Op-Ed in Real Change

I just had the amazing opportunity to write an op-ed for Real Change, the local street newspaper in Seattle. It is essentially a distillation of the raw thoughts from this blog and the more nuanced critique I level in the academic article mentioned earlier (of which a new version is coming soon!).

Take a look here: Grass without roots: the dilemma of foreign funding for social change

And as always, tell me what you think! These ideas are always developing. To be sure, things are not quite as simple as I lay them out in the op-ed – there is a lot of nuance behind each point, but I feel strongly about the general thrust of article. The solutions too are not necessarily easy to implement, nor necessarily the only ones. Yet I’m convinced we can improve the situation. Baby steps, right?

Critical Development Forum

Along with a few colleagues at the University of Washington, last month I helped to found a new student group dedicated to challenging ourselves to critically reflect on development challenges and our role in the overall system. The group is called the Critical Development Forum – and we just set up a blog.

My personal hope is that the group helps us expand our ambition – to make “doing what we can” include more than just band-aid projects. After I returned from Nicaragua, I realized that so few students get the same opportunity to see the underbelly of ‘development’ up close. If we can begin to raise a critical consciousness about the challenges facing development as practiced, perhaps we can begin to make that change here that I so often referred to in this blog.

But more modestly, I just hope we can get the students interested in international development in a room together to talk to one another. We are too often divided across disciplines and between groups and ideologies. Engineers roll their eyes at social scientists while activists scoff at practitioners. This needn’t be the case.

We are actively looking for engaging speakers to catalyze our discussions – so if you are one, or know one, let me know!

Grass without Roots? Draft of Paper Done!

Well, I almost finished.

I’ll be presenting this paper at the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) in November, and (if I can get funding) at the International Studies Association (ISA) convention in Montreal in March!

Many edits to come before it’s publishable (needs to be half the length – I’ll probably split it into two papers). But take a read if you’re interested. The general themes are the same as those described here, but in this paper you can really get a more rigorous look, and see the relevant work already done on the topic.

Enjoy – and let me know your thoughts.

ARNOVA 2010: Grass without Roots: Foreign Funding and the Underdevelopment of Nicaraguan Civil Society

UPDATE (3/19/11): Here’s a much improved version from the ISA conference: ISA 2011:  Grass without Roots

Research, Writing, and Presentations

I have to admit I abruptly ended my posts on the blog, but that was not the end of my research!

It turns out that money for a film couldn’t be found, but I nevertheless really wanted to “do something” with the research and experience to share it with others. I turned towards academia, and have been writing and speaking away! Not quite as cool as a film, but maybe that will happen later?

I produced a final report for BGI’s internal use that is quite readable and expands on many of the themes presented here in a more focused manner.

I’ve been reworking this report into a (hopefully) publishable academic article, and should be done within the next month. It has involved an immense amount of reading and re-evaluating of my initial impressions. I think they have matured with time and as I have read more of the academic literature. However, I’m still quite surprised to find so much support for my initial impressions – it seems that my gut was not too far off! But as usual, I’m probably more confused than ever. I have realized just how complex things are to solve – more so than I initially expected. Thus the article will really prompt a lot more research and thinking!

I also gave a presentation (audio/slide sync here) on my work for the Global Health Department at the UW’s MPH seminar – it was a fantastic experience and a great honor!

I’ve personally been quite transformed by the whole experience – and quite perplexed about how to fix it all! But that’s the first step right?

NGOs Cannot Be the Movement: How the Non-profit Industrial Complex Has Diminished Nicaragua’s Popular Resistance

“Where are the mass movements of today within this country? The short answer – they got funded.”

-Adjoa Florencia Jones de Almeida on the disappearance of the movements of the 1960s in the United States (emphasis added), from “Radical Social Change”, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded

Jones de Almeida answers, with elegant simplicity, a question that has burned in my mind. Why don’t we see people shutting down cities, marching hand in hand against discrimination and inequality? Why are the 45 million people who live without healthcare not drowning out the billions of dollars in propaganda of the US corporate insurance machine through massive civil disobedience? Why do we accept living in a society where in the same company the CEO makes 400 times more than the janitor? Why do we accept a government that squeezes the life out of the economies of the developing world?

Even if there is something uniquely 21st century American about passivity in the face of catastrophic injustice, what about Latin America? What about Nicaragua? Why don’t I see the poor mobilizing themselves to demand change from their corrupt government? Why is post-revolution Nicaragua so quiet in the face of so much pain? I have blamed neoliberalism before in this blog. But if you pry apart pathway of “neoliberalism –> quiet suffering” you find one of the major means is the growth of the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC) – also known as the NGOs, foundations, and laws that support them. The NPIC – through selective funding -  co-opts community organizers, professionalizes them, and spits out social service agents that appease donors with tame “projects” rather than organizing the communities to demand change.

Hypothesis

I arrived in Nicaragua with one question – and a hypothesis – “Can NGOs save a country whose own popular revolution was strangled by US imperialism?” My hypothesis was quite clear from my phrasing of the question; I was doubtful.

What have I found in 7 weeks? Maybe – as I alluded to in my very first post – in development, the question is always a bit more complex.

