Back to Index

For us, not by us: How Western capitalism aids Africa
Fungai Machirori
November 08, 2007

A recent edition of one of America-s most famous high-end glossy magazines featured a special on Africa that brought together a host of celebrities for a photo shoot to help champion the continent-s various causes. Among these big names were politicians (US president George Bush and Senator Barack Obama), film and music superstars (Brad Pitt, Chris Rock, Madonna, Jay-Z) and humanitarians (Oprah Winfrey, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu). The photographs, shot in evocative poses of deep thought and compassion, were featured on twenty different covers of the magazine-s same edition. As the issue-s guest editor, Bono, front-man of popular Irish band U2 and a name synonymous with efforts towards Africa-s debt cancellation, wrote for the magazine-s editorial, "We needed help in describing the continent of Africa as an opportunity, as an adventure, not a burden."

What should one feel about such obvious commercialisation and commodification of a continent which probably would never have made the cover of this same magazine without the help of these modern Western icons? Exploited, angry, powerless - those are a few that come to mind. But whatever we may feel, what this example proves is an almost unquestionable truth. In order to get the West to pay meaningful attention to Africa-s plight, the messages transmitted to its audiences have to be 'airbrushed- so as to divert attention away from the hackneyed and depressing issues of death, suffering and social, economic and political instability towards a more comfortable and familiar environment.

Though the above-mentioned are the challenges that many African states are fighting to overcome, they just don-t hold enough significance to those living outside of the donor and philanthropic spheres of society to effect meaningful action. And the donor agencies themselves are falling far short of the mark in meeting the needs of Africa. According to a recent report released by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), donor agencies need to more than quadruple the current amounts of money they are providing towards universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support initiatives in Africa by 2010. Over US$40 billion is needed - a sum that seems to reach far beyond the depth of funders- goodwill.

Let-s face it - we live in a highly consumerist and individualistic world where people usually ask prior to taking any action, 'So what-s in it for me?" While it might still be disturbing for Western audiences to stumble upon a television documentary or news story about starving African children, or a mother dying from AIDS, these images of Africa have become so commonplace as to elicit only momentary sympathy followed by a flick to a more entertaining channel. We Africans - those of us privileged enough to turn a blind eye - often even do this ourselves.

Poverty, and disease - though serious crises - are big business. One needs to just think of the legal battles that big Western pharmaceutical companies wage to protect patents over their drugs and prevent developing countries (such as India) producing cheaper generic forms of life-saving medication such as anti-retrovirals (ARVs). These big 'pharmas-, like any other commercial entity, would like to ensure the least amount of market competition in order to retain control over pricing of these products and thereby, their profit margins. It makes simple business sense.

Looking at the example of the magazine once more can further illustrate this point. All stakeholders are presented with a win-win situation here. Readers buy the magazine ostensibly to read about Africa, but really to read about what their favourite star thinks about Africa and, of course, what they are doing to help. And because these celebrities are opinion leaders, the hope is that their compassion and influence will urge ordinary people, their fans, to take action too. And this, of course, does nothing to damage Brad Pitt or Jay-Z-s image as superstars with a conscience. Far from it. It just makes fans love them even more - enough even to buy a copy of their latest movie or music album. , thereby boosting their star value. Ultimately, everyone wins.

Diversion is ironically the key to getting people to listen. Entertainment is accepted as one of the main functions of the media - a function that usually overrides those of informing and educating audiences. Edutainment (simultaneous education and entertainment) through its incorporation of popular entertainment formats into health messages has proven to be one of the most effective modes of HIV and AIDS communication. Why? Because people just don-t respond to repetitive and severe messages in the way they do to the same issues repackaged more tactfully and attractively as entertainment. The LiveAID concerts held across the world in 2005, while raising money to fight poverty, were successful for one main reason - they provided an array of some of the world-s biggest superstars and gave audiences the chance of a lifetime to see them perform live. Give audiences what they want and hopefully this will make them buy into your cause, even if sub-consciously. As Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem of the Pan African Movement in Uganda wrote at the time of the concerts, "The NGO world, but the very big international ones in particular, are more and more media-driven. Therefore packaging misery and targeting critical national and global events have become necessary tool kits for massive fundraising."

Indeed, humanitarian and commercial interests can function symbiotically to champion a cause. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria in its collaboration with (RED) - a corporate partnership of some of the world-s most famous brands (American Express, Apple, Armani, Motorolla among others) seem to be succeeding at this. A percentage of sales of products from the range of (RED) branded clothing, credit cards and digital devices the companies produce is given to the Global Fund to assist it in provision of HIV and AIDS-related services. As (RED) overtly states in its manifesto, "As first world consumers, we have tremendous power. What we collectively choose to buy, or not to buy, can change the course of life and history . . . (RED) is not a charity. It is simply a business model." (RED) makes good promotional and commercial sense for the companies it involves and equally good sense for beneficiaries of its funds.

To date, of the over US$45 million received by the Global Fund from the sale of (RED) products, two-thirds has been channelled towards grants in Ghana, Rwanda and Swaziland. This money, says the Fund, is helping to finance national programmes on HIV and AIDS to provide antiretroviral treatments, assist in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, as well as to provide for HIV counselling and testing activities. Recipients of such aid in Swaziland, a nation with a HIV prevalence of over 30%, are sure to be thankful. One wonders if a once-bedridden child who can now get up and run about with his friends really minds if he can only do so because some teenager in New York got a new (RED) branded gadget for his 16th birthday.

Call it what you may, but those are the hard and fast rules of capitalism. Moreover, it is those capitalist dollars flowing into our region that help keep many alive. This is not to say that Africans should not be active participants in the response to their own challenges. In fact, we ought to learn to harness the commercial potential available to us to bring ourselves out of our own problems. This, though easier said than done, is key to refocusing attention on the continent. Charity begins at home, and sadly, it often ends there too. And any strategies that endorse as ideal the begging bowl approach to seeking international aid need a serious rethink.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP