Rwanda abolishes its death penalty

Recently, the government of Rwanda has legally abolished the death penalty. This has been lauded by international human rights organisations and activists as proof of "... the political and democratic commitment of the country towards national reconciliation" (statement made by European commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Louis Michel).

I remain troubled by the unabashed international enthusiasm for Rwanda's "impressive progress". And the continued uncritical gaze of international actors combined with impressive amounts of moral and financial support for the reconstitution of the Rwandan state. The EU, for example, holds that Rwanda is back on track. Remember that Rwanda was the darling of the international donor community in the 1970s and 1980s. Recall also that it was, in part, international fervour for democratisation and multi-partyism that provoked the genocide. If these statements ring hollow, see for example, Straus (2005), The Order of Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda, and Uvin (1998). Aiding Violence: The Development Enterprise in Rwanda). The current government is playing to international audiences when it abolishes the death penalty, particularly given the overall lack of security for most Rwandans. And while I would love to believe that prisoners accused of crimes that attract the death penalty will receive a fair trial and balanced justice, the abolition rings hollow when Human Rights Watch reports that deaths while in police custody are on the rise. Surely, just as before the genocide, the international community knows about the contradictions and abuses of the current government.

The EU statement lists what it considers to be Rwanda's impressive gains: "National and local elections were held in 2003 and 2006 respectively. Basic human rights and fundamental freedoms are formally protected by the 2003 constitution, which also provides for institutions to monitor and protect these rights. Unity and reconciliation activities have increased with the nationwide roll-out of the Gacaca process in 2006 and the acceleration of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Both are scheduled for completion in 2008. Rwanda's improving governance environment is reflected in its recent African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) report, endorsed by African Heads of State in 2006".

Um, ok. But we know that the 2003 and 2006 were not secret ballot, that intimidation practices were rife, campaigning was restricted, and anything amounting to disloyalty to the ruling RPF was a one-way ticket to prison. (see for example the reports of the International Crisis Group as well as the report of the Mission d’observation électorale de l’Union Européene).

Basic human rights and fundamental freedoms are protected by the 003 constitution, but access to the courts is limited to those with the ability to mount a case. The cost, as well as the fear of reprisal make a trip to the courtroom to provide those rights out of the reach of virtually all Rwandans.

New institutions, like the Ombudsman, the Rwandan Human Rights Commission and the Legal and Constitutional Commission, do exist. But virtually nothing is known about their functioning. How can we assert they are upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms without more insider knowledge. Why is the word of the Rwandan government sufficient when we know that governments are more likely to harm their citizens in times of 'peace' than in periods of crisis; democide is more prevalent phenomenon around the world than is genocide or politicide.

And on the APRM, Rwanda actually received a caution from the NEPAD secretariat, particularly on human rights, political disappearances and the lack of autonomous civil society. I tried to get a copy of Rwanda's APRM review when I was in Rwanda in 2006; I was told repeatedly that it was an internal government document. How is that for transparency and accountability, two alleged pillars of democratic societies? And Rwanda's review is endorsed by African Heads of States. Are those the same Heads of State that have, for example, left Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to wreak havoc on his people?

The most worrying comment of the EU commissioner is the presence of ethnic unity and reconciliation through the gacaca and ICTR trials. It is well known that the Rwandan government has no time for UN justice. As for gacaca, acts of unity and reconciliation have indeed been performed but do we know anything about the actual presence of reconciliation between ordinary Rwandans?

Justice is forced upon ordinary Rwandans in the name of national unity and reconciliation. Individuals are constantly and consistently reminded of the need to reconcile to consolidate present peace and future security. The gacaca process resolves the case officially at the level of the individual while at the same time re-inforces the image of the post-genocide state as one that at least tries to treat its citizens fairly in the pursuit of national unity and reconciliation. Long after the decision has been rendered however, ordinary Rwandans are left with the everyday, lived realities of “unity” and of “reconciliation” in a social context that remains for most participants one of fear and insecurity. The security of state trumps individual processes of reconciliation.

Rwanda. Africa's Past and Present?

David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative Party, is currently in Rwanda. Yesterday, he spoke to the Rwanda's Lower Chamber where he called for increased trade between "Rich" and "Poor" Countries (See, for example, http://allafrica.com/stories/200707250331.html). I won't even comment on this as his arguments for increased aid transparency and a reduction in conditionality not only ring hollow, but are also age-old. There is nothing new in his language. The standard critique applies: It really doesn't matter what politicians say they are going to do, it matters what effects their words have on the ground. Or, as I like to say, where does the rubber hit the pavement...? Cameron, who launched his parties' report on their global poverty policy, called on European and other "rich" nations to drop their trade barriers to "poorer" nations by 2013. As if....

The more interesting bit of Cameron's speech was when he said that Rwanda was the best place to launch his global poverty report because "it represents both the tragedy of Africa's past and hope for the future". What does he mean by this? Is he not aware that the state apparatus that allowed for the mass mobilisation of Hutu civilians to kill their Tutsi family, friends and neighbours is the same one that is forcibly 'asking' them to do so through new state practices of, for example, ingando (citizenship re-education) and gacaca (community-based courts). Has he stopped to notice that when a government goes from the decimation of genocide to a neat and well-ordered society that the power of the state is obviously behind such order? Would you not stop and think that the order might be forced, or even worse, oppressive?

I wonder also if he knows that Rwanda, lauded by Cameron and others, for its impressive return to the rule of law is aware of the increase in the death of detainees at the hands Rwanda prison authorities? (see, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/23/rwanda16455.htm). I hate to be the eternal pessimist here but when international figures like Cameron lend credibility to the self-legitimising practices of a repressive government in saying things like "Rwanda is representative of both Africa's past and present" based on little to no knowledge of that past, and only aspirational, and non-descript, hopes for the future, who wins and who loses?

I think those in state power 'win' while the population 'loses'....

A smart, if sarcastic, blog on Rwanda

i am bloody sick and tired of all these so-called Rwanda experts (what self-respecting expert uses the title expert anyway?) who say the country is back on track and doing it right. They fail to define 'it'. If they mean oppressive and authoritarian practices that piggy back the so-called success of the government in restoring peace, generating social harmony and reconciliation and promoting economic development, then maybe they are doing 'it' right. If they mean the actual presence of peace, social harmony and reconciliation and economic development, they mean for the elite of the elite -- the anglophone state class -- then they have 'it' ass-backwards.

i like the no-holds-barred musings of this plastic toy:

http://ugandascarlettlion.blogspot.com/2007/07/rwanda-ict-hub-really.html

and

http://ugandascarlettlion.blogspot.com/2007/07/less-than-1-of-rwanda-just-like.html

i wish she was writing for Vanity Fair....

Rwandan President Kagame and Quincy Jones....

So, the recent issue of Vanity Fair magazine has done a full feature issue on Africa. The general theme of the issue is a celebrity bonanza of what is being done to save Africa. My pessimistic feelings about celebrity activism aside, who is kidding who in this arrangement? Bono as the guest editor. Really? Brad Pitt interviewing Desmond Tutu. Strange combination as Pitt clearly used someone else's crib notes to hold up his end of the conversation... David Bowie is an African. Hmmmm. Quincy Jones counts Rwandan President Paul Kagame as one of his heros?

The trouble I have with this is the umbrella theme of celebrity activism: We can save Africa. All they need is the right kind of support. Private-public partnerships in form of ideas and money from foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation are the wave of the future and celebrities can steer these resources to good use. This is the same logic that the development enterprise accorded to the civil society and NGOs in the 1980s and 1990s. So suffice it to say that public-private partnerships are not the latest and greatest thing; nor is celebrity activism.

Despite their good intentions, when celebrities lend their star-power to African projects, there is considerable room for things to go sour for the very people they are hoping to support. The project is not vastly different that the modernising approach to Africa that swept the continent at the time of independence in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The playing field is somewhat different than it was then, what with China able to circumvent development assistance budgets in one fell swoop of 'incentives' that pad their multi-million dollar 'development' projects. In Rwanda, for example, Chinese money is far outstripping what aid dollars can and will do.

