Posts by Neha Erasmus
Who Gets to Define Justice?
Published May 29, 2009 @ 09:24AM PT
This is the third and final part of a short series looking at some of the more controversial issues facing humanitarian advocacy.
Neha Erasmus - who spent a number of years working for NGOs in Sudan, and now works for an advocacy and research institute in London - suggested the questions. For each topic, Neha wrote first, I responded, and then she had the last word.
Question - Does the fact that we are unable (or unwilling) to speak out about genocide or war crimes everywhere invalidate our efforts to address such actions in any one place? Or, put another way, does our inability or unwillingness to speak out about American or British or Israeli (or Chinese or Indian or Russian, etc etc.) war crimes mean that we cannot speak out about Darfur?
Neha - I don’t think the question is about validation, or the "right to speak out", but about what will work best and that looks to what the means are. Indian thinking emphasizes that means are not important, they are everything. Leadership by example will work every time, whereas we cannot count on success if we do not practice what we preach.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a perfect example. It is not the ICC that is problematic or impartial, but the entire international system which does not allow space for equitably distributed justice. The question of whether the [Bashir indictment] decision was right or not is debatable, but what has happened as a consequence is not. Bashir has had a basis to refute the ICC’s legitimacy and rally support and many African states (who form nearly one third of the signatories to the Rome Statute) have sided with him on this. Whatever the reasons, this is a sad loss.
Michael - But we work with what we have – do we jettison the entire international justice system – or the entire international system, however defined – because it is not perfect, or perfectible? Do we sacrifice the good for the perfect? Also, what does “equitably distributed justice” actually mean? What does it look like, both in theory and practice? Especially keeping in mind that the National Congress Party version of justice doesn’t seem particularly equitable or just.
What Right Do We Have to Advocate on Darfur - Part 2
Published May 28, 2009 @ 08:47PM PT
This is the second part of a short series looking at some of the more controversial issues facing humanitarian advocacy.
I suggested a number of questions and posed them to Neha Erasmus. Neha spent a number of years working for NGOs in Sudan, and now works for an advocacy and research institute in London . For each topic, Neha wrote first, I responded, and then she had the last word.
This is the second part of our debate about what right "western" organizations have to advocate on issues like Darfur. For the earlier part of this discussion, see here.
Neha - This question was recently asked, in a different way, by Bridget Conley-Zilkic her recent blog post: “Is historically and politically informed human rights advocacy in the context of (even in the aftermath of) extreme violence against civilian communities possible?”
Isn’t it logical that the people who have the best understanding of the historical, political, social and economic context of a place, are the people who have lived there their entire lives? I think this was what Anne Bartlett was saying when she advised supporting the Amel Centre, the Khartoum Centre or SUDO in their advocacy efforts. The power and resources that Western agencies have means that they have stronger voices, but couldn’t we try to strengthen Sudanese voices for change, rather than directing change ourselves?
If we look back to some of the most successful rights movements in the 1940s and '50s, most advocacy was undertaken by people who were experiencing issues themselves and was directed as a result of and by their movement and its work, rather than by external agents. This system of advocacy ‘by the people for the people’ also gave people greater agency in changing their circumstances and holding their own leadership accountable, creating long term change internally.
Michael - Under this logic, than the only people who could argue against colonialism were those who suffered any colonialism – supporters of Indian or Kenyan independence in the UK or elsewhere should have simply remained silent. Or, in the context of the States, the only people who could have called for civil rights were African Americans. This seems rather limiting, to say the least.
Also, I think it’s somewhat simplistic to talk about “strengthening Sudanese voices”, on two levels. First, aid agencies spend quite a bit of time trying to do exactly that, thru capacity building and all the rest. Second, and more fundamental, the idea that we should help “strengthen” Sudanese voices seems at best condescending, and at worst no better than a colonial mindset, where we have to help them, because they are unable to help themselves.
What Right Do We Have to Advocate on Darfur - Part 1
Published May 28, 2009 @ 04:47PM PT
This is the first part of a short series looking at some of the more controversial issues facing humanitarian advocacy.
I suggested a number of questions and posed them to Neha Erasmus. Neha spent a number of years working for NGOs in Sudan, and now works for an advocacy and research institute in London . For each topic, Neha wrote first, I responded, and then she had the last word.
For part 2, see here. For her previous posts on humantiarian relief, please see here.
Question - Do we have a responsibility to act, or to respond? Assuming we do so truthfully, and with dialogue, then what's wrong with bearing witness? Or calling for actions to try and resolves the situation as best we understand? Do I need to know what it's like to go hungry in order to act to try and ameliorate hunger? Do I need to know what it's like to be displaced before I speak out about Darfur?
Neha - Most ethical systems include the principle of a responsibility to act in the face of wrong and personally I agree with it. However each ethical system is built on a separate set of rules for how to respond, rather than a single (universal) framework. In Small is Beautiful E. F. Schumacher explains that there is a big difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge on its own is useless, as it is mere facts; wisdom is the understanding of what to do with the facts. It is through the application of values and ideas to facts that wisdom is produced.
