Feeding the poor or feeding your ego?

Each day as I make my way to work through the hubbub of humans, who are about their business, I encounter a special group whom I can say are more or less also about their business.

On the busy Kaneshie footbridge, I feel the cling of hands on the hem of my trousers accosting me for alms.

I must admit that most of the time, I just walk away but on the few occasions that I have dropped some change in their palm, I went away pondering; after that one cedi is spent on Kenkey or perhaps Hausa Koko what happens next?

Does our giving of alms to the poor have any significant impact on their lives? Will taking care of some of the most immediate needs of people change their lives in any way? Or are we just perpetuating poverty and failing to empower people to break out of the clutches of poverty? These are some of the questions that keep me awake in the trotro as I make my way to work each morning.

But before I proceed, let me establish this conviction of mine; – “giving” that makes the most impact is the “kind of giving” that enables people to establish livelihoods that are not only robust but sustainable and liberating.

There is a clichéd Chinese proverb that says “give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime”. This aptly summarizes a lot of the things I wish to say.

This generation is the most generous the earth has seen by the sheer number of pictures and videos of people I see on social media presenting money to beggars with one hand and taking a selfie with the other. These days in feeding the poor, we are really just feeding our own ego. Don’t feel too bad for yourself are not alone, even nations do it.

The reality of ‘need’ turns all men into slaves. This is typified in various forms. For instance, the British in their indirect rule policy deployed in colonialism recruited Africans mostly as clerks, low-ranking soldiers and other low paying jobs without prospects of wealth accumulation and eventual economic and political liberation. This ensured that the colonised remained colonised.

The same remains the case today. For development theorists, there has been an age long debate on whether it is best for developing nations to “sever ties, hide and flourish” or to integrate and reap the full benefits of this integration. The policies of liberalisation has been championed by the Bretton Woods institutions i.e the IMF and the World Bank seek to promote the idea that, development will come through global economic integration and collaboration. But…

The dependency theorist believes developing nations must cut ties with the more developed nations if they really want to develop. According to them, as long as underdeveloped nations maintain their links with the more developed ones, the net benefit accrues to the latter.

As we have seen through the partnership between many African countries and their more developed partners, it is the more developed nation which benefit from the vast natural resources and even human resources due to the mass exodus of trained persons among others.

It will be a gross inaccuracy on my part if I ever make the argument that Africa has not benefitted from this interaction either. But again this “pseudo-benefits” must be reexamined.

The dependency theory is not a homogeneous, unified theory. But in essence, the theory argues that the origins of persistent global poverty cannot be understood without reference to the entire international economic system.

“Underdevelopment and deprivation is not a condition: it is an active process of impoverishment linked to development. That is, some parts of the world are underdeveloped because others are developed. They are not separate processes but two aspects of the same process.”

Contrary to the tenets of the dependency theory of the 1970’s and all its recent adaptations; I don’t believe any nation in this century can totally cut ties with the more developed nations and still flourish.

Even with the perks that have come with our association with our “development partners” as they are gloriously christened, we cannot reap the full benefits if after contracts are awarded for projects, the expertise is imported, the machinery is imported, the profit and all other benefits are repatriated, and there is seldom a transfer of technology and knowledge to the local people.

Professor Caletous Juma of the Harvard University once remarked ‘there is the need for Africa to train more engineers to manage and sustain the massive infrastructure that is being built across the continent by China”.

This underscores the need for knowledge transfer and the transfer of technology (TOT) which makes meaning of whatever grant, money or road China, Britain, or the US decides to build for Ghana.

This over dependence without the clichéd TOT and knowledge transfer makes it difficult for this country or Africa at large to be liberated, which is sad considering our fathers have fought for this freedom that we now take for granted.

In case you are wondering, I haven’t digressed; these issues have always been on my heart and I needed to unburden myself just a little.

And let me add, still on giving; the reason the politician in your locality is not interested in creating opportunities of employment for the youth is that it serves his interest for the masses to be at his mercy for livelihoods.

Actually, it is detrimental to his course if the majority has self-sustenance. An employed constituent is one that will be independent in his thinking, one who would not fall bait to the electoral-period handouts that the politician will give. I believe perhaps, if the masses have jobs or are well educated, they will become more objective in choosing who leads them. At least, this is what I believe unless we are a morally bankrupt people with no principles whatsoever.

To reiterate the point made above, in his book; 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene stated as the eleventh law of Power “Learn to keep people dependent on you”. He continued by stating that “To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have. Make people depend on you for their happiness and their prosperity and you have nothing to fear. Never teach them enough so that they can do without you”. Now if you don’t know, Robert is an American author.

All asking and all giving I want to maintain must be geared toward the attainment of some form of freedom. We need to know what we ask for and what we are given. If what you ask for does not fit into a grand path that leads to freedom, then don’t ask at all.

In writing this, one thing kept running through my mind, thus, whether all the demands I’ve made of people have been responsible. Whether or not when I thought I needed help, I really did need it. And at all the times that I needed help, did I ask for the right things?

One characteristic of a banana republic that cannot be overlooked is the selfishness and greed of the very people, the so-called leaders, who have volunteered to take care of the needs of the masses. This is not to say there aren’t good selfless leaders, but the lots of the terrible ones make it an odious task finding the few good ones. This selfishness is what makes it impossible for politicians and other public officials who are supposed to be custodians of our resources do what is prudent. And this is what is bringing our nation to its knees.

As we head into the elections in November, as your tap miraculously begins to flow with water, as your light never seems to go off like it used to, as that pothole-riddled-road in your neighborhood suddenly gets tarred before you get out of bed one morning, if your grandmother calls to inform you of some free fertilizer or a bag of sugar she received as a present from the assemblyman or your unemployed cousin calls to tell you about the GHc20 he got at that rally…Just pause for a moment and ask…Why now? Then what?

Well, these are the thoughts from my musing under the pear tree, what are yours?