This is a week to remember, undoubtedly.. although it might pass unnoticed in the larger population of the world. I trust that there are a few of us with shared interests who are to an extent excited by what this week will bring.
On the same day Egypt and the DRC were to go to the polls. Both elections are contentious issues. In the case of Egypt, the system not the participants, is flawed. Egypt's elections will not bring about the immediate democracy that its people campaigned so hard for- if the military gets its way Egypt's democracy will be put on ice for yet another 12 months minimum, but they've waited over 50 years already what's another on the calendar? This would be Egypt's first ever election. Coup after coup has been the usual passing of power. and so you can see why people may be excited and eager to take part.
Further south the DRC is also having elections. And as can be expected the particpants not the system is flawed.. that is the story of sub-saharan Africa. President Joseph Kabila inherited the apparent democracy from his father who stole it from the dictator Mobutu who violently and inhumanely seized it with unashamed neo-colonial Belgian and US sponsor, from the country's first president, Patrice Lumumba. That has been the story of the DRC. Now in the country's elections candidates with rumoured history of serial rape, dealings in blood minerals and all other types of crimes run for positions in government that will give them access to large quantities of funds.
I'm not one to trust western media (and I throw Al Jazeera into this label) when it comes to African affairs, simply because I know that the world doesn't rate us, but I reckon in this case - the case of the DRC which is not only the poorest but the most dangerous place to live in the world - some accusations may just be true. It worries me that in the spirit of democracy someone with such a shady past with no sign of remorse or reform could be given legal power and the resources to govern the people he tormented for years. Many more statesmen have been expelled from the political arena for much less than what this gentleman is being accused of.
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Aid vs Sovereignty
PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS POST ON THIS TOPIC BEFORE READING THIS:
You may find this post in another blog as well, I don't know (at the time of writing this,) whether I want to submit it as an article for a political communal blog 'cartel' I'm in, or not.
I submitted my dissertation topic form two weeks ago, on the deadline, about 3 mins before it was due to close. It was an idea I had been toying with for weeks, but fundamentally it is the basis for my studying politics in the first place - Africa.
Africa is my beginning and end I guess and so writing about it, giving myself the opportunity to understand it better is key. I didn't expect though that confirmation of this topic would come in the way it did...
The week before I submitted my topic form it was announced that the UK will slash aid to African nations who refuse to embrace homosexuality as a part of their society. At the recent Commonwealth Summit the British Prime Minister reasserted this policy. David Cameron argues that the right to be gay, and gay rights form an integral part of Human Rights and therefore, any country that does not uphold gay rights or even goes as far as to oppose it and introduce punishments upon the LGBT community is infringing upon International Human Rights and therefore unworthy of Western aid.
Those sympathetic to the gay rights movement won't really find a problem with what the British Prime Minister is proposing. That is not to say that I am not sympathetic with gay rights, but that I am more sympathetic with the more basic Human Rights being sidelined for this issue. The right to eat, for one. The right to an education, and the right to quality healthcare (although the American republicans may disagree with these two). The three sectors of infrastructure I have just named are heavily funded by Western aid. This means that any cut to the amount of help given at the beginning of the process will ultimately result in a cut to the quality of service found at the end. Can David Cameron really boast of moral high grounds when he is willing to see a young 5 year old girl go hungry week-in week out at the request of Western gay rights organisations (who enjoy 3 square meals a day)? Where is the moral high ground when that girl - lesbian or straight - grows up to work in a farm her entire life against her every desire, but as her only option, because the quality education wasn't there for her?
I am not a Utilitarian but in some cases the pleasure of the majority and the superiority of the greater good for the greater number must take precedence. There are some things that we cannot gamble with.
Cameron's declaration also confirms all that Kwame Nkrumah and his peers feared and warned against. The Prime Minister claimed that Britiain's position is one in which they can tell the African countries what they "expect" from them. He is unashamedly claiming to have the power to change the mindset of a people over whom he should have no control. My apologies for playing this card but it reminds me to much of the impetus behind colonialism - to civilise the barbarians, who in this case are barbarians because they believe that every man's relations should be with a woman and every woman's with a man. Today it is gay rights, tomorrow it is trade with British businesses, (or maybe that was yesterday actually!) When will Africans decide when Africans are ready?
I just hope African Heads of States make the decision to comply or resist based on what their people want. I am frustrated by what David Cameron has put forward, and one may argue that the best thing to do for the young girl is comply and move on, but Africans need identity and pride in their identity as the only ones who can shape and dictate what that identity is. If Africans choose aid over their principles then so be it, but if they choose their religion, culture and traditions over £36million (the amount the UK give to Ghana) then I would respect that decision too, because the most important contributor to national development isn't foreign aid, but pride in the national identity decided by Africans.
You may find this post in another blog as well, I don't know (at the time of writing this,) whether I want to submit it as an article for a political communal blog 'cartel' I'm in, or not.