What does this mean for celebrities with big hearts and even bigger wallets? I think it means that in all their efforts to save Africa, they are in fact pushing things backwards for ordinary people. Political and economic elites, known among Africanist academics, as the state class (those who benefit from the resources of the state) get richer and the poor get poorer. Celebrities, despite their good intentions, are unaware of the complex political situations into which they enter when they lend their good name to a government or a cause. At least China is more realistic about it aspirations for Africa; it wants to get as much access the raw materials needed to fuel its domestic economy for the least amount of social and economic capital. China is knowingly feeding the state class in the countries it engages, while celebrities are riding a wave of feel-good activism. To paraphrase The Gap advertisement in Vanity Fair, you CAN be a good-looking Samaritan. At the end of the day, both China and celebrity activism is about consumption. More production in China means cheaper (and safer?) goods for markets across the globe, while Westerners can feel good about consuming more celebrity-approved or -endorsed products that are designed to get us to consume more while saving Africa. An interesting configuration of social justice to be sure....

Vab

Gacaca reconciliation in Rwanda?

I am increasingly concerned about growing rifts between the Rwandan government and critics of the gacaca process. Gacaca courts were established by the government to clear the backlog of individuals detained on charges of crimes committed during the 1994 genocide. Suspects are judged by a panel of twelve judges in their home community courts. All participants in the process, the judges, the witnesses and the audience, are members of the community where the killers allegedly killed. The rationale is that this community-centric process will not only reveal the truth about who did what to whom during the genocide, but will also give survivors of the genocide a chance to forgive those who killed their loved ones. The core assumption is that after the gacaca encounter, the survivor and the accused will reconcile, and once the accused has returned home to his community, national unity will inevitably ensue. (I purposively say 'his' as the government has basically accused all male adult Hutu with crimes of genocide -- they allege 1 million guilty of genocide. Academic research estimates more like 200,000 killers.)

Critics are, rightly I think, skeptical of the quality of justice that gacaca represents. The courts, they opine, is skewed against Hutu and constitutes "another form of genocide" for those who find themselves languishing in prison, awaiting trial and for those who are released, an uneasy welcome to their home communities. International commentators have focused on the human rights dynamics, pointing out that the gacaca courts did not follow standard legal practices that would protect both victim and accused. Needless to say, the criticism does not go far enough, nor is it particularly helpful in assuring an improved quality of justice for individuals in their communities.

Caught in between the growing rift between the government and its critics are ordinary Rwandans, those non-elite men and women, boys and girls who shoulder the bulk of the burden of reconciling in the ways that gacaca requires. Reconciliation is performed between survivors and perpetrators of the genocide in the presence of community-nominated and -elected judges while an audience of family, friends and neighbours looks on. Unfortunately, the actual presence of reconciliation is far from assured, although the requisite signs and stamps of someone who has passed through the process are made. Survivors are said to forgive once the perpetrator has told his truth. The truth is judged first the judges, in the presence and witness of the community. The quality of justice is less that what international human rights observers deem necessary; the justice is said to be traditional and keeping within Rwandan cultural norms says the government.

I wonder though if gacaca just isn't a spectacle of state power that the government uses to silence its critics and opposition, circumvent domestic civil society organisation while foisting some semblance of 'reconciliation' on ordinary people.

Rwanda and Burundi join the East African Community

Recently, the ECA voted to allow Rwanda and Burundi to become members. Surely big news for both countries as the official line is that membership has it rewards.

I am always bemused when these countries pony up to the big boys because they, particularly Rwanda, has a habit of punching above its weight. Yes, membership with the more economically and politically stable markets of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania may bring said stability to Rwanda and Burundi. But does it bring other forms of security, like freedom from fear, or hunger, or HIV/AIDS? Both Rwanda and Burundi are sacrificing meaningful reconciliation among individuals and communities at the expense of economic opportunities for the few. By the few, I mean those in the state class....