My goal in Nicaragua has been to find “innovative” NGOs for film based case studies. For me, “innovative” would be working to make the structural changes needed for the long-term elimination of poverty, thus long-term social change instead of short-sighted social service. So to that end, I guided my research towards NGOs that ostensibly work towards a different vision of society rather than perpetuating the socioeconomic structures that have failed the poor.

But have I been doing the research equivalent of a dog chasing their own tail? Have I been doggedly chasing an oxymoron?

What I have, at times, abstractly and at other times blatantly referred to, is the need for a revolution. A “revolution” is not necessarily violent! But it is a radical change.  How else do we really expect that poverty will ever “go away”? We have built an economic system on the skeletons of centuries of exploitation of the poor. Our skyscrapers on Wall Street are the sweat, blood, and tears of the Global South. (I think my civil engineering professor forgot about those materials when he was talking about the shear strength of the steel, concrete, and glass…)

Neoliberalism: Who feels it?

In Nicaragua, the word “neoliberalism” is on the tip of everyone’s tongues. In the United States, I would wager that 99% of the population doesn’t have a clue what it means. Why the discrepancy? Nicaragua is on the receiving end. Everyone but the very richest feel its negative effects:

(Note: these are all about people I have met or seen here)

The woman selling her fruits and vegetables from sunrise to sunset who can’t afford to eat her own produce feels it.

The girl selling her body after sunset for $1 to feed her family feels it.

The taxi driver making less money than he spends on gas each day feels it.

The man selling steering wheels at the stoplight (actually very common) feels it.

The skilled metal worker who can’t find a job anymore feels it.

The middle class family – when thieves break into their house and the underfunded police department arrives three hours later and then charges them $5 for the gas they spent – feels it

If everyone feels it, why isn’t anyone in Nicaragua organizing, standing up together, and saying anything about it?

After Cirulo (the community organizer pictured later) lost his job as a metal worker, his wife has been barely sustaining the family of seven by making tortillas from dawn till dusk.

NGOs and the Co-opting of Social Movements

I came to Nicaragua hoping that maybe – against all odds and logic – NGOs might be able to be part of the revolution that might make these daily stories less commonplace.

Instead I’ve found a civil society whose very foundations have been co-opted by the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC). There is no revolution anymore. The very roots of civil society – the community organizers – today think in terms of “projects” not organizing. Where are the universal strikes that literally stopped Nicaragua for days in 1979? Where are the tens of thousands of volunteers spending their summer eradicating illiteracy?

The most promising thing I’ve found in the NGOs has been that some seem to be genuinely attempting to encourage and empower “citizen participation” in public politics without a political agenda. They do this through popular education and networks of volunteer community leaders who educate their communities. But every time I ask to observe one of these workshops I’m told that “the project is over” or that “we don’t have funds for it right now” and to “come back next year, we’re hoping to get a donation from X then.” I have three questions:

1) SINCE WHEN DID CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THEIR PUBLIC POLITICS BECOME A FINITE “PROJECT”?

2) WHY DO YOU NEED (foreign) FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZING?

3) WHY DOES (almost) NO ONE – NICA or GRINGO – QUESTION THIS CONCEPT?

Answers:

1) Since NGOs co-opted the civil society of Nicaragua and brought whimsical donors into the equation.

2) Because today “community organizing” is synonymous with hosting “workshops” in restaurants with air conditioning and paying a new upper class of NGO staff.

3) See the answers to 1) and 2)

To give them some credit, the NGOs here mostly seem to capitalize on the remnants of volunteerism still present in the society, using networks of volunteer “promoters” who help spread the reach of the NGOs beyond their paid staff. This is a huge step. But the essential problem remains. These very promoters are dependent on donations to do their “projects.” Yet this is not the only way to organize.

Alternatives to the Current NGOcracy

The greatest successes of these community “promoters” have not been funded. It’s been the projects they’ve done on the side – without writing proposals to foreign donors – that have had the greatest impact. In Chinandega, as I mentioned before, they gathered 44,000 signatures to successfully combat water privatization. In the very poor neighborhood of Rubén Darío of León, the community promoter, Cirulo, pictured below, has led his community in a fight against foreign utilities that have drastically reduced their electricity bills. Cirulo and his community did not spend a penny to do this powerful act – and no foreign donor asked for a “report.” When asked how he did it, he said it was a matter of coming together as a community and pressuring the company – he joked that if they didn’t comply the community was going to paint over all the meters so they couldn’t be billed.

Cirulo in the community center talking with community members about the current fight against the electric company.

Cirulo making an announcement to the community in his house via the loudspeaker mounted on his roof.

The truth is no major foreign donor would fund these acts of defiance. When applying for grants, “civil disobedience” and “fighting neoliberalism” don’t exactly appear on the “priority areas” of the funding agency. Yet these are the kinds of battles truly worth fighting.

