by Eze Eluchie
An often repeated mantra which founds various foreign developmental
and economic interventions in the countries derisively referred to as 'third
world’ or 'developing’ countries is the so-called global benchmark for poverty
- living on less than U.S.$1.00 a day.
The developmental strategies and interventions of the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and a plethora of international financial and
developmental institutions are ostensibly geared towards reducing the number of
peoples all over the world, who live below this proverbial poverty line - the
very first goal of the famed Millennium Development Goals (MDG) whose scheduled
attainment by year 2015 has mesmerized the international community is so eloquently
stated as 'eradicating extreme poverty and hunger'.
The identified goal of reducing the number of peoples living below the
‘poverty line’ is a most worthy cause – what a wonderful world it will be if
all persons lived above this ‘poverty line! A thorny issue however emerges in
striving towards this lofty goal: ‘how do you ascertain what constitutes the
‘poverty line’ in a world with dissimilar values and value systems?’
Governments all over the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa
hurriedly reworked their various agendas and no public speech by any
self-respecting head of government in any forum geared towards addressing
developmental issues in the sub-region could be deemed, after the launch of efforts at achieving the MDG's, as complete without reference to the goal of reducing
the number of people living below this mythical poverty level.
Regional interest in ascertaining what constitutes the ‘poverty line’
was spiked recently when media networks across the world went awash with the
news that a lady who was bitten by a copperhead snake near Washington DC., had
to pay US $55,000 for treatment for the snake bite: which comprised basically of anti-venom and
some hours of rest at the hospital. The amount required to treat a mere snake
bite in the United States was simply incredulous. Going by the mythical figure
of US $1.00 a day poverty line, it would take the several millions living below
that level, well over 150.68 years for anyone of them to
save enough to afford the cost of treatment for a snake bite! This certainly
does not represent the reality.
Reflecting on a similar bite from a copperhead snake which an
acquaintance had suffered in the course of a holiday to an idyllic village in
southeastern Nigeria – a village where most of the inhabitants, in accