Leading Questions 2005
At the beginning of 2004, Warren Feek, Executive Director of The Communication Initiative, expressed his wishes for the
upcoming year [see "20
Wishes for 2004" - click here]. For 2005, Warren poses a series of development questions.
If you wish to respond to or discuss these please send your comments to conundrums@comminit.com and they will be
shared so that they may inform the work of others.
A. If the world has the communication technology to track and "talk with" a space craft in the atmosphere around
Mars why can we not track a Tsunami in The Indian Ocean and communicate with people on the shores of that great ocean
about the risks that they face and the actions they should take?
B. When the obstacles facing the development of successful vaccines [eg for HIV and Malaria] are so huge and the
timelines so long, why do we see so much early, pervasive and almost unquestioning press coverage of very preliminary trial
results - coverage that both creates unreal/unreasonable expectations and leads to the downgrading of the people-related
communication for change work that is essential for such development?
C. Why do development agencies in their communications keep using the word "poor" and the phrase "poorest
countries" when they mean "economically" or "financially poor"? Why categorise all aspects of a country or a person's life
and being as impoverished?
D. As very few people in Development would argue with the statement that "local people and communities best
understand local issues and contexts" why are so many development priorities and the resources to pursue them globally
determined and communicated by people and organisations that are, in every sense of the word, miles from the people experiencing those
issues?
E. Why do we feel and encounter so much doubt and questioning about the added value of the new technologies to
further progress on international development issues?
F. When the countries, communities and organisations that appear to have made the most progress on HIV/AIDS
[eg Uganda, Gay community, Treatment Action Group] have clearly adopted at the heart of their strategies social movement
and social networking approaches that stress a combination of dialogue, debate, networking and action by the people most
affected, why do most international HIV/AIDS programmes and resources prioritise a bio-medical approach?
G. Given that the Coca Cola company would become unsustainable if it failed to sell any more bottles of Coke in its
market places, what do the funding agencies that constitute the international development market place mean when they ask
applying projects and organisations to demonstrate how they will be "sustainable"?
H. When the same number of people who are presently known to have died in the Tsunami disaster [155,000 at time
of writing] died of AIDS in 2004 every 18 days – then in the next 18 days 155,000 more die, and the same number over the
next 18 days [based on UNAIDS stats] not to mention mortality rates from malaria, TB, living on less than USD 2 per day, environmental degradation and a range of other issues, why was there not the same attention to those very serious concerns in 2004 as we have seen in the amazing, widespread response in early 2005 to the effects of the Tsunami? What does this say - if anything - about the communication strategies of development agencies?
I. In the struggle against poverty how do we communicate why some very economically poor countries which have extremely valuable natural resources that provide them with only a limited national income but make the private sector companies that are "mining" [often in both the literal and pejorative sense of that word] those resources so rich - for example, to look at just one part of the world, Diamonds in Sierra Leone, Bauxite in Guinea, Oil in Nigeria?
J. Continuing the poverty theme and the problems in communicating explanations: can someone please let us communicators know
what exactly is "global free trade" when clearly some countries [mostly the economically poorer ones, of course] are not
"free" to "trade" their products in the "global" market place - or if they do trade them they need to pay a tariff or tax as an
entry fee to "free" trade [which is oxymoronic in the extreme]?
K. Another "ignorant communicator" economic question given the over-riding importance of addressing poverty: why
is there still such a stigma about and policy anathema towards major public investment initiatives by governments in
developing countries when such public investments have clearly been very significant strategic factors in the economic
growth and success in some of the richest countries in the world - for example, the New Deal in the USA, Nationalisation
[early stages] and National Health system in the UK, Marshall Plan in Germany in the 1940s and the public investment and
spending policies of Korea, Thailand and Malaysia more recently?
L. Why is it impossible to domesticate a Zebra? [For the reasoning behind the introduction of this Python like
statement at this stage, please see Jared Diamond's book - "Guns, Germs and Steel" - click
here!]
M. Will the present global focus on the disaster that was The Tsunami in Asia reduce attention and resources to the
much slower process of social and economic development in the 50 economically poorest countries?