NGOs can support the people’s own movement. But they cannot be the movement. This has been seen in the Zapatista revolution in Mexico, where NGOs have provided technical assistance to the revolution, yet they were a dispensible part of the revolution – they were not the revolution itself. Yet in Nicaragua, this is exactly what the directors of one of the NGOs, the Movimiento Communal Nicaragüense, called his NGO. He told me it was a “social movement” not an NGO – even though it was legally registered as one. To give a little balance, the Coordinadora Civil has explicitly said the opposite, acknowledging that an NGO cannot be the movement. Unfortunately, their actions speak more loudly than their words. Who do you see in television interviews representing the 600 members of the Coordinadora Civil and their tens of thousands of affiliated citizens? You see the staff of the Coordinadora Civil, whose salaries are paid by international donors. Is this the true face of the movement? Could these staff members ever say anything radical that would jeopardize their jobs?

I hope I have made the case – throughout this blog – for the need for a radical change to the global socioeconomic structures if we want to truly eliminate poverty.

Yet if the very community leaders who should be shouting out for a change have become seduced or brainwashed to become NGO “project” delivery systems, who is crying foul on this failed system?

No one.

That’s the beauty of the NGOcracy.

(I think I might have been chasing my tail.)

Empty seats in the community center/preschool in Cirulo's community.

The Danger of Resistance: What Happens When Social Change and the Police State Clash?

Members of an indigenous people's rights movement from Masaya

Yesterday morning, over 600 representatives of the majority of the 600 NGOs and community organizations that are members of the Coordinadora Civil (CC) came to Managua from all over Nicaragua to contribute their voices to a national proposal from civil society to the government. This proposal (a 30 page document) is backed, through this network, by literally tens of thousands of Nicaragüenses – from all political parties. It demands the government for (essentially) a budget overhaul that prioritizes education and, to a lesser extent, basic infrastructure. Its urgency is to ensure the fiscal security and stability of a country with a rapidly aging population which it will be unable to support without major investments in education now.

Raising the Coordinadora Civil flag in a show of support from the audience for the new proposal

At this inspiring event, I met community leaders from all parts of Nicaragua: young, old, city dwellers, campesinos, rich, poor, women, men, straight, LGBT. Each, either alone or with a group, represented a civil society organization or “NGO.” While technically any civil society organization is an NGO by virtue of being “non-governmental”, the groups I met, such as the indigenous right movement from Masaya, composed of all local volunteers, hardly conjure up the typical image of an “NGO.” Let’s put it this way: there were few air-conditioned 4x4s to be found in the parking lot, and not a single chele (white person) in the audience. This is not to say that the CC does not have extensive international relations – in fact that’s part of its role, connecting with international solidarity groups – but rather this event, this proposal, was from Nicaraguans and for Nicaraguans. To me, that seems like real poder ciudadano – citizen power.

Members of the Coordinadora Civil listening, interacting, and reading over the final draft of the proposal

When asked why they are part of the CC, the universal response of the attendees was to “have a voice” in political affairs. All with whom I spoke were volunteers. (The CC only has eight employees – the vast majority of their organizing is done by local volunteers.) All were Nicaraguan. All were community organizers – whether this was their mission or simply a means to another broader goal, I’m not sure. Some of these organizations do have social service projects, but it seemed like the majority were actively involved in social change and even the ones that are involved in social service use their networks of recipients to help bolster the impact of the CC on public policy – whether by collecting signatures, educating, or organizing marches.

Why do they all bother? Because this is a “way they can help their homeland.” It’s hard to imagine – and not be inspired by – all this national volunteerism given that many people in Nicaragua can barely eat, let alone have time to organize. Yet maybe – hopefully – this is an indication of a growing awareness that their long-term survival might just depend on their participation in public politics. National volunteerism has strong roots in Nicaragua, from its unbelievable peak in the early 1980s to today, apparently surviving – if ever so slightly – through two decades of neoliberalism.

One of the community leaders of the Coordinadora Civil speaking to the group about the importance of the proposal.

One of the groups I met, of the regional network of Chinandega, recounted to me their battle against water privatization. (Water privatization, a common effect of neoliberalism, often results in massive price increases – an undue burden on the poor – with limited to no corresponding increases in quality of service.) Through their network, they were able to gather 44,000 signatures in four days, using 120 students, working in two shifts a day on the streets of the towns in Chinandega.

The best part?

It worked.

This is just one example of the work of the members of the CC. This was not the work of an NGO. This was the work of the people – organized and empowered. It’s a network built on trust and a dream that they can change their fate together – not by competing with one another in a neoliberal battle to lift themselves out of poverty “by their bootstraps” – but rather united against oppression. Optimism, unity, and trust like that take time to build, but can they be destroyed much more quickly?

Demoralizing Resistance

(from La Prensa, NOT my photo) Sandinista youth "turba" member chasing after members of the Coordinadora Civil

That destruction of civil society must be President Daniel Ortega’s hope. After approving the proposal at the national assembly, a large group (probably 200) of mostly younger members of the CC bussed to a large open space borrowed from the nearby cathedral to hold a cultural event. (I did not hear the announcement for this part, luckily?) When they arrived, instead of being greeted by the beckoning call of traditional Nica music, they found themselves the targets of yells, spit, stones, sticks, fists, and motorcycle helmets from a hundred or more turbas – gangs of Sandinista (Danielista) youth. Fifteen were injured. Four staff members of the CC, two of whom I know personally, were attacked and chased by the turbas. All of this was caught on video while the police present just stood and watched. When one police officer out of the dozen or more idly standing by tried to persuade the others to help him stop the turbas, one of his colleagues suggested to him to “leave them to [get] what they deserve” (in more vulgar terms). Those four staff members were also told they have two weeks to leave the country or they will be killed.