Does anyone see that Rwanda is laying down the same networks and structures of power that led to the 1994 genocide in the first place? Burundi? It's too early to tell given the infancy of its peace agreement but I would offer the same with the appropriate cautions at this stage in the game.

Either way, it's pretty safe to say that both the incentives and rationalisations of the state classes to make further extractions on the rural masses of Rwandans and Burundians are sure to find resonance with both regional bodies like the EAC and the international donor community.

'master of disinformation'

In March of this year, I was publicly denounced as a "master of disinformation" by the Rwandan Ambassador to Canada. He was speaking to a group of graduate students and faculty at Dalhousie University in Halifax when he mentioned my work as "very dangerous" and "not to be tolerated". After much to-ing and fro-ing with the Rwandan Embassy in Ottawa, I decided to stop posting for a while... My research on Rwanda relies heavily on the voices and perspectives of ordinary Rwandans and I wanted to put some distance between the comments of the Ambassador, and my work. So, I feel now like enough time has passed and I can get back to blogging.

In the interests of transparency, I have made most of my written work, whether draft or final form, available on my website. I would be interested in hearing from others out there who have had concerns about the impact of their research on local communities and the individuals who live there...

That said, onto the criticism. Rwanda recently celebrated its 13th independence day. So called because it is the day that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) took state power after it had successfully stopped the 1994 genocide on 1 July 1994. The Arusha Accords were to guide the transition period, and the RPF was much heralded for its instrumental role in stopping the killing.

In 1998, the RPF embarked on a programme of national unity that was designed to promote "one Rwanda for all Rwandans" and do away with once-and-for-all the divisive ethnic policies of the past. While President Kagame and his crew work the international community, selling Rwanda as a beacon of stability and prosperity in the troubled Great Lakes Region of Africa, the treatment of domestic actors has gone unnoticed, and as a result, unchallenged, by the international community. International donors, and investors, all laud Rwanda as an example of what can be done to transform a state from war to peace. The economy continues to grow at an estimated 8% per year, reconciliation and national unity are the basis of social programmes, HIV/AIDS treatment is "widely available" and the country is secure and stable.

In practice, the economy is fueling growth in the centre (read, Kigali) and for urban, educated, elites. Poverty continues to deepen as food insecurity grows. Reconciliation and national unity are but catch-phrases for an international community all-too-willing to participate in turning around a country that was "shattered" by genocide. Local elites determine who reconciles with whom on orders from central government offices. Authentic reconciliation and national unity are light-years away. HIV/AIDS is touching the lives of most Rwandans through their dense family and community ties. Only those individuals who can get to a government-sponsored health clinic can receive care; and care is decided on the basis of who did what during the genocide. Female survivors, rightfully I think, receive the lion's share; but what of other Rwandans? HIV/AIDS treatment is contingent on social networks and political alliances.... The security and prosperity of Rwanda is urban-centric. Insecurity of all types prevails in the hillsides, where 90% of Rwandans eek out a subsistence existence.

This disconnect is further reinforced by recent glowing comments about Rwandan in "Vanity Fair". Quincy Jones goes so far as to say that Rwandan President Paul Kagame is one of his heros. Celebrity accolades are far of the mark in this case.

Call for Papers: Post-Genocide Rwanda : Achievements and Challenges

Post-Genocide Rwanda : Achievements and Challenges

November 2-3, 2007

California State University, Sacramento.

The Ethnic Studies Department at California State University at Sacramento is organizing an interdisciplinary conference on Rwanda. Confernce organizers are soliciting papers in all fields of Rwandan studies : politics, history, economics, culture, education, justice, public health, trade, investment, genocide, …from all experts on Rwanda: academics, diplomats, journalists, NGOs, international organizations, government officials, political and religious organizations, civil society, etc.