N. Is it just possible that the significant adoption of digital, mobile communication technologies by many developing
countries will provide a "spring board effect" for both economic growth and more equitable wealth sharing? Is anyone
researching this?
O. Why is there not one global set of development data? Just to take health as an example: at The CI we have
recently been reviewing child health trends and not only is the UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, World Bank, DHSS data different but
even the categories and indicators are sometimes differently stated.
P. How is it that even in this global communication age, the most popular radio and TV programmes remain national
and/or local productions?
Q. What do we mean by the word "development", anyway?
R. In 2005, is it possible for a technologically unconnected community - one not wired in any way for internet or television or radio - to become economically rich?
S. As we see the international media coverage of the Tsumani, how many times will it be reported that the people who are doing most of the rescue, relief, recovery, care and most probably cash spending and capital investment are local people in those communities and nationals of the countries affected?
T. At the end of this 12 months, with the coming of the new years celebrations clocking in 2006 everywhere from the ball dropping in Times Square to quiet, extended family gatherings in small, rural communities worldwide, how will we assess the combined force and impact of all of our efforts?
Thanks for considering these.
To reply, answer or add your own questions - please send your comments to conundrums@comminit.com and they will be
shared so that they may inform the work of others.
We at The Communication Initiative hope that 2005 brings you all that you wish.
Warren Feek
wfeek@comminit.com
January 14 2005
Comments
I really enjoyed reading the list and have sent it to colleagues. I thought of biological limitations to the breadth of human focus, of how insecure we all are at base, and of how we seem 'wired' to counter that insecurity by focusing on accumulating and controlling more (and before) the other guy -- and to justify our actions with reference to elaborate ideologies liked with notions of transcendence, be they religious or scientific in nature (as in placing unrealistic expectations on new vaccines).
H. When the same number of people who are presently known to have died in the Tsunami disaster [155,000 at time of writing] died of AIDS in 2004 every 18 days - then in the next 18 days 155,000 more die, and the same number over the next 18 days [based on UNAIDS stats] not to mention mortality rates from malaria, TB, living on less than USD 2 per day, environmental degradation and a range of other issues, why was there not the same attention to those very serious concerns in 2004 as we have seen in the amazing, widespread response in early 2005 to the effects of the Tsunami? What does this say - if anything - about the communication strategies of development agencies?
Development agencies are caught between a rock and a hard place. They rely on the public and governments of their home countries for funding and rely on the media to give coverage to their particular version of what's important. The donors need images of action. Images of store rooms full of 'stuff'. Planes taking off and going there to do 'stuff'. I suspect the agency workers themselves get caught up in the action. Most projects take time. They are slow and laborious. They involve changing behaviour often in the face of vested interests. The media will not come to film the project until the good news story is ready. The good news story needs the investment before it can create the story. Western society has become results focused in a way that demands short term results that can be pointed to in the lifetime of the politician, or the company CEO or the individual donor. Agencies are trying to bridge this gap by sending leaflets to donors to inform them of progress. Unfortunately much of the progress sounds like it's intended to impress but has little reality. Not much different from a junior manager trying to impress his boss who wants a monthly progress report with only good news in it. Would a publicity campaign that told the truth about just what was involved work? Or would it simply give donors an excuse not to bother giving? Not sure.
Excellent web site. Shay
Crossroads Facilitation
50 Carrigdhoun, Waterpark, Carrigaline, Co. Cork www.crossroadsfacilitation.ie "Building bridges and getting you over them"
Dear Colleagues, I would like to comment if I may, on why individuals and therefore development agencies utilize the word "poor" and the phrase "poorest countries" so easily. My belief is that it comes from quite common, social conditioning. This is a very subtle thing in most people's lives and we do not even realize that we are conditioned to believe and then act it out. That if we are helping someone, in whatever way, that individual or group must be poor. How many times did we hear "poor thing" or "they are so poor, they have nothing and we have to help them" when we were being taught about giving or helping others? This mind set has carried over into adulthood and kicks in every time we engage in anything helpful.