(from La Prensa - not my photo!) Sandinista youth running after fleeing Coordinadora Civil members

Is this the poder ciudadano Daniel Ortega’s propaganda raves about in action? Or is this the oppression of the very same grassroots civil society that helped bring about the Sandinista revolution in 1979?

For most in Nicaragua, this is just another sign that Ortega has come full circle. He and Somoza (the dictator family that ruled for 40 years until the revolution) are becoming increasingly hard to tell apart. The only difference is Ortega is a little more ironic about it – claiming his government is “lifting up the poor everywhere” and that his power comes from the pueblo (people).

This attack is not anything new. Ortega’s FSLN engaged in the same paramilitary intimidation tactics in the streets during the 2008 elections – though that time they had machetes and ski masks. Now they don’t even bother with the ski masks. Everyone knows who they are. The police are bought. They operate with impunity.

"Turbas Attack" - this attack made the front page in both local papers, La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario

The only fortunate thing is that the press, and the human rights groups like CENIDH (part of the CC), are watching and reporting. But even they have been subject to censure, false accusations, and vandalism.

“The Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights (CENIDH) lamented that the government uses this type of [aggressiveness] to ‘impose terror and demoralize the population to demand their rights.’” – La Prensa, 8/9/09

(Interestingly, no statement has been released by CPDH – the other main human rights group. They told me they didn’t want to be affiliated with the CC due to “political leanings.” Are they okay with the government infringing on the rights of groups with “political leanings” that challenge neoliberalism – the ideology pushed by their main donor, the US? Or maybe, more innocently, CENIDH just beat them to the punch. It’s hard to say.)

But what is the implication for the civil society the CC represents? What will happen the next time the CC attempts to organize one of its massive 20,000-60,000 person demonstrations against oppressive policies? Will fear hold society back from demanding change?

“Unfortunately we are arriving at a situation in which no one believes in anyone and where no one trusts one another. This makes unity – which is the indispensable condition with which those sectors which now are the opposition can come into power – difficult.” – Dr. Alejandro Serrano Caldera, Political Analyst, Interview in El Nuevo Diario, 8/9/09

Maybe the voice of Mario Sánchez (journalist for the CC), minutes after being thrown to the ground and beaten, – wavering but strong – can be an inspiration to the true pueblo:

“This is my homeland, my nation, my people. We have the right to organize, to protest, to speak freely. We own this land. No one – no government – can take this from us.”

Let’s hope.

¿Sandinismo o Danielismo? Partisan NGOs and the Sandinistas Attempting to Recreate the Grassroots from the Top Down – 30 Years Later

Every NGO claims to be apolitical. In fact, I’m quite sure the government, like the US, requires all registered NGOs to be that way. However many NGOs working for social change here are easily politicized, and thus it’s crucial to understand the state of politics in Nicaragua today to really understand the positions of social change NGOs in a highly partisan nation. (One interesting question that I’ll save for another time: should NGOs be allowed to be politicized, and if so, how much, and in what way?)

To immerse myself in the politics and absorb some of the feelings of the people, I speak to everyone and anyone I can, including my host family, friends, taxi drivers, peasants, hair stylists, and NGO directors about politics, as well as watch, read, and discuss the news with locals, and lastly go to events like the 30th Anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution this past Sunday, July 19th.

"El Guerrillero" - Statue nearby the Plaza de la Fe and the Plaza de la Revolución. The plaque at the bottom reads: "Only the workers and peasants will go to the end. - Augusto C. Sandino."

This festive, illegally inebriated celebration was held in the Plaza de la Fe in Managua. (It was fueled – blatantly against government probition of alchohol – by plastic bottles of Rum Plata “Gold Rum” sold every ten feet – an extra strength rum for “los hombres, muy hombres” – lit. “the men, very men” or “manly men.”) It was hosted by  President Daniel Ortega and FSLN, the Frente Sandinista para Liberación Nacional or National Sandinista Liberation Front (the same party – some would argue with a different, more elitist vision – that organized the revolution and governed from 1979-1990). The celebration aimed to commemorate the 30th anniverasary of el Triunfo or the Triumph over Somoza by the Sandinista rebels. But it also served as a highly effective propaganda platform, and for me, a very interesting way to see the spirit and makeup of the FSLN party today, not to mention a very fun photo op. I’ll explain a bit more about FSLN in a bit, but in the meantime, let’s look at an example of partisan NGOs. I hope the pictures on the right will give a bit of a sense of the country’s political mentality and spirit while you read.

PARTISAN NGOs: In the light of the claim to be apolitical, it’s curious that the human rights NGO I interviewed today, Centro Permanente de Derechos Humanos (CPDH – Permanent Center for Human Rights), which both assists with prosecution of human rights abuses and human rights education, claims that the other major human rights NGO in Nicaragua, Centro Nicaragüense de Derechos Humanos (CENIDH – Nicaraguan Center of Human Rights) is Sandinista, but that they themselves are totally apolitical and impartial.