Let’s acknowledge that values vary from people to people. The application of Western values to knowledge therefore, will result in the production of Western (and not universally applicable) wisdom which may or may not be suitable or ‘wise’ in other contexts and this is where great care must be taken. Whilst you do not need to know what it’s like to be displaced to speak out about Darfur, having the wisdom of knowing what to do about Darfur is very different.
Michael - Tho this opens the door to complete relativism – values differ, but only to an extent. Certain basic principles, however, do seem constant across religions and cultures; the most obvious being some variation on “thou shall not kill”. Granted, every religion and culture spends a great deal of time carving out rather wide exceptions to the rule, but the fact is that the underlying value does not vary.
(Great Chesteron quote: “Men do not differ much about what things they call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”)
Challenging the Western Approach to Advocacy, Part 3
Published April 15, 2009 @ 02:49PM PT
This week, am asking people I respect a tremendous amount to weigh in on some of the more contentious humanitarian issues, everything from the costs and benefits of advocacy to the question of neutrality and legitimacy.
Today's contributor is Neha Erasmus - her posts critique how many western-based organizations undertake advocacy. Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here.
For musings from this week's other contributors, see here.
Challenging the western approach to advocacy, part 3
There is also the question of the ‘naming and shaming’ approach that advocacy organisations take. This is a very Western approach to effecting change and again I think that it remains in the realm of the short-term solution; sometimes it works and sometimes it harms.
If we genuinely want to get governments to respect the rights of citizens, then we need to inspire them to do so, rather than shaming them when they don’t.
To truly effect change elsewhere, you must lead by example. As Western organisations, we must accept that we represent the West and Western values. We must therefore work to hold ourselves to account before we can turn to others with any real legitimacy.
One of the most common criticisms by people all over the world (see the BBC’s Have Your Say on the topic) of the ICC’s indictment of Bashir, simplistic as it may be, holds a great deal of truth: how can we hold Sudan accountable when we haven’t successfully held America or Britain or Israel accountable? We preach democracy but are we truly democratic?
Challenging the Western Approach to Advocacy, Part 2
Published April 15, 2009 @ 02:39PM PT
This week, am asking people I respect a tremendous amount to weigh in on some of the more contentious humanitarian issues, everything from the costs and benefits of advocacy to the question of neutrality and legitimacy.
Today's contributor is Neha Erasmus - her posts critique how many western-based organizations undertake advocacy. Part 1 is here, and Part 3 is here.
For musings from this week's other contributors, see here
Challenging the western approach to advocacy, part 2
I think advocacy organisations must first think deeply about the issues and the specifics of each situation, rather than positioning their viewpoints through the lens of the standard codified human rights ethics (which are man made and therefore not perfect). Clinging to a set ideology without deep thought becomes pedagogy.
There are two kinds of knowledge: knowledge through philosophy and knowledge through experience. Both are intimately linked and greatly inform each other.
Often these advocacy organisations engage in advocacy without undertaking in-depth critical research and without working in-country with the people they advocate for (there are also a number of system-related issues with those that do engage in research and in-country work, which creates barriers to undertaking these effectively).
While there is an ‘economy’ to this setup, there is also a critical loss to such specialisation: these organisations often live such separate lives from the people they aim to support, that it is almost impossible for them to understand the subtleties and complexities of problems and therefore know what the best ways of supporting issues or people are.
How can I truly understand the myriad of problems people face in having access to water for example, if I never experienced the lack myself?
Challenging the Western Approach to Advocacy, Part 1
Published April 15, 2009 @ 02:33PM PT
This week, am asking people I respect a tremendous amount to weigh in on some of the more contentious humanitarian issues, everything from the costs and benefits of advocacy to the question of neutrality and legitimacy.
Today's contributor is Neha Erasmus - she spent a number of years working in Sudan with various NGOs, and now works for an advocacy and research institute based in London. She grew up in Kenya and has also lived in India, the United Kingdom and Canada.
Neha's posts critique how many western-based organizations undertake advocacy. Part 2 is here, and Part 3 is here.
For musings from this week's other contributors, see here.
Challenging the western approach to advocacy, part 1
I’ve never worked in a large advocacy organisation, mostly because of personal prejudice. While the organization for which I work is part advocacy organisation, it is definitely not large and quite different to most. Our advocacy is not planned or programmed, but guided by the work we undertake.
My personal prejudice was a rather ill-informed but intuitive understanding gained through having grown up in Kenya, where it was normal for 30-40 people to die in matatu crashes everyday.
Whenever I was forced to watch the world news (courtesy of my father), I marveled that things like one policeman being shot in London were making headlines. I therefore grew up thinking of Western countries as wimpy drama queens and I think I projected this on to Western advocacy organisations.
It’s therefore rather ironic that in 2006, after working in Southern Sudan for some time, I believed that communication was a really important part of ‘making a difference’. I began an MA in Media and Human Rights, but by the end of the course I had resolved to stay far away from mainstream media or advocacy.
I still believe that communicating with people is very important, but I have come to the conclusion (again probably uninformed and very much intuitively) that large advocacy organisations like Save Darfur are doing things the wrong way and consequently creating a new set of problems.