It is closly related to that conditioned belief that there has to be a winner and a loser in every situation. That it is impossible for everyone to be the winner, at the same time! That if you don't win, then you loose and if one fights against the idea, then one is a poor loser. Taught this by every game we played with anyone from our earliest years of interaction. Instructed by every grade for anything we ever did, by everyone around us. Or maybe something even more subtle like, "I know you can do better", by those that we loved the most. Judged as being excellant, good or poor and therefor lacking in our abilities. And if our abilities were poor then our quality of self was poor also. Which we all know as adults, has nothing to do with the quality of self, but as small children going through our social instruction, it had everything to do with how we saw our Self! This mind set becomes our own because we were too young at the time to understand.
But regardless of how our individual conditioning arrives, it is well planted within our being. It surfaces every time we hit an issue and it comes automaticly without thought or conscious knowledge that we are acting it out. Subconscious things that must be processed from our beliefs in order for us to approach every new encounter in a healthy, fully functioning way. For if we go into interaction or exchange with any conscious or unconscious ideas about anything, we are only adding ingredients that will spoil the recipe.
Lawrence H. Robertson
www.thecontinuumproject.net
I have a suggestion for the presentation of this interesting page. Can you put the answers to the questions directly after the question itself. Make a link saying how many reactions on the particular question, then a page with a list of reactions. At the moment I find it difficult to find the answer to the questions.
Thank you, Roosmarijn Busch (The Netherlands)
Why is there not one global set of development data:
The development community is at this time too fragmented to create such an important and neccesary data base. Too many organizations, overlaping activities and in house fighting which fragments time, energy and resources that negate an overall, comprehensive view of the situation! All seem too busy justifying thier own existence and financing thier own piece of the pie, to get down to the real work at hand. Creating the new tools, organizations and metodology that would really make a significant difference in the state of "Reality"! Sad but true, that the old ways die hard. Much to the detriment of those humans around the world, that could use a hand up and not a hand out!
Why do popular radio and TV programs remain national and/or local productions:
The lack of responsibility by the media to humanity, instead of the share holders of the station! As long as the bottom line remains the holy grail of these stations and not the dissimenation of information for the enlightenment of humanity, nothing will change. Just another case of those in places of influence not taking responsibility for thier actions and how they directly or indirectly effect people, places and things around themselves.
In 2005, is it possible for the technologically unconnected to become economically rich:
That would depend on, by whose scale are we using? Those humans in any culture that have the need to be economically rich do so on thier own. At least by the standards of which they culturally hold themselves bound. If we are going to hold them to some outside standard of wealth, then they will probably never measure up. Then there comes the philosophical question of, what is enough and when does it step over the line into over-compensating for insecurities? This same question could be ask of the technologically connected. Food for thought, when too much, is never enough!
6 elements for "supporting people to redevelop thier lives and communities":
Common sense, applied within the reality of a now, time frame! Does this not go to the grass-roots solution that many development organizations find threatening to thier very existence? If human beings are respected in this manner, would it not negate the need for these organizations, which have turned into multi-billion dollar enterprises. Financed to do the job, whether it gets done or not?
Lawrence H. Robertson, www.thecontinuumproject.net
Since we are in this business of 'Development', we need to seriously consider each question Warren raises.
Are we (feathering) furthering our own business trying to develop others'? Do we own the programme or does it belong to the people we work with? If it is the latter, then we need to look at exit strategies from day one, i.e. hand over the programme to those people from the beginning and remain in the background as much as possible. Even the impoverished have sense and wisdom they can use.
Do we need to transport 'Experts' from the First world to the Impoverished countries to teach them how to live. What if it was the other way around? Someone from Bihar in India is sent to Minnesota or Texas to shore up their public health and other systems??
Disaster friendly agencies have been lucky the last few years, the Gods have provided them with more than one each year, to which they RESPOND!!!! How about the disasters in our backyards - wife battering, date rapes, school murders, etc, etc What are we doing for those?
Equating financial poverty with stupidity, handing out sops and incentives (bribes?) are an insult to ancient civilisations impoverished by invaders and colonialists. Lets not repeat those colossal mistakes again.
Roma Solomon
India
- Log in to post comments