonstrate to donors the return on investment and national governments need to show improved statistics. NGOs argue that quality in programmes is what they strive for in operations, however, in reality the way in which many programmes are designed, funded and measured often means that quality is subordinated to attempts to meet target beneficiary numbers.  Program designs, therefore, can often be shaped by factors other than the context in which they sit or the needs they are meant to address. For example, the provision of food in areas where there is fertile land and food is available, or the provision of school supplies which sometimes contains materials not suited to the age or culture of the students who receive them. 

The discrepancy between humanitarian principles and what is seen at the community level has led to numerous rumours about the NGO conduct, such as the rumour that some agencies in Kibera slums are invested in continuing the levels of poverty to justify their existence. While these rumours may be unfounded, they do betray a growing cynicism in Kenya about the integrity of the aid industry. Despite these key failings, however, it is important to note that many communities in Kenya—particularly communities in the rural areas who feel the direct material benefits of aid through new infrastructure and resources, still look on NGOs favourably.

Controlling the narrative about “beneficiaries”

Another way that humanitarian and development agencies may operate to serve their own priorities is through the control over images of our country and communities through “flies on babies’ faces” stories: stories in media campaigns that emphasize poverty, conflict and harmful traditional practices in Africa, such as female genital mutilation (FGM). The way in which these agencies feed into the portrayal of Africa as the “poor brother” in order to position themselves for fundraising in the west demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the people in their programmes, and serves to further disenfranchise successful Africans. Furthermore, the fact that few NGOs strive to counter this dominant narrative ignores the growth, achievements and successes of many communities, and belies their obligation to respect and humanely treat the people they have committed to serve.

What humanitarian principles should guide our work?

In order for NGOs to overcome the deficiencies, inconsistencies, and challenges we’ve observed,  NGOs need to serve two outcomes: to provide immediate and palliative care and to work towards long-term objectives which ensure the sustainability of change and improvements in quality services. NGOs need to aggressively improve living standards rather than simply providing remedies that temporarily alleviate suffering but do not address the root of the problem. The line between what is an “emergency” and what is “everyday hardship” in many places in Africa is so thin that NGOs must work with national governments in all situations, as the contexts in which they work are not separate from the wider national struggle to improve peoples’ quality of life. Furthermore, the value of independence is not only unrealistic in reality, but may not even be appropriate in some contexts. Rather, greater gains could be made if NGOs and national governments can operate as their “brother’s keeper”, working together and holding each other accountable.

Though independence, impartiality and neutrality are important attributes for NGOs working in specific contexts – namely those with ongoing conflict – we believe that humanity, integrity and partnership are more relevant and important principles for NGOs to subscribe to as inviolable principles. The value of humanity and the humanitarian imperative is relevant, and indeed was our motivation for entering the humanitarian sector. However, the need for both national and local NGOs to act with integrity to their mission and that one foundational value is critically important. This principle can serve as a safeguard against more commercial goals, political corruption, and ultimately the way to not only deliver better programmes but to afford those who are receiving aid the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Finally, despite the rhetoric of partnership the actual act of partnership is sorely lacking from the ethos of many organizations, yet it is integral to achieving sustainable outcomes. The principle of partnership should touch all aspects of NGO work, with national governments, with local NGOs and between practitioners within the NGOs themselves. Partnership should be a significant area of long-term investment for NGOs and a priority in not only in the programme design, but in the way the whole organization works.”  

Learning

Throughout the writing exercises and interviews, Belindah and Rose were eager to share their reflections and experiences and demonstrated the importance of widening the debate to include diverse perspectives and critical voices. The mentorship initiative also exposed a number of hidden barriers humanitarian practitioners are facing in their attempts to participate in debate—at least as how it is currently framed.

Assessment by the mentees

While both Rose and Belindah reported that the cultural shift required for entry into INGO workplace was relatively easy to make (e.g. adjusting to email communication and tight timelines), understanding and engaging with current modes of high-level humanitarian debate involved a radical shift from how they have been schooled to think, analyse, challenge, or discuss.  In an education system governed by rote learning, curiosity and challenging ideas were devalued while “learning to be quiet” and memorizing facts were duly rewarded. Furthermore, students from primary to tertiary typically learn in an environment that uses negative reinforcement: mistakes can be met with ridicule and teasing, and shaming a student for an incorrect answer is often seen as a way to motivate learners and instruct others. As a result, “you learn early in life to just be quiet, follow instructions and not to question authority.” Belindah and Rose’s reflections of their educational experiences are echoed in Freire’s famous critique of the banking concept of education: “It transforms students into receiving objects. It attempts to control thinking and action, leads men and women to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power.” (Freire, 1970, p.77) 

