In my quest to understand philanthropy, I have questioned the possibility of activism and stressed being intentional in 2020. This journey is a result of having learned in the worst of ways, how challenging and destabilizing has taught me to be a lot more conscious of the implications of what I say to someone who yields power. However, as an activist; would it only be acceptable for me to challenge power when there is a microphone or media? Am I still an activist if it does not translate to an individual conversation or even personal relationships? Understandably, the approach might always vary but what remains consistent is my mandate, values and the reaction of the recipient.
Accountability seems like a threat or personal infliction to someone who holds power. It is viewed as personal or offensive because the work they do and the values they committed to are supposed to reflect that accountability. However, there have been many instances where the leadership of good intention has not always equated to doing no harm. For example, economic sanctions imposed on a country because of deficient leadership: a punitive measure for a select elite that has wide-reaching consequences in foreign currency availability for international trade for food supplies and other poverty perpetuating economic implications. Another example; with their consent, sharing the story of a survivor of injustice to reflect the magnitude of the impact of a civil society intervention. Which can result in the kind of stigma, prejudice or negative bias that cannot be documented or known in a recruitment process? This reflects how invisible and unrelated some consequences can be when we as activists share our vulnerability and become searchable online. Its importance and value-adding for that moment, in a conference or role or media interview. However, the long-lasting implications can manifest themselves in variant ways, as the survivor or their family. It can be beneficial within the context of formal employment within civil society, development or philanthropy. However, for the many that are marginalized, with further bias against those living with HIV, being non-conforming or transgender; there are invisible layers of progressive environments you have to uncover before you find yourself in an ideal space. These examples show just how inequity is embedded in many areas of our lives.
Our homes, learning environments, who we date, what we eat, what kind of internet we access and how we recover from illness. All these things are innately unequal and political. They bear ideologies, norms and practices in the same way we identify culture and religion nuanced in the rationale for injustice against those who’s bodies are policed. When we speak of objectivity or independence in a process, organization or in decision making; who does that serve? The institutionalized acceptability of certain behaviours, practices and tones to work or community organizing is often masked behind neutrality and objectivity. The people that created the standards of acceptability in the workplace or any space of societal engagement were not necessarily aware or thinking of how diverse or inclusive their standards are. Similarly, with colonial laws that remain oppressive to indigenous people the world over. They were created by an oppressor, of whom generations of offspring have and continue to benefit from. Like the ability to pay a penalty and have a lawyer clear your record in lieu of serving time in jail. All whilst many others anguish in the generational cycle of outlaw perpetuated by poverty and because they did not have the privilege of grandparents who owned land, labour or mining companies. Who is to blame and be accountable for the historical injustice, silence and benefit against and from those who have and possibly are still oppressed in some way? How do we address these indignities without the neoliberal approach to ‘low hanging fruit’ or ‘maximum impact’ in development work that reflects corporate approaches to the bottom line?
That one group is worth investing in and not another? I was shocked to find a ‘safe space’ only discuss ‘zero new HIV infections’ without discussing what can be done to improve the millions of lives already living with HIV. Or how UNAIDS’ 90:90:90 is a success in one country, all whilst the 10% is left behind. The costs associated with activism, are someone else’s benefit. I have come to understand that being a beneficiary does not mean I benefit as perceived by those who hold power over me. I keep wondering how can address only one of my many needs, can be a benefit? An excess to my current state? or if receiving treatment is a benefit or me recovering back to the state of health would I normally be in. The framing of benefit in this scenario is misplaced. As the right to health, being protected by the law and to exercise democratic liberty as embedded in Constitution and international law. This framing is capitalist. Corporates have shaped their strategies and profit-making towards changing lives whilst their governance systems are replicated in civil society. Similarly, sectors in philanthropy perpetuate extractive market activity in the spirit of profits to pay out the tax-efficient bare minimum to beneficiaries.
Something must change. I imagine a world that can acknowledge that those in power dictate how we consume knowledge, acceptability and history. That this acknowledgement can shift how we consume towards inclusion and shared prosperity. That we can be included in the power that lies in creation. I imagine this because in some way, whenever power has changed, the systems and structures remained to perpetuate inequity and injustice. Where the replacement of one human with another still bears the possibility of human instinct and self-interest in the same way that replacing laws and policies can be either affirming or oppressive to different demographics. Also knowing that I can only imagine, as these systems and structures that are hellbent on excluding people that aren’t as linear as a theory of change can be, or as simple as populist narratives or as normative as a meritocracy in its true essence, is. They are deeply rooted in how those in power view the world and its inhabitants. They are deeply rooted in the spilt blood and sweat of slavery and apartheid; in the sparkle of extracted resources that only gain value outside of their homelands, only to be worn or used upon return at a premium cost; in the ‘preferences’ I select on a dating app, or the options I am allowed or can afford to select on an undergraduate study enrolment form.
These deep roots were the same the likes of Kutlwano ‘Bubbly’ Selaledi, Poliyana Mangwiro, Thuto Rammoge, Simon Nkoli, Rosa Pazos, David Kato and many other activists challenged in their lives without getting to see the benefits of their work. Thus, it is upon us to be okay with the assumption that we might not realise what we imagine tomorrow or within the purpose of our lives. But also, that every contribution, challenge, conversation, decision, the difference in opinion, a form of community organizing or strike towards uprooting the norms anchored on oppression; is valuable and valid. More importantly, we acknowledge and affirm those who will most likely never get to hold power. As the words of the leading character on a TV show echo in my mind: “people who light the spark don’t often get to sit by the fire”