After the 1994 Tutsi genocide which killed more than one million people, to rebuild the nation , the new government had to start from scratch, because all the infrastructure, the instutiions and human resources were completely destroyed. The country now has a new constitution, new national symbols (flag, emblem, national anthem), new regional administrative units, and it has privatized its parastatals. To deal with the genocide related crimes and the aftermath of genocide, a gacaca tribunal system has been established and a commission on national unity and reconciliation has been created. An international tribunal was also established in Arusha, Tanzania to deal with the architects of genocide. The government’s achievements in some areas are indeed remarkable. New roads have been built.The country has more schools and unversities, both public and private than before. The capital Kigali is expanding and improving. Many organizations inside the country and in the diaspora with diverse initiatives, programs and projects, have been created to deal with genocide, economic, social and economic problems. Unfortunately new problems are also arising. There is a strong revisionist movement inside and outside the country. Survivors of genocide are still being hunted down and killed. The rift between rich and poor is widening. Prices are skyrocketing Unemployment is rising. The number of street children is exponentially increasing. There is a chronic shortage of energy, water and electricity. The agriculture productivity is decreasing because of soil erosion and lack of fertilizers.The conference organizers are seeking papers which address the most serious problems that the country is facing and their respective remedies.

The conference outcome will not only be a contribution to Rwanda’s development but also a model for nation-rebuilding for all countries coming out of ethnic conflict and civil war.

The abstract should be one-page maximum. The committee welcomes papers which are descriptive and prescriptive at the same time, which identify problems but also offer alternative and competing solutions to the ones already being applied.

The deadline for absract submission is July 15, 2007.

All abstracts should be e-mailed to Professor Alexandre Kimenyi at kimenyi@kimenyi .com

or kimenyi@saclink.csus.edu

Contact persons:

Alexandre Kimenyi : kimenyi@kimenyi.com or kimenyi@saclink.csus.edu Tel. 916-278-6802

Boatamo Mosupyoe, Director Pan-African Studies : mosupyob@csus.edu Tel. 916-278-4376

Ann Thomas :Administrative Coordinator : thomasaf@csus.edu Telephone :Tel.916-278-6645; Fax : 916-278-5156

socially responsible investing

i have been getting a lot of emails about what some see as an obvious contradiction in my posting about the Gates Development Foundation. People want to know if I have investments, and if I do, are they socially responsible. I am the first to admit that it is difficult to rectify investment planning with social justice but hey, I have two kids so am saving for them (and let's be honest, for me too). I try to invest socially and have some of my $ with funds with these two groups: www.abacuswealth.com and www.kuberaportfolios.com. These are both US-based funds. It is possible to invest socially in Canada, but I haven't found a fund that responds to my personal values in the same way. I do have some $ in individual socially-responsible stocks in Canada but that is about it.

the politics of trauma in rwanda

last week, i attended a conference on "peacebuilding and trauma recovery" at the University of Denver (http://www.du.edu/con-res/center/February2007Conference.htm), and co-hosted with the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University (http://www.emu.edu/cjp).

i gave a presentation to a room of about fifty scholars, ranging from graduate students at the Master's level to some self-professed "experts" on Rwanda. The audience was a mixture of political scientists, peacebuilders, social psychologists and cultural anthropologists. my presentation was on "The RPF, National Unity and the Representation of Trauma in Post-Genocide Rwanda". My core argument was that the Rwandan Patriotic Front-led government, who claims to be rebuilding "one Rwanda for all Rwandans" through its policy of national unity, is actually laying the groundwork for a renewal of acute violence in its efforts to maintain physical and psychological control of the political landscape. I used the discourse of trauma to show how national unity is actually re-labelling Rwandans as either survivors or genocidaires, and how these discrete categories are structuring how these individuals participate (or not) in political life. I argued that not only is untreated trauma (of survivors) a problem for their active engagement in reconstruction and reconciliation, but that in collectively stigmatising genocidaires (all adult male Hutu) as guilty of crimes of genocide, the policy of national unity
not only leaves their participation-induced trauma unacknowledged, and hence untreated. I then argued that it also has created a narrative of the genocide that is disconnected from the lived realities of ordinary Rwandans during the genocide. Not all Tutsi were targeted; not all Hutu killed.