Belindah and Rose reported that the academic demands of the Masters in Education in Emergencies programme signalled a departure from the traditional emphasis on rote learning and developed their skills to critically engage with readings: “I’ve learned that learning is not just about knowledge, but about how to think”. Despite the gains made, the graduate programme did not entirely prepare them to meet the demand for the “soft skills” valued by the humanitarian sector: initiative, independent learning, and rapid consumption and critical analysis of information. What is needed, they argue, is a radical overhaul of the Kenyan education system across the educational trajectory-- from pre-primary all the way to tertiary that abandons the rigid exam culture and embraces critical pedagogy and learner-centred approaches: “In primary, secondary, and even in our degree there was no motivation to read because it’s exam-oriented. We learn how to read the words, but are not taught how to digest and analyze the information. Critical reading needs to be nurtured from a young age.” In the Kenyan system, they argue, it’s about “how teachers teach, not how learners learn”, and classrooms need to be restructured to support creative exploration and freedom to test out ideas.  Uwezo, an East African education research and advocacy group, provides a similarly sobering analysis. Despite significant gains in school enrolment schools are not succeeding in their responsibility to help children learn: “...schooling is not translating into learning, and as nations we are at risk. Without literate and numerate children, the very foundations of our democracies, social development and economic progress are jeopardized. If we are unable to grow equitably and creatively, then we are unable to compete, and we will be unable to craft and imagine better worlds.” (Uwezo, 2014)

Rethinking organizational approaches

While this project revealed critical gaps in the current formal education sector, it also highlighted the need for experiential learning opportunities to help students enter the humanitarian sector upon graduation. Rose and Belindah reported that though their course work gave them a solid foundation in the content of education in emergencies, it did not provide job skills training such as on technical writing skills, skills for participating in forums and meetings, or the use of technology. These were areas of development that should be developed through on–site, hands-on learning opportunities that involves practical training and mentorship whilst embedded within an organization.  However, the search for volunteer or internship schemes that would provide much-needed practical learning yielded the same results: not enough opportunities and too many barriers to the internships, field training, or work-study placements that are actually available. 

An examination of current experiential learning schemes in the humanitarian sector reveal how the balance sheet tips in favour to graduates from northern universities. Not least, the professional networking site LinkedIn lists “Africa” as a skill, exposing the persistent notion that one can be versed in “Africa”, but Africans themselves are not active players in the international professional network. Access to experiential learning opportunities are competitive and self-funded, which forms a significant economic barrier to students in the Global South who hope to gain the skills and experience required but cannot afford the exorbitant fees involved for flights and accommodation. For expatriates who have a transferable skill set but limited experience in the humanitarian sector, NGOs are often willing to provide the requisite on-the-job training and exposure to programmes. However, for local staff members that have a wealth of experience and deep contextual knowledge of the programmes but are lacking some key skills, the investments in skill development is not so readily provided. Furthermore, induction training schemes may include sessions for expatriates on cultural sensitivity and “adjusting to the field” but it is rare that humanitarian agencies offer local staff induction training about the particular culture of the NGOs, including helping them adjust to different cultures of communication, decision-making, time management, or leadership.

Recommendations

The mentorship initiative points to several policy and programming issues. First, training schemes within organizations need to remain flexible and responsive to the learning needs of participants–for both local and expatriate staff. Time to reflect on cultural modes of work, learning schemes that include a holistic assessment of the skills and knowledge, and a recognition that the skill development needed may differ depending on the cultural and educational context they come from are all needed. Furthermore, if agencies are serious about “building capacity”, then they must develop budgets and work-plans that allow staff to properly mentor junior staff, and ensure that achievement of clear and measurable outcomes is part of a manager’s performance review.  At the same time, current exercises by humanitarian agencies to “build capacity” can only go so far if the sector doesn’t also address the deeper issue that critical analysis, creativity, or innovation is devalued throughout the formal education system in Kenya. Long-term investment in education sector is needed to support the development of the critical literacy, innovation, and creativity—skills that are essential for meeting complex humanitarian issues in the region.

Finally, it is obvious that “inviting southern voices to the table” is not enough; rather, it is necessary that we ask deeper questions about the power imbalance inherent in these debates: Who gets to invite whom? How does the way the current discourse is framed (“the table”) inherently exclude those who have not been schooled in particular modes of communication, and what are different avenues, platforms, and networks for engaging local communities and practitioners in debate? As the humanitarian sector critically considers its future, it must address the following question: how can agencies facilitate a truly diverse participation in the debate? Without this examination, humanitarian actors may continue to perpetuate the dominant narrative that communities they serve are merely “recipients of aid”, rather than citizens with rights and responsibilities who can drive their own dreams and aspirations for a better future.

About the authors (in alphabetical order): Kagachu, Rose Nyambura; Kennedy, Eilidh; Kibias, Belindah Jeruto; Tangelder, Mary

Mary Tangelder is the Project Director for the International Rescue Committee-University of Nairobi partnership and Eilidh Kennedy is the Regional Humanitarian Analyst for Save the Children.

Rose Nyambura Kagachu and Belindah Jeruto Kibias are both currently completing their field research for the completion of the Masters in Education in Emergencies degree at the University of Nairobi.

References:

Wainana, Binyavanga (2008) How to Write about Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: Kwani Trust

Freire, Paulo (1970) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, USA: Herder and Herder

IRIN (2013) The use and abuse of humanitarian principle available at: http://www.irinnews.org/report/97502/the-use-and-abuse-of-humanitarian-principle

Uwezo (2014) Uwezo Findings available at: http://www.uwezo.net/about-us/uwezo-findings/

[1] “The use of humanitarian action or rhetoric as a tool to pursue political, security, development, economic, or other non-humanitarian goals, which would muddy humanitarian principles and constrain access to those in need” (IRIN, 2013)