Vijesti ROMI.HR

Neočekivani negativni učinci suvremenog dobročinstva su dvostruki. Pre svega, milijuni prikupljeni masovnim svjetskim kampanjama često ne stignu do onih za koje je novac prikupljan / do onih kojima je novac namenjen.

Svjetski događaj Live Aid jedan je od najvećih, ali ne i najveći, događaj tog tipa u suvremenoj povijesti. Dva glavna koncerta održana u Londonu i Filadelfiji posjetilo je 160.000 ljudi. Usporedo s ovim koncertima, procijenjeno je kako su prenose događaje koji su održani u Kanadi, Japanu, Australiji i Jugoslaviji preko svojih TV-a pratilo 1.9 milijardi ljudi iz 150 zemalja, što je bilo 40% ukupne svjetske populacije.

Međutim, tokom 2000-ih godina pokrenuto je nekoliko istraga. Prema izvješću BBC-a, velikim djelom prikupljenih sredstava podržan je građanski rat u Etiopiji time što je kupljeno oružje za lokalne vojne zapovjednike. Daily Mail je otkrio kako najmanje 20% doniranog novca odlazi pobunjeničkim grupama u društvu. Istovremeno, etiopski stručnjaci navode kako je vlada iskoristila fond 'Live Aid' financiran od strane nevladinih organizacija  kako bi učvrstila svoju moć na štetu dobrobiti građana Etiopije.

Druga loša strana suvremenog dobročinstva odnosi se na pitanje 'zašto uopće u svijetu postoji potreba za pomaganjem?'. Diskurs svjetskog dobročinstva uzima siromaštvo i ljudsku bijedu zdravo za gotovo. Shvaćanje masovne patnje koja je prisutna širom svijeta kao neizbježne okolnosti 'prirodno' uzrokovane 'stupnjem razvoja' društva je ideološka konstrukcija najgoreg tipa.

Stoljećima dugo kolonijalno ugnjetavanje, bezobzirnost okrutnih svjetskih gospodara nad podređenim robovima i neprestano iscrpljivanje nekadašnjih kolonija i ljudi s tih područja ne može se prekriti dobrotvornim kampanjama.

U svojoj knjizi 'Živjeti na kraju vremena', slovenski filozof Slavoj Žižek piše:

Kada nam, suočeni s problemom izgladnjele djece, kažu: „Za cijenu nekoliko kapućino kava mogli ste spasiti život“, ono što se zapravo želi reći je kako za Cijenu nekoliko kapućino kava možete nastaviti ignorirati problem i uživati u životu, osjećajući se dobro“.

Dobročinstvo u tom smislu često zamjenjuje težnje za autentičnom solidarnošću i istinske borbe protiv nepravde u svijetu. Međunarodni dan dobročinstva proglašen je od strane UN-a 2012. godine s motivom da ovaj dan bude prilika za razmišljanje o empatiji i o principima na kojima naše društvo i ekonomija počivaju.

Charity is arguably as old as civilization. The virtue of caring for the ones in need is praised by virtually all religions and value systems. The voluntary giving of money, effort, or time to the people who need help is indeed what lies at the heart of human empathy and what makes of a group of people a community. However, the individualized “culture of giving”, so present in the last decades across the Western world, unfortunately happens to serve another purpose – to cover up the normalized practice of ruthless taking.

The unexpected for the regular donor negative effects of modern charity are twofold. First, the millions collected by massive global charity campaigns often never reach their addressees.

A case in point is the Live Aid global event, one of the largest, if not the biggest, happenings in modern history. Two main concerts in London and in Philadelphia that gathered more than 160 thousand people, together with parallel events in Canada, Japan, Australia and Yugoslavia among others had an estimate TV audience of 1.9 billion people across 150 countries, or nearly 40% of world population.

In the 2000s, however, several investigations were initiated. According to the BBC, a substantial part of the funds raised went to support the civil war in Ethiopia, since it was spent on weapons for the local warlords. The Daily Mail found out that at least 20% of the donors’ money went to rebel groups in the country. At the same time, according to Ethiopian experts, the government took advantage of the Live Aid-funded NGOs to cement its power at the expense of the citizens’ well-being.

The second negative feature of the dominant today model of charity is linked with the question why there is such a need of aid in the world at first place. The discourse of global charity takes poverty and human misery for granted. This understanding of mass suffering in large areas of the globe as an inevitable circumstance - “naturally” caused by the “stage of development” of these societies - is but an ideological construction of the worst type. 

Centuries of colonial oppression, ruthless domination of metropolitan masters over subaltern slaves, and an ongoing exhaustion of the former subjected territories and peoples from their resources, however, cannot be concealed by feel-good charity campaigns.

In his book Living in the End Times, the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek writes:

When, confronted with the starving child, we are told: "For the price of a couple of cappuccinos, you can save her life!", the true message is: "For the price of a couple of cappuccinos, you can continue in your ignorant and pleasurable life, not only not feeling any guilt, but even feeling good for having participated in the struggle against suffering!"

Charity, in that sense, often comes to replace the urges for authentic solidarity and the true struggles against the injustices around the world. The International Day of Charity, established by the UN in 2012 with all good motives, can be a good occasion to reflect on the nature and the substance of empathy and what is more – on the principles on which our societies and economies are built.