I knew that this argument would be provocative, but i did not expect a public roasting. some members of the audience were appalled at my insensitive analysis, two in particular stating that they knew "the truth in Rwanda". This was after they acknowledged that things are "complicated" in Rwanda. They both claimed to have been in Rwanda on several occasions, and had been hosted by the government, to which i responded, "do you mean that you were hosted by members of the RPF? Is it possible you only saw what they wanted you to see?" A Congolese woman who lived in Rwanda after the genocide thanked me for offering a different perspective on Rwanda. She said that where ever she goes in the United States, it is always the same about how the RPF has saved Rwanda.

After the panel, I was accused by my two aggressors of being "anti-Tutsi", to which i replied, " i am not anti-Tutsi, or pro-Hutu; I am pro-people and anti-conflict".

researcher well-being: self-reflexivity through yoga

I recently attended a roundtable sponsored by the Canadian Consortium on Human Security in Toronto, Canada where I was asked to present the research that I conducted in Rwanda between April and October 2006. Some of my remarks focussed on the difficulties of carrying out research in places like Rwanda where psychosocial trauma abounds, and is compounded by poverty and other social inequalities. This comment got some of us thinking at the break about researcher well-being. Who/what supports the researcher? How can researchers/academics protect themselves — emotionally and physically — while conducting research with so-called vulnerable populations. How can researchers respect and acknowledge the difficulties that our research participants experience in their daily lives while preserving compassion that drives most of us working on issues of human (in)security?
My suggestion was to develop a yoga practice. The physical aspects of yoga have gained prominence world-wide as just plain good for health and well-being. What western practitioners of yoga sometimes underestimate (or simply overlook) is the ultimate goal of yoga to unify the body and mind. The unification of mind and body, and the emotional, spiritual and physical consciousness that a yoga practice provides is, to my mind, a good starting point for any researcher that wants to surface the knowledge of vulnerable populations in vulnerable societies.
Working to see things are they are is the foundation of yoga. Yoga is much more than a series of physical postures. These postures or asanas represent only one of the eight steps in the ladder to the state of yoga. Yoga is philosophy that was first expounded by the sage, Patanjali, as a path to spiritual enlightenment. The philosophy is widely available to Western audiences in the 1946 book “Autobiography of a Yogi”, by Paramahansa Yogananda.
The philosophy of yoga holds that each person is made up of three elements: body, mind and consciousness, which merge to constitute our being as individuals. The achievement of harmony among these three elements is the purpose of yoga. Yoga emphasises the necessity of yama (abstentions) and niyama (observances). Yama and niyama are the first steps on the ladder to enlightenment and offer a strong foundation from which researchers can base their interactions with the participants in their research: Taken together, yama and niyama imply a high moral code of conduct in personal life and ethical behaviour in our relationship with others, and the the world around us. This means that researchers should be self-reflexive about the purposes of their research, of the impacts (negative and positive) on the participants of their research, and to conduct their research in a way that privileges the participants of the research, not the other way round. Good research is collaborative, and is based on a relationship where both the researcher and the so-called researched work together — in an enabling, safe and supportive environment — to generate knowledge together.
The third and fourth steps in the ladder of yoga are asanas and pranayama (the regulation and control of the breath). Asanas obviously open up the body, loosen the joints, stretch and strengthen the muscles and detoxify the body. They harmonise the nervous system and promote physical health, which directly affects the functioning of the mind. The practice of asana is deepened by pranayama. Special breathing techniques have been developed by yogis over the centuries for dealing with fluctuations of climate, inducing a sense of mental equipoise, and for harmonising the left and right sides of the brain. Anger, fear, and anxiety cause the breathing to be short, sharp and rapid. Deep, slow and rhythmic breathing are indications of a deeply relaxed state of mind and body. Stiffness in the body is often the reflection of rigidity of the mind, as is reflective of a body that stores a lot of fear, anger, resentment or disappointment.