I submitted my dissertation topic form two weeks ago, on the deadline, about 3 mins before it was due to close. It was an idea I had been toying with for weeks, but fundamentally it is the basis for my studying politics in the first place - Africa.
Africa is my beginning and end I guess and so writing about it, giving myself the opportunity to understand it better is key. I didn't expect though that confirmation of this topic would come in the way it did...
The week before I submitted my topic form it was announced that the UK will slash aid to African nations who refuse to embrace homosexuality as a part of their society. At the recent Commonwealth Summit the British Prime Minister reasserted this policy. David Cameron argues that the right to be gay, and gay rights form an integral part of Human Rights and therefore, any country that does not uphold gay rights or even goes as far as to oppose it and introduce punishments upon the LGBT community is infringing upon International Human Rights and therefore unworthy of Western aid.
Those sympathetic to the gay rights movement won't really find a problem with what the British Prime Minister is proposing. That is not to say that I am not sympathetic with gay rights, but that I am more sympathetic with the more basic Human Rights being sidelined for this issue. The right to eat, for one. The right to an education, and the right to quality healthcare (although the American republicans may disagree with these two). The three sectors of infrastructure I have just named are heavily funded by Western aid. This means that any cut to the amount of help given at the beginning of the process will ultimately result in a cut to the quality of service found at the end. Can David Cameron really boast of moral high grounds when he is willing to see a young 5 year old girl go hungry week-in week out at the request of Western gay rights organisations (who enjoy 3 square meals a day)? Where is the moral high ground when that girl - lesbian or straight - grows up to work in a farm her entire life against her every desire, but as her only option, because the quality education wasn't there for her?
I am not a Utilitarian but in some cases the pleasure of the majority and the superiority of the greater good for the greater number must take precedence. There are some things that we cannot gamble with.
Cameron's declaration also confirms all that Kwame Nkrumah and his peers feared and warned against. The Prime Minister claimed that Britiain's position is one in which they can tell the African countries what they "expect" from them. He is unashamedly claiming to have the power to change the mindset of a people over whom he should have no control. My apologies for playing this card but it reminds me to much of the impetus behind colonialism - to civilise the barbarians, who in this case are barbarians because they believe that every man's relations should be with a woman and every woman's with a man. Today it is gay rights, tomorrow it is trade with British businesses, (or maybe that was yesterday actually!) When will Africans decide when Africans are ready?
I just hope African Heads of States make the decision to comply or resist based on what their people want. I am frustrated by what David Cameron has put forward, and one may argue that the best thing to do for the young girl is comply and move on, but Africans need identity and pride in their identity as the only ones who can shape and dictate what that identity is. If Africans choose aid over their principles then so be it, but if they choose their religion, culture and traditions over £36million (the amount the UK give to Ghana) then I would respect that decision too, because the most important contributor to national development isn't foreign aid, but pride in the national identity decided by Africans.
The worrying prevalence of homophobia in Ghana
I wrote this and intended to publish it on the 23rd July 2011, 3 months before David Cameron's campaign for gay rights in Africa:
No matter what I say it will probably be taking in the wrong way by someone. But I think I should say something, because my sister appears to be getting tired of me talking for hours on end about the things that annoy me without showing signs of actually doing SOMETHING about it.
Over the past couple of weeks I have noticed something in Ghanaian news that I do not like. As the title of this post would suggest it is the prevalence of homophobia in Ghana. I will make my position clear because I think it's important that no one misinterprets any ambiguities. I am a Christian (by birth some may say) and I follow the Bible as closely as I can.That is to say that I know we are not all perfect but we can try to be. I have not yet read a scripture that deals with homosexuality directly but I think the interpretations and sentiment that runs through the Bible makes it pretty clear. So with that, I'm not homophobic, I have gay, bisexual and lesbian friends and I don't ever judge their life choices. Their sexual orientation is their decision
It frustrates me that our country's leaders doesn't have their priorities in order. The most important thing for Ghana and indeed for most African countries, is development. Our pastors, headteachers and politicians should be preaching about anti-corruption values, innovation and respect. They shouldn't be asking people to expose other people's private lives or call the police on mere suspicions of things that do not concern them. There are many other evils in our country that seem to be slipping through the mosquito net.
And I will be terribly honest. I'm not asking for Ghanaian society to be any more accepting of homosexuality than it is today. It is not acceptable in our culture, nor in the religions to which we subscribe. But Ghanaians had perfected the art of living side by side with those with whom you disagreed. There is a common goal which is the country's development and we should work towards that despite other problems. I worry that this flurry of debate around homosexuality in the country will bring unnecessary attention to a country that so far no one has any problems with.
No matter what I say it will probably be taking in the wrong way by someone. But I think I should say something, because my sister appears to be getting tired of me talking for hours on end about the things that annoy me without showing signs of actually doing SOMETHING about it.