Of course they are.

Their projects for 2008 were entirely funded by USAID primarily, and two other US government-funded groups, including the International Republican Institute (!). Keep in mind that USAID clearly states that their objective of    “furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world” (emphasis added). They were also primarily funded by the US government throughout the 1980s, during the Contra War; a proxy war against the US government. They also were still publishing bulletins about human rights abuses of the Sandinista army during the 1980s as of 2006. I do not think they were making up the stories by any means. Exaggerating and over-dramatizing? Surely. Their bulletins literally read and looked like tabloids. The thing that is wrong with this picture is that they seem to have ignored entirely the abuses of the Contras (the counter-revolutionary, counter-Sandinista government forces illegally funded, trained, and armed almost exclusively by the US government under Ronald Reagan), which are well documented and, at least by Walker’s account, greater than those of the Sandinista army.

A group of Sandinista youth were extremely excited to pose for the camera.

They also were very, very proud to quote that during the period from 1979-1990 (the Sandinistas) they recieved 25,000 denuncias or condemnations of human rights violations, but only 2000 during the period from 1977-1979 (from their founding to the revolution) under the Somoza dictatorship, and only 600 from 1990-1996 under the neoliberal governments of Violetta Chamorro and Arnoldo Alemán.  At the time I took it at face value, nodding my head when they implied that the Sandanistas were baby-eating genocidal monsters (they didn’t say this exactly). But later I realized that a) the time periods are not equal, so you need to find the rate of condemnations, which means that Somoza and the Sandinistas were nearly equal at about 2000/yr and b) during the 1980s the country was AT WAR. That doesn’t really bode so well for human rights, ever. As Walker notes, even Great Britain has restricted civil liberties and I’d bet nearly alldeveloped countries (Gitmo!) have been accused of many human rights abuses in wartime (WWII). This was so blatantly biased and incorrect that I am now a bit shocked.

Focusing in on one black and red FSLN flag in a sea of thousands

Now it seems pretty clear, from both their defensiveness when asked about their funding sources, their actual funding sources, and their tabloid-like publications, that they do lean towards the political right, opposite of the direction they claim their competition, CENIDH leans. I’m not sure it’s possible to make any social change organization impartial, and as such, it seems rather appropriate that, like two competing newspapers, CENIDH and CPDH have two different interpretations of “human rights” in light of their political tendencies.  To be fair, both organizations seem to denounce both political sides – it’s not as though they are even close to blatant political pawns, but they surely tend to denounce their own side less. Luckily, much of the work of both NGOs is focused on denuncias against intrafamiliar violence, malpractice, police brutality and prison conditions, etc – thingsthat is practically apolitical by nature.

This chavala (girl) insisted that I take another picture of just Che.

The status quo of Sandinismo and Danielismo: The current FSLN government, headed by President Daniel Ortega, is widely panned as a “soft dictatorship” full of “populism,” partisanship, corruption, and a lack of real overall economic and social progress. Ortega is also criticized heavily for the hypocrisy of his administration’s propaganda, which proclaim the joys of what we (Nicaragua) can do with “Poder Ciudadano” (Citizen power) right next to a massive picture of Daniel Ortega’s face. The fundamental irony is that many of Ortega’s programs is that they aim to recreate the spontaneous grassroots movement of the revolution, but from the top-down.

They ostensibly empower citizens to participate actively in their own communities through Centro de Poder Ciudadano (CPC - Center of Citizen Power) buildings and organizations. These local chapters of CPCs then elect a council that manages government programs for the community. These include the Programa Hambre Cero (Zero Hunger Program), Programa Usura Cero (I might have the name on this one slightly off, it might be Programa Interés Cero – Zero Usury Program/Zero Interest Program), and probably a few others I forgot. These are, respectively, food security and micro-loan programs. (Please note that I’m talking about the government’s program, NOT an NGO!)

An amigo we made - facilitated by my host-father and this guy's love for Rum Plata

Programa Hambre Cero is a reissue of a 1980s era program that is continued today by ex-Sandinistas in NGO form by CIPRES. While CIPRES has been working on this program since 1990, it was not until the new Sandinista government in 2008 that the government restarted the program. Both CIPRES and the government programs of new and old give seeds, a cow, pig, five chickens, biogas digester, building materials for the animal pens, sometimes a water system or other technology, and agricultural training to poor, rural peasants with the condition that they need to pay back 20% of the value to a community-managed maintenance fund. They also need to annually store a portion of their crop seeds in a “seed bank” to ensure that they have enough for the next season – they can’t sell them. The goal is total food security – meaning that no matter what happens to the prices of food on the market, they will always have enough to eat. What do the critics say? There are a number of arguments I’ve heard: 1) This is not a sustainable solution – the government can’t just give people “things.” 2) What happens when there is a crisis in the family, such as an illness. They sell the animals, and now are back to square one. 3) This does nothing to alleviate poverty, just hunger, which is a result of their poverty (“Band-aid” solution).