I experienced the power of pranayama in Rwanda when I attended a civic re-education class known as ingando in September 2006. Ingando is a series of classes, sometimes all-day everyday over a period of two weeks, or a day-long course once-a-week over a three-month period, in which Rwandans learn about the history of their country, and are given techniques and tools to promote harmony and peace amongst Hutu and Tutsi. I spent every Friday for five weeks in an ingando session in rural Kigali as a guest of the government. The ingando classes are highly-structured and the course content is delivered in lecture format in military fashion. I spent my Fridays sitting in my assigned place on the lawn on the hill-top that was our ingando class-room surrounded by thirty or forty demobilised soldiers. The lectures were tedious for me as the course was delivered in Kinyarwanda. I sat comfortably, legs-crossed, however for up to eight hours a day in lotus pose. By the third week of class, I had become friendly with the guys around me and at a break in the lectures early one afternoon, I suggested that we all move into downward dog to stretch out the legs and back, and to break the monotony of our minds. The mood of the group moved between boredom with both the content and format of the ingando lectures, and there was also some agitation within the group about the lack of available physical comforts. No meals were provided, and the group of soldiers were living in spartan quarters until they could be released back to their families and friends. When I kicked my hips back into downdog, most of the group just smirked and laughed that nervous laughter that I have experienced so many times before in Rwanda. But as my breath deepened, and my body relaxed, several of the guys joined in. I am not a trained yoga teacher, so did not offer adjustments or any sort of body alignment. I simply showed these guys the power of combining the physical with the breath to gain perspective and relax a little. It was one of my most powerful yoga experiences. It also speaks to the power of the emotional connections that can be made in sharing a physical experience. Following our 15-minutes of yoga, I had gained a connection with the humanity of these guys. Regular guys, full of all the promise and anxiety of individuals that are trying to make sense of their lives following violent conflict, who also happened to be soldiers, most if not all of whom had killed in the course of their duties. I learned through a translator at the end of the day that many of them saw me as less of an outsider, and I revealed that I was initially nervous and bit anxious to sit with them because they were soldiers. In reflecting on the day later, I learned that the experience allowed me to feel a human connection with them despite my imaginings about what inhumane things they may have done during and after the 1994 genocide. I gained an appreciation for them as individuals — as brothers, as fathers, as friends — not simply as soldiers.
The fifth step in the ladder to the state of yoga is pratyahara. Pratyhara means literally ‘withdrawal’. It suggests a withdrawal of the senses. In the modern world, I think this means withdrawal from the information overload that characterises daily life in the West. Our 24/7 lifestyle, where blackberries, email, satellite tv, and on-demand news programming mean that there is very little space in the untrained mind for the peace, inspiration, creativity and strength of character that can only be found within and in silence. Pratyahara suggests a withdrawal from company and activities that lead to a state of restlessness, of holding on to the thoughts that distract the mind from concentration. Where the mind and the body meet in yoga, the practice of learning to first still still, then to quiet the mind culminates in an acquired ability to concentrate despite the many obstacles that modern life puts in the way. This quieting of the mind can be a powerful tool for the researcher who is living in an unfamiliar culture and who is trying to make sense of the life worlds of the individuals that are the purpose, form and content of the research project which the researcher is trying to surface. A quieting of the mind underscores the need for researchers in unfamiliar cultures to listen. An ability to listen well — to listen deeply, with compassion and purpose — is the benchmark of the self-reflective researcher.
I have only touched on some of the benefits of yoga for my own research. Part and parcel of a yoga practice is to build a connection with the vital energy of the world around us. Yoga philosophy says that this is achieved through the food and water that yogis consume. Food and drink becomes a strategic choice that allows the yogi to fuel his or her own practice. In the context of research, we also give energy in our words and actions, just as our research participants have their own energy. Learning to understand and appreciate the life flows and energy that yoga brings to the surface allows also for an appreciation of the energy that is created through the words and actions of the people around us. It teaches us to accept people for who they are and to appreciate the lived realities of individuals whose life experiences are often vastly different to our own.
For information the yoga asanas, check out: http://www.santosha.com/asanas/. I have deepened my practice while on retreat at Purplevalley Yoga Shalla in Goa and recommend a yoga retreat for anyone who is serious about achieving the merger of mind, body and consciousness that yoga can provide.

