Manna from heaven

For many in low income countries the most preventable of gastrointestinal illnesses and infections related to poor living conditions are still a persistent threat. So it was hoped that a campaign involving education in the villages in which we are working on a “Hygiene Day” would serve as a basis for health improvements.

The mothers of the three villages were invited to participate in a lecture for which they would receive a gift in return. I observed the situation in a village of approximately two hundred families near the city. The day consisted of a talk by a local nurse who explained how mothers could help to prevent the spread of disease with some simple techniques. Literature was handed out to remind the mothers for when they returned home about what they had learnt. Finally, boxes with sanitation products were handed out.

What code, moral, economic or political, should serve as a basis for intervention? Is this ever a question worth asking; for if we have a sense of empathy with all the peoples of this world, then we may believe that working in low income countries is no different to social action in our own. Yet there is a difference which will be left unsolved unless we probe the intricacies of each case on its own merit.

I want to concentrate on two interrelated issues surrounding the hand-out of ‘aid’ boxes with the UNICEF logo. First, as a small organization which intends to provide for long-term and sustainable solutions, was this damaging to the communities for which we work? And second, is the work we are trying to do to educate villagers any more welcome and suitable than handouts?

Building trust within a community is always difficult – it is a process which takes time yet, just as one bad experience can colour future judgement, so too can a negative event. The sight of queues of mothers waiting for UNICEF aid boxes, only to be turned away left a feeling of discomfort in me. People fought over boxes and children commandeered condoms to play with as party balloons; this all added to the sense that damage might have been caused by our activities. Alas, as an outsider to the project, I cannot be so sure that we have been guilty of producing  lasting damage but I hope not.

Just what happened is not quite clear. Was the UNICEF puppet master pulling our strings, using us as its emissary to the communities; or were we more than just complicit in this situation but ultimately culpable. In return, I am sure we will receive some realizable linkages with the UN organizations that will be beneficial in the long term. However, that Manichean process in which we are now caught may affect our long-term goals. So was I worth giving the hygeiene kits? Some may call what we did pragmatism, others may argue that we were deviating from our goals to provide a platform for self-sufficiency as opposed to dependency. As always, the answer is far from simple.