Programa Usura Cero is, I believe, also a reissue of a 1980s program that has also been continued with similar principles in NGO form by the plethora of NGOs doing MFI, including – but certainly not limited to – FEDICAMP and La Fundación Masaya Contra La Pobreza, two NGOs I visited and posted pictures of two weeks ago. I don’t have quite as much information on this program, but from what I’ve heard it’s just what it sounds – micro-loans with zero (or extremly low – not sure) interest. It’s problems are the same as any MFI program,  but that’s another topic altogether.

The catch? Partisan politics. This is one of the biggest criticisms of Ortega. The CPC, a FSLN organization through and through, manages the distribution of both of these programs and others, and non-FSLN members cannot participate in the programs. Poder Ciudadano or Poder Sandinista? As the representative from the Coordinadora Civil (a network of NGOs – will post more later) mentioned to me yesterday, ALL people have the consitutional right to programs like these. Not just your own political party.

However, the biggest argument against any program is, and always should be, the recipients themselves. The results, as gathered by IPADE – a local pro-democracy NGO I’m hoping to meet with, and published in El Nuevo Diario, a local paper say that Programa Hambre Cero is only seen positively by 4.1% of the people, and the CPC organizational strategy by only 1.8%.

One of the many "gigantes", or 10' tall costumes that street performers at the celebration dance in. Apparently typical of Leon.

Health and education increases on the other hand? 30.8% popularity. The people speak clearer than any development theorist. But still, that’s only a third of the population. I can’t extrapolate too much why so many do not see Ortega’s programs as good in health and education, but I’d venture a guess that, aside from the super-rich who don’t care, many must see his programs as too little, mismanaged, or something else similar.

As for Ortega’s power base, it hasn’t bumped up one percent since his inauguration. I’m not sure where it is now, but he only won with 35% of the vote in a strange and corrupt pacto (pact) with the opposing Liberal party. He is also widely ridiculed for wanting to amend the constitution so that he can run for another term – part of his “soft dictatorship” reputation.

Thus this “Danielismo” is a far cry from the Sandinismo of old- of the 1980s. So great is the difference in the interpretation and practice of Sandinismo that out of the junta counsel of nine leaders that shared the executive power during the Sandinista government of the 1980s, only one remains by Daniel Ortega’s side (Ortega was one of the nine).

There are a number of other political parties that will compete against FSLN, but talking with people here reveals that for most, voting is merely a choice of the lesser of the evils. Corruption and mismanagement plague both major parties, the FSLN and the PLC (Constitutional Liberal Party).

Child beggars on the way to work the celebration. "Señor, dame un peso" they say. We gave them each a few pesos for posing for a couple of pictures.

Putting it all together, you have a simultaneously highly partisan and politically disillusioned populace. The government is more concerned with getting votes than making long-term change – thus they aim programs like Hambre Cero and Usura Cero at the poorest segments of the country, likely as a way to “win over” their votes. This is logical – there is no reason a poor person would dislike recieving the benefits of Hambre and Usura Cero but at the same time, are they really developing the country in the long-term?

These ostensibly “good” social programs attempt to force a grassroots civil society – a kind of NGO, just without the “Not” part. Can they really work? Given the public opinion, I’d say they haven’t stood up to the test. However, with these programs forming the backdrop for the work of NGOs today, it’s important to understand and learn from what’s not working. I’d venture a conclusion: the people are tired of poverty. They know that government services like Hambre Cero and Usura Cero aren’t making unemployment go away. Similarly, they know that their kids aren’t going to be any better off if public schools continue to starve to death (60:1 teacher ratio, incredibly poor teacher salaries, and general lack of resources) and people are laying two to a bed dying in public clinics (anecdote).

What can an NGO learn from this?

Maybe the biggest service is no service at all. (Unless you’re actually improving the system that is.)

Elbow to elbow with the FSLN

As for the 30th Anniversary Celebration – 80,000 people from all over the country came to revel in the festivitites and listen to Ortega’s propaganda. Many commentators noted that, though the number is clearly unknown, it is a broad suspicion that many people are practically forced to go to keep their job. My host-father is a prime example – his Sandinista boss would not be too happy if he did not show up. Thus we went together so I could see the event as well, me toting my $500 D40 camera there in a makeshift rice sack so that it would be inconspicuous and less likely to be stolen. (It’s important to put in perspective that my camera is nearly a year’s salary for a Nicaraguan.) This is not at all to say that the majority of those who were there were probably genuine supporters. Similarly, many who I met (Nicaraguans + Rum Plata means making friends is easy) said they were there, shouting “VIVA SANDINO!” for the spirit of the revolution, celebrating what Sandinismo was, and tuning out Ortega’s efforts to use it as a political tool.

President Daniel Ortega himself. The jostling through the crowd to capture this photo cost me my cellphone and electronic dictionary to a pickpocket. Asi es la vida. Here he is though, rhetoric, crazy first lady and all. 200mm zoom lenses come in handy.

The fireworks over the obelisk mark the end of the celebration.

Fotos del 30 aniversario de la revolución

¡Gracias a todos que me permitieron a sacar sus fotos! Sus fotos están en mi sitio de Flickr, que se puede ver aquí.

Su entusiasmo para el Triunfo y Sandinismo es un inspiración para mí. Fue muy divertido para mí y ojala que les gusten las fotos. Si necesita una foto mas detallado para imprimir en tamaño más grande, me envie un mensaje  en Flickr en su foto.

