Misleading words (Donating OR Investing? )

[LUKMEF-CAMEROON]

While so many good hearted individuals around the world look at the world with cheerful hearts and are giving to change lives, I have come to realize that words seem to be misleading the way receiving nations, organizations and individuals treat such generosity. The word “Donate or Donors” seem to be interpreted as "give it, get-it, use-it and its over". I have been disappointed in many parts of the world where I have personally given my time, and resources. After a review of the situation, I have come to conclude that some of the words we use in our philanthropy activities are misleading and often misinterpreted by the very people we are working to help. When you invest, you definitely require that your investment should generate some benefits - social impact, change of lives, etc. In fact I think all of us in this network are talking about change. The change we talk and work for is an improvement in the world situation - the plight of the world's poor. We have all seen the way governments and policy makers have misused and misdirected our generosity. To me; it seems the time has come for a lot of things to be redefined as we move along.

My hearts desire will be to know from members of this online family if we should continue donating or investing? I think if we consider our actions and resources we put at the disposal of the world and the poor communities as investment, we will rekindle understanding, reporting and accountability as it guides the rest of the economic sector. Corruption in some of these poor nations is wide spread and so changing from donating to social investing will by my calculations improve governance at both ends and remind those of us with the giving hearts to constantly ask the beneficiary organizations, communities and individuals to pay back our investment with measurable impact brought about by such investment. If we fail to push nations, organizations, communities and individuals to see us as investors instead of donors, we will end up donating, donating and donating over and over to practically the same causes. The pay back I will like for my investment is my heart’s desire that positive change is taking place in the lives of citizens of the world. This is just my opinion!

I completely agree with David that Governments have failed in their responsibility and coordinating ourselves towards direct impact oriented action should take the lead

Dear Friends, Let me know what you think about this.

[e-mail]

[Gil Hardwick]

Here in Australia, for quite a long period now covering better than 20 years and more, we have used the term 'ethical investment' to distinguish it from 'capitalist investment', especially where the expected return is less tangibly concerned with such enterprise as Community Capacity Building, for example.

Even then it is often confusing, since a lot of investors actually consider themselves entitled to a higher dividend because of the perceived quality of their goods and services compared with the 'commercial' or 'mass-produced'.

I prefer the notion of capacity building myself, which inherently includes all of the above and then some, with the clear expectation stated up front of growth and prosperity through developing the capacity to do things for oneself.

In that, I should add that I have never expected governments to do anything. The role of government in a democracy is to hold a monopoly on coercion, managed through broad distribution of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary but also including active scholarship in leading Universities as both producer and repository of knowledge, review and criticism.

It all fails, however, when those coercive powers are directed toward doing things for people rather than enabling them to do things for themselves.

I do not believe I am splitting straws here. While the distinction is admittedly fine it is also highly critical. Many, many projects have failed, billions of dollars lost and untold material and human resources wasted because that very distinction was not made up front, and due caution exercised in the process.

As we prepare ourselves for this type of journey; materially, mentally and spiritually, it seems to me important to define very clearly what agency is to play what role in the overall scheme of things. My experience is that governments are usually more than happy not to have to be doing everything for people.

The return on their investment is a nation at once peaceful and prosperous. Let them have the credit, who cares. By being allowed to get on with the job we have achieved our ambitions anyway.

This is my opinion.

Gil

[Anjez Winkler]

Hi Dear Christian,


I feel the answer is both donating and investing. It is about structural change in the system. I really do feel the old hierarchical world of colonial minds is done through. According to me this sort of world breaks down under too much administration and rampant partiality of which we all are still suffering the consequences.


The so to speak "old world" has seemingly two options: or to donate or to invest, but we see both seem to only tie and make dependent, only because the system itself is of some loveless root as it seems to be far more based in despair for power and as such but leading to destruction or, if you would ask me, pseudo-development and of a very limited sort with but few choices. How much talent gets wasted?


According to me the economics of despair is still ruling, not talent.


Well, this is a way too short reply..., but i hope it can provoke opening up some yet untapped vision.


Hope to speak with you soon again,
.Anjez.*