Selfish Altruist

There is book that a friend once lent to me titled "the selfish altruist". I always think back on this oxymoron whenever I'm communicating to friends or strangers who ask about what I do (not that I believe that people should be defined by what they do, but that's another topic all together). The perception that many people, who do not deal with development work on a regular basis, have on development work seems to be one of perceived admiration. Admiration in the sense of "oh, that's great that you're willing to sacrifice (probably monetary, since that's how we measure value these days) your time and energy to do good in the world".

Of course, this is an over-simplification of what the general public thinks about development work, based on a few anecdotal experiences. I'm sure there are equally many people out there who think that development work is really just a way to stroke our own egos and appeal to the selfish need to feel relevant in this world. Aren't we all acting on self-interest in the end? I'm sure the debate on altruism has been going on since the history of man and woman.

What does international development mean anyway? What is the reality on the ground or in the so-labelled "developing" contexts? If we are all driven by self-interest in one way or another (not taking into consideration the extent of self-interest that we are willing to admit to ourselves), how does international development work? Here, I distinguish between international development, where foreign entities, persons, or even governments intervene or influence a "developing" nation or area, and local community development, where residents or local actors decide to precipitate change in their own communities. The concept of international development usually involves some sort of investment or insertion of resources, funds, capacity, or human capital from a foreign source into a local environment. Here is where the question of altruism comes in. Why would a foreign nation or entity decide to sink resources into a place and environment that is so far removed from their own self-interest?

Sometimes I wonder how far removed self-interest really is. One interesting point that Romeo Dallaire brings up in his lectures is that we, Canadians, should be more interested in the welfare of other nations, such as Rwanda, because our national security is threatened by destabilization elsewhere. Now, to Mr. Dallaire's credit, he is probably just catering his message to his audience, and Canadian national security is not the first thought on his mind when peacekeeping in Rwanda is the issue. But, Canadian national security will probably move more Canadians to action than simply identifying the difficulties and challenges that Rwandans face in trying to piece back together their country, which has been traumatized by the genocide. Where is the personal connection between a Canadian citizen living in suburban Toronto with Loblaws supplying sustenance and MTV or ESPN supplying entertainment to distract the mind and a Rwandan citizen who is paranoid about his or her relationship with their neighbour, who killed their child? It is a lot to expect from people to be able to relate to others who have such a different context of life. And even if they were able to relate to each other, what can be done that would truly improve the lives of both parties?

If a Canadian donates money towards the reconstruction of Rwanda, what actually happens with that money? If NGOs or governmental entities, who may or may not have the resources, infrastructure, or systems to be able to manage the transparent and effective use of this money, does this mean that we shouldn't really bother?

I feel that there is a lot of responsibility placed on the shoulders of donors--at the end of the day, donors in a democracy such as Canada are people like you and I. Even if the Canadian government sends money to war-torn, post-conflict, or disadvantaged communities in "developing" nations, the ultimate bearer of responsibility is the Canadian citizen. If the Canadian citizen doesn't give a shit about Rwandan genocide survivors (which is essentially 95% of the population of Rwanda's capital, for example), then there is no accountability required of governments to ensure the effective use of funds sent to Rwanda. I mean, presumably when the average person donates money to a charity, they really just want to feel good about themselves. OK, fine, this may be jaded, but let's just say that the average person may not spend an extra 5 minutes thinking about how make sure that this money will not end up in some corrupt hands. This means that there is no systemic drive for transparency and accountability in using these funds to do "good", whatever that means.

Please tell me that this is just my jaded alter ego talking.