My Research
Fellowship also permitted me to discover that, in the United States, race still
had too much influence in the way people reacted or judged those with different
skin colours. I will never forget this incidence that I will want to share with
you. The reason why I am sharing it with you is to support my latter claim
that, in the US, race still influences the way some Americans do judge others. One day,
where I was living in Silver Spring, I came home one evening and had
difficulties to open my door. I decided
to call the landlord to find out whether, there was a special instruction or an
astute way needed. His response left me spell bound. He said: “Elie, what is
difficult in opening a door?” He went on: “I had two white boys who opened that
door without any problems and you a Blackman, why should you face difficulties?” My landlord was an African American, who saw
the world in black and white. But my question to him was this: “what has white
and black got to do when one needs help?” I concluded that, it might be based
on the past history of America that compelled some Americans act the way my
landlord acted.
Proposals
However,
having made my observations known above about NED and some of its staff, I
still think that they (NED) as an organisation created in 1984 to support and
promote liberal democracy around the world are already doing a tremendous job,
but they could do more. For example, while they are already doing a
praiseworthy job, there is need for them to have or create specific targets and
objectives, which at this stage I doubt whether they have. In my humble
opinion, NED needs to increase their funding to media, especially in regions
and countries where free speech and democracy is either threatened or where
governments have preponderant control. This measure will encourage the rise and
consolidation of independent media organisations and professional journalists,
who will be able to independently carry out investigative journalism and also
be able to report accurately on cases of financial fraud or corruption and also
on human rights abuses. One reason among
the many that has caused or made democracy to roll back in most of Africa, in
particular in central Africa is the absence of independent media for reasons
earlier mentioned. Besides increase in financial and material assistance, which
is needed for both old and new media, NED needs to increase its assistance or
grants to pro democracy activists and organisations within the central Africa
region, in particular in the following countries: Congo Brazzaville, Cameroon,
Chad, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. As noted
earlier, NED is doing a considerable job in promoting prodemocracy groups in
Nigeria, the DRC and Zimbabwe, but there is need for them to do more, especially
in the central African countries mentioned earlier. One way of helping
prodemocracy activists and their organisations in the central African countries
above mentioned could be to target and help genuine prodemocracy groups and
activists. But how can genuine prodemocracy groups or group be distinguished
from fake ones? It is difficult, but due diligence process needs to be put in
place within NED to make sure that, those offered grants are not just genuine
but result oriented. Furthermore,
country specific approach is needed in whatever assistance or arrangement NED
may want to device. This is so because, while African countries or central
African countries may look similar, they are fundamentally differences within
the same country: cultures and traditions vary from one region to the other.
The case of Cameroon
In Cameroon,
NED must not have a one size fit all support programmes for prodemocracy
organisations and activists. Their approach must respect the cultural and
linguistic divide of the country. They should not be deceived into thinking or
buying the official propaganda that, Cameroon is a united country. The country is divided along linguistic lines
and as the current Anglophone crisis has demonstrated, the gap between the
majority French-speaking Cameroonians and their English-speaking counterparts
are wider than officially presented. For example, English-speaking regions of
Cameroon have greater experience in terms of social networking or civil society
organisations management than the majority French-speaking Cameroonians. This
simply means that, supporting prodemocracy activists in English-speaking
Cameroon is far easier and more likely to attain results faster than in
French-speaking Cameroon. Whereas in French-speaking Cameroon, more training
for pro democracy organisations and activists are first needed and followed by the
proper process of scrutiny before any results could be expected. Failure to
respect the latter, the consequences are that, it is more likely that, any
investments in French-speaking Cameroon for prodemocracy is bound to fail or
produce limited results. Another
dimension with Cameroon is its Greater north region, whose culture is different
from those of greater south. Here again, a different approach is needed and
more, the fundamental desires of the people of the Greater north region are
special or specific. The Greater north of Cameroon certainly needs help for its
pro democracy activists and organisations. However, unlike the Greater south,
the priority in the Greater north is the girl child education, female rights,
education and religious tolerance. The
success in campaigns to increase the girl child education or gender equality
can only succeed if grants are awarded to activists claiming to work in the
latter mentioned domains only after thorough introspection, have been carried
out on organisations and individual seeking grants in the region. Furthermore, grants should also be granted
first only to organisations and groups that are in the fight to improve or that
will have greater and immediate impact in the area.
Observations
I have sadly
observed that, it seems grants are too often given to people and organisations
without verifying whether their projects align with the needs of the regions or
areas that the grants were sorted for. The other sad observation is that most
grantees are in fact by default supports of the very dictatorial regimes that
should be fought and changed. Hence the necessities for proper scrutiny before
any grants are offered. As I had stated earlier, the National Endowment for
Democracy was helping prodemocracy activists on the continent, but like Oliver
Twist, I need them to do more and to be very selective with the projects that
they are supporting. Some proposals like that which concerns Cameroon have been
made earlier, but I have the impression that, in other countries, NED is
supporting programmes that are having little or no impact on the promotion of
human rights or democracy. Hence as
already mentioned, it would be good that, while NED monitors those that, they
offer grants, NED itself, must be evaluated on how successful they have been in
their support for prodemocracy projects or grants around the continent since
its creation in 1984. If NED doesn’t
want to waste US tax payer monies as I think they are doing in some projects
that they are sponsoring, they must create or have clear cut objectives as
earlier mentioned instead of their vague notion of support for prodemocracy. NED
must start thinking how best prodemocracy activists can succeed in countries
that are governed by dictators such as those in central Africa region. This
means that, she must only support organisations that are genuinely supporting
the promotion of democracy and free speech. And finally, NED needs to try to
help consolidate free Speech by supporting media houses and media bodies around
the continent, in particular within the Central Africa region, which is
suffering from the absence of truly independent media organisations.