<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2>  <DIV>From:           <A href="mailto:pambazuka-news-admin@pambazuka.org">pambazuka-news-admin@pambazuka.org</A><BR>Date sent:      Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:28:03 -0500 (CDT)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EDITORIAL</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>THE MISSIONARY POSITION: NGOS AND DEVELOPMENT IN <BR>AFRICA<BR><A href="http://www.fahamu.org.uk/links/resources.html">http://www.fahamu.org.uk/links/resources.html</A><BR>Development NGOs operating in Africa have inadvertently become <BR>part of the<BR>neo- liberal global agenda, serving to undermine the battle for social<BR>justice and human rights in much the same way as their missionary<BR>predecessors, argues a paper in the July issue of International <BR>Affairs.<BR>The paper says that the contribution of NGOs to relieving poverty is<BR>minimal, while they play a "significant role" in undermining the <BR>struggle<BR>of African people to emancipate themselves from economic, social <BR>and<BR>political oppression. In this compromised position, NGOs face a <BR>stark<BR>choice: They can move into the political domain and support social<BR>movements that seek to challenge a social system that benefits a <BR>few and<BR>impoverishes the majority; or they can continue unchanged and <BR>thus become<BR>complicit in a system that leaves the majority in misery. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Entitled 'The Missionary Position: NGOs and Development in <BR>Africa', and<BR>co- authored by Firoze Manji and Carl O'Coill, the paper traces the<BR>emergence and role of NGOs on the continent from their missionary<BR>beginnings through to the discourse of 'development' that emerged <BR>in the<BR>post-independence period and the later influence of structural <BR>adjustment<BR>programmes and globalisation. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Beginning in colonial Africa, the paper argues that missionary<BR>organisations played a key role in winning the ideological war that<BR>supported the colonial apparatus. "While colonial philanthropy may <BR>have<BR>been motivated by religious conviction, status, compassion or guilt, <BR>it<BR>was also motivated by fear. In Britain and the colonies alike, <BR>politicians<BR>frequently alluded to the threat of revolution and actively encouraged<BR>greater interest in works of benevolence as a solution to social <BR>unrest.<BR>In short, charity was not only designed to help the poor, it also <BR>served<BR>to protect the rich." </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In some cases, charitable organisations "actively" helped to <BR>suppress<BR>anti- colonial struggles, as was the case in Kenya, where the <BR>Women's<BR>Association, Maendeleo Ya Wanawake (MYWO) and the Christian <BR>Council of<BR>Kenya (CCK) were both involved in government-funded schemes <BR>designed to<BR>subvert black resistance during the 'Mau Mau' uprising. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But independence created a crisis for these organisations because <BR>they had<BR>in many cases opposed nationalistic tendencies. However, instead <BR>of dying<BR>a natural death they were in fact able to prosper - a result Manji <BR>and<BR>O'Coill argue was due to the emergence of the 'development NGO' <BR>on the<BR>national and international stage. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Independence, they argue, had forced missionary societies and <BR>charitable<BR>organisations to reinvent their attitude of 'trusteeship' associated <BR>with<BR>colonial oppression. They did this by replacing white staff with <BR>black and<BR>revamping their ideological outlook by appropriating the new <BR>discourse on<BR>'development' in place of overt racism. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><snip></DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>