Saludos,

Dean, fotografo

Change from within or without? Dependency, NGOs, and Social Change in Nicaragua

After all my criticism of NGOs, one might wonder why I’m even here studying them at all? Why don’t I just pack up and go fight “the man” in the United States? Aside from the whole plane ticket thing… there’s an actual reason!

Nicaragua has literally every kind of NGO you can imagine, but has a particularly strong history of community organizing. This was the foundation of the 1979 revolution – a strong grassroots civil society that worked together to overthrow Somoza and then continued to work together to enact many of the reforms of the Sandinistas. Based on this history of organization to enact tangible social change, I’m wondering, what’s the result and status of community organizing in Nicaragua today? More broadly, can fundamental change that betters the status of the poor come from within when the poor demand their rights from their government, or will they inevitably run into the same macroeconomic and international roadblocks that stop NGOs working in the service provision model? Does a government squeezed from without hear the demands and cries of the poor from within?

NGOs working for social change from within: While I think much of the grassroots organization has dissipated after two decades of neoliberalism-induced individualism and war fatigue, there are a large number of larger national organizations (CENIDH, Centro Humboldt, CPDH, among others) that still attempt to build from a grassroots base of community organization. These organizations educate citizens of their rights and empower them not to just survive in the system, but to challenge the system and demand their rights from the government. This is a very atypical NGO approach. NGOs usually want the fame and, literally, donor’s fortune, which is more easily had by doing the work themselves – installing the well, the solar panel, running the clinic. However, these are NGOs that want the people to know that they have the right to clean water, medical care, and quality education. As a number of Nicaragüenses have explained to me, much of the poor do not realize that when the government builds a road, it’s not a gift but rather an obligation being fulfilled.

NGOs building institutional capacity: Another broad type of NGO I am very interested in are those that collaborate with the government rather than attempting to circumvent it. These are often the same NGOs as above. In doing so, they work to strengthen the government or the people’s ability to get what they need from the government and build a capacity far more long-lasting than their donor’s whims.

You might be surprised how many service-provision NGOs have told me that the government is just a “waste of time“ and “useless.” Probably so, but why are they incompetent? Yes, neoliberalism is usually the right answer on this blog, and in the world today. But as part of neoliberalism, we have a self-fulfilling prohecy of government incompetence. I first heard this argument from James Pfieffer, a professor of anthropology at the UW, when he gave a talk in GH402, and then read it over and over in other places and studies. When the NGOs are doing the work the government should be doing, the government doesn’t see a need to allocate more resources to it (even if it could – this is where neoliberalism puts on the squeeze). This cycle continues:

NGOs claim government is not doing anything–>NGOs provide services–>government doesn’t see a need to allocate more resources–>NGOs claim government is not doing anything–>…the cycle continues.

The curse of dependency: All of this is compounded by another brutal fact of Nicaragua today, and most developing countries: dependent capitalism. You may recognize the term “banana republic” – either for the clothes (why did they name their store after such an exploitative concept?), Dole, or in our case the total dependence of a developing country on the export of a few raw materials to developed countries. In Nicaragua, this has cycled between coffee and cotton for the past 200 years. Today, we see another kind of dependency in Nicaragua: the government’s dependence on the international lending and donor community. Thomas Walker, author of Nicaragua: Living in the Shadow of the Eagle quotes a international lending agency head (think World Bank, IMF, etc) off the record the day after the 1996 elections saying that it wouldn’t of mattered to him which candidate won, the Sandinista Ortega or the Liberal Alemán because “neither would have had many options concerning how to run the economy.” (Quotes from book, not an exact quote from speaker.) Indeed, his agency had already drafted an economic plan for Nicaragua and had invited Alemán, the victor, to come over and see it. Note that he did not say discuss, negotiate, or approve. Why bother with the pleasantries when both parties know the truth – Nicaragua is not a truly sovereign nation.

Thus who is a “neoliberalized,” highly indebted developing country really dependent on? Walker points out astutely that in the United States and other developed countries:

The dominant elites…have an interest in maintaining a healthy society and, therefore, a citizenry capable of consuming at high levels, the rulers of a dependent society have no such interest because their markets are largely external. For them, the common citizen is important not as a potential consumer but rather as a source of cheap and easily exploitable labor.

Thus there is every reason for the government to restrict the freedoms and crush the will of the common citizen and no le vale un huevo (Nica expression for “not worth worth a testicle to them”, or better, “they couldn’t give a damn”) if the people are unhappy unless their power is threatened. But conveniently, neoliberalism even helps reduce this last likelihood!

One of the cornerstones of neoliberalism’s “success” is its ability to crush popular organizing:

1) The income inequality it produces puts the masses are on the cusp between survival and death, leaving little time to organize and fight. Indeed, after 1985, the membership in civil society (read grassroots) groups in Nicaragua, which was HUGE from 1978-1985 or so, dropped precipitously, precisely following the downward spiral of the economy. (I’m not sure if there has been a causal study done on this, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find one.)

2) The absolute “free” market’s impact on income distribution tends to discourage cooperation in lieu of the pursuit of individual wealth – it reduces social cohesion. (This is true in both rich and poor societies.)