Over the past couple of weeks I have noticed something in Ghanaian news that I do not like. As the title of this post would suggest it is the prevalence of homophobia in Ghana. I will make my position clear because I think it's important that no one misinterprets any ambiguities. I am a Christian (by birth some may say) and I follow the Bible as closely as I can.That is to say that I know we are not all perfect but we can try to be. I have not yet read a scripture that deals with homosexuality directly but I think the interpretations and sentiment that runs through the Bible makes it pretty clear. So with that, I'm not homophobic, I have gay, bisexual and lesbian friends and I don't ever judge their life choices. Their sexual orientation is their decision
It frustrates me that our country's leaders doesn't have their priorities in order. The most important thing for Ghana and indeed for most African countries, is development. Our pastors, headteachers and politicians should be preaching about anti-corruption values, innovation and respect. They shouldn't be asking people to expose other people's private lives or call the police on mere suspicions of things that do not concern them. There are many other evils in our country that seem to be slipping through the mosquito net.
And I will be terribly honest. I'm not asking for Ghanaian society to be any more accepting of homosexuality than it is today. It is not acceptable in our culture, nor in the religions to which we subscribe. But Ghanaians had perfected the art of living side by side with those with whom you disagreed. There is a common goal which is the country's development and we should work towards that despite other problems. I worry that this flurry of debate around homosexuality in the country will bring unnecessary attention to a country that so far no one has any problems with.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Future Female Leaders?
We often hear about the glass ceiling affecting women in the work place. Some say it's been smashed, others proclaim it still exists.
And then we hear about alleged institutional racism - a hindrance to ethnics in the workplace trying to achieve their due recognition.
Being a BLACK FEMALE, none of this makes me excited about entering the world of work. In fact, I will do just about anything to put off the inevitable and that includes travelling for 5 years. (Currently on the cards, but not if my mum has anything to do with it). Being President of my uni's ACS in my second year opened me up to a lot of inspirational avenues. There are now a million organisations of black empowerment, a gazillion awards to be given each year and even more people behind those awards and organisations profiting from the desire of MNCs to diversify by handpicking the country's best ethnic students. So that covers, one thing - the black part of me.
The problem is that in all these awards and recognition (which I do not at all slate), the majority of the elites are male. Given the UK (and definitely London) gang problem, there has been more discourse on providing youths with male role models. Problem-children are often said to come from a single-mother home and I guess for the media and the elites, they've had too much female connection that doesn't seem to be working. That being said, what about the women? I think more than anything young people want to see that against the odds, whatever those odds may be and for whatever reason (be it race or gender) one has succeeded. Women in general are doing fairly well in comparison to maybe when I was born and clearly ethnic minorities are doing much better too. 143 of the 650 members of parliament are women, 27 of the 650 MPs are BME but only 9 of 650 MPs are BME Women.
Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was probably my first female role model after the women in my family. But where are the opportunities for a replication of her success here in Britain. It's funny how we're all searching for the first British Obama - David Lammy this! Chuka Umunna that! - when this country has proudly paraded a female as its leader for 11 of its toughest years post-WW2. When we think first black prime minister why aren't females included in the leadership race?
Until things change, I'm going to live in a secluded hut somewhere in the heart of Africa away from GPS, the internet and half-hearted social change.
Saturday, 1 October 2011
What the SAU don't say about reverse culture shock.
So I begun my first day of 3rd Year on Thursday.. before then, the last time I was sat in a lecture theatre for the purpose of learning was in Singapore. When it comes to uni vs uni.. if I'm gonna have reverse culture shock it would have been then. But actually I settled into the teaching style and length (Manchester teach for half the time as Singapore) quite easily. I quickly got into the habit of visiting the library (probably more the influence of NUS students than UoM) and the layout of campus and Oxford Road is tattooed into my DNA. Reverse culture shock isn't the noticeable things about the two cultures, like them driving on the other side of the road (not true in the case of Singapore) or different humidity, or food, or languages and customs. No. Reverse culture shock is simply the reverse of being shocked by culture. total apathy. Everyone asks you the same questions: where did you travel to? did you enjoy it? and then you want to tell them a funny story.. you've even been careful to explain context and everything so as to make sure they don't get the whole it's-funny-if -you-were-there feeling. This happens 10, 20, 100 times over and then that funny story that underpinned your whole evaluation of study abroad as the best decision you've ever made, is no longer funny. It's just some foreign bloke (or bird) in an even foreigner land doing standard things that you found funny at the time because you were high in the ecstasy of you being 7000 miles from home. Reverse Culture Shock, is when you avoid mentioning you were away and all talk of it. Or you bring it up yourself EARLY IN CONVERSATION SO AS TO SUMMARISE AND MOVE ON, because even you are beginning to be envious of the person you were 6 months ago. You're thinking "shut up already, you're not there now are you?! and even if you go back, your 485 friends from 86 different countries won't be, so stick it on your CV and move on!!!"
Reverse Culture Shock isn't acclimatising back to your first culture.. it's becoming bored of the fantasy you lived for 6 months - 1 year of your life.
Reverse Culture Shock isn't acclimatising back to your first culture.. it's becoming bored of the fantasy you lived for 6 months - 1 year of your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)