Americans imaging Africans...

I recently was asked to participate in conducting survey research on the imaginings of the American public on Africa. I am not an American, but was asked through one of my research working groups to participate as imagining the other is one of my research interests.

I think a survey that will consider and assess what Americans think when they think of Africa is a good idea. It reminds me of the imaginations of Mel Lastman, then Mayor of Toronto. Before a trip to Kenya to promote Toronto’s bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics, he said, “I’m sort of scared about going, but the wife is really nervous. I just see myself in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around me”. Most Canadians, upon hearing this news, just rolled their eyes. There was no public debate on the not-so-implicit racist and essentialist comments, because few people understood them. In my own imagination about how Americans perceive cultures other than their own, I can only guess that Americans writ large would support Lastman’s view. At a minimum, they would be unable to contradict Lastman because their world view is so narrow, and the American (and international) media tends to characterise Africa as a monolithic blob of inter-ethnic and/or primordial strife, not as a continent of great promise, and even greater diversity.

There is another side to the ignorance of Americans (and Canadians) to the past and lived realities of life across Africa. In my own travels in Africa (mostly Kenya and Rwanda, some South Africa and Madagascar, and a bit of DRC, Uganda, Tanzania and once to Mozambique), I’ve often wondered what Africans imagine about life abroad in countries like Canada or the US. I have met many young men and women in a number of African countries who imagine that life in Canada will be one of luxury. They will have their own home, be able to buy a car, get a good education for themselves and their kids, be able to enjoy spare time, and so on and so on. The reality of life in Canada is often living from pay cheque to pay cheque in a basement apartment in minimum-wage jobs as the government places road block after road block in the process to gain landed residency status, which is required before the application for citizenship can even me made. And these individuals are the lucky ones. I met the other day in downtown Ottawa an Ethiopian taxi driver who was a medical doctor in his own country, his family was unable to join him in Canada as he could raise enough money to pay for their plane tickets to Canada, nor the restrictive costs of applying to land in Canada. I’ve met newly arrived immigrants to Canada from Lebanon who are well educated, have family ties in Canada, and who are unable to find a supportive environment in which to settle. Statistics Canada reports that the higher the level of education of an immigrant, the lower his or her chances of finding employment in his or her field of expertise. That means that lawyers, doctors, architects, and the like are unlikely to take up those professions in Canada. They are more likely to work as paralegals, nurses, CAD designers, and so on.

I think it would be a useful exercise to also undertake a survey of African’s perceptions of the West. The two surveys together might be able to help us build up a picture of what it means to be the other - Westerners can learn about Africa through the voices of Africans, and Africans can learn about the West as it real is, rather than as it appears to be.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: A Debate to Follow….

On 7 January 2007, the LA Times ran a piece that was the result of an investigative report on the contradictory practices of the Gates Foundation. Its development programmes are financed by investment income reaped from some of capitalism’s most rapacious companies. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

The story caused quite a burn to the Foundation. And they have replied with an agreement to reassess their investments: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-gates11jan11,0,4006071.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-gates12jan12,0,4464825.story

But alas, The Foundation will keep its investment strategy that allows it to gain from companies that contribute to the human suffering it seeks to alleviate/eradicate. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates14jan14,0,5906621.story

An interesting and important debate for development academics and practitioners to pick up. Are the Gates’ great philanthropists or is are the capitalist roots of Microsoft showing in creating the most profitable endowment in memory? The Foundation invests more than it grants, and don’t forget that the grants are tax-deductible.

Looks to me like the next-best thing in development planning — private sector investment — will deliver any more than the hype that followed public-private partnerships, or the promise of NGOs and CBOs…

Photo: mauritius