3) The surge of NGOs that emerged in 1990 after the fall of the Sandanistas and the rise of the Neoliberal governments work to appease the people, putting band-aids (like minor infrastructure, loans, etc) that serve to slow the bleeding to the point that they are still on the cusp of survival and death, but are neither are so hopeless that they will fight to the death nor even close to truly free.

This all contributes to the popular apathy I see in Nicaragua today (as does 10 years of war!) and the relative lack of community organization.

Now let’s put all of these together: In the context of a government like Nicaragua that is not dependent on its own people, but rather on foreign donors, lenders, and by extension, foreign countries, can even the most well-organized and orchestrated demands of the citizenry, helped by the aforementioned human rights NGOs, really have much of a say in the government’s decisions?

History will be the judge of that, but I’d guess not a lot. But just enough that it’s worth fighting for, as long as we remember that it’s only a small part of the bigger battle against neoliberalism and imperialist politics.

Thus, my goal in the seven weeks more I’m here is to try to find the best methods to fight from within, because no Nica wants so stand aside quietly and watch their patria (homeland) circle the drain. I want to find the change-makers – the NGOs that try, as best they can, to assist the people to demand fundamental changes from the government, not just cope. It’s all relative of course – even the most fundamental changes from within are still just coping with external pressures. But I’m tired of looking at the tiny picture, no matter how cute the kids are. We (the Nicas, you, and I) all know the bigger challenge is closing the drain the United States and its cronies the WB and IMF opened, but that’s bigger than any NGO. That’s up to you and I.

(It is for things like this that I hope that there really is a dios.)

When I get more information I’ll try to give a more in-depth run through of how one of these NGOs I mentioned above works to help citizens fight for whatever substantial, systemic change they can from within.

Next post: Art of the Revolution, and if my camera doesn’t get stolen tomorrow, photos of the 30th Annual Celebration of Triunfo (the overthrow of the Somozas in 1979) at the Plaza de la Revolución. The whole gang is supposed to be there – Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales (Bolivia), and Raul Castro!

PS: I’d love to hear your thoughts – if you think I’m off my rocker, let me know!

¡Patria libre o morir! Art of the revolution.

Today I visited the spot where it is said Augusto C. Sandino, the revolutionary namesake of the Sandanistas, was executed by the Somoza dictatorship in 1954. It’s a quite dramatic spot for an execution, and memorial; it lies atop a volcanic crater in the center of Managua, the capital city, with spectacular 360 degree views. I found Sandino’s memorial epitaph below particularly moving. Sadly, I didn’t take my camera, so an internet image will have to do – thanks “Enrique Padilla”!

Augusto C. Sandino's massive silhouette watches ominously over the city of Managua

As carved on the side of Sandino’s memorial:

EPITAFIO

Te mataron y no

nos dijeron donde

enterraron su cuerpo

pero desde entonces

todo el territorio

nacional es tu

sepulcro

o mas bien en cada

palmo de territorio

nacional en que no

esta tu cuerpo

tu resucitaste

Creyeron que te

mataban con una

orden de ¡FUEGO!

creyeron que te enterraban y lo que

hacian era enterrar

una semilla

ERNESTO CARDENAL

(I’ll do my best to translate it here – luckily it’s very simple language)

EPITAPH

They killed you and

didn’t tell us where

they buried your body

but from then

all the nation’s

territory is your

tomb

or better, in each

bit of the nation’s

territory where

your body is not

you are revived

They believed that

they killed you with one

order of FIRE!

they believed that

they buried you but that which

they did was to bury

a seed

ERNESTO CARDENAL

I get the chills when I read that last line – maybe it’s different if you haven’t spent hours discussing Sandinismo with Nicas and haven’t felt the revolutionary spirit and reverence for him, but it’s quite powerful. Sandino’s death really was the seed from which sprouted the entire revolution, nearly thirty years after the firing squad pulled the trigger.

I have been going to the local Catholic church here with my homestay family as well, and as it turns out, this church is ripe with revolutionary history. During the early 1980s, an Italian painter teamed up with young revolutionaries in the neighborhood I’m staying in and they, scrounging for hard-to-get paint supplies, covered La Iglesia Santa Maria de Los Angeles with murals that mix the messages of the revolution with those of the Bible in a strange and unique way. Today, they are covered with screens in an effort to de-politicize the church, but they are simultaneously a nationally protected historic cultural site. It’s only that no one can see them – except me and my camera! I’m actually quite sure I have some of the only digital images out there of these – it’s hard to find much about the church on the internet.

Hidden beneath the screen at the top of the painting reads: "Luis Alfonso Velasquez: David contra Goliath". Luis Velasquez was a martyr of the revolution. On the upper left it reads "Free homeland or death"

A close-up of the guitarist in the above painting. I don't know much about art, but I love the style of the brushstrokes.

Sandino himself.

I feel terrible, but I forgot who this is! He is a famous revolutionary though...

Just a note, the girl in the foreground is not part of the art, but was placed in front by the church. I'm not quite sure what this painting is depicting.

Interestingly, the painter mixes paintings with sculpture - this is one of three or four pieces that literally come out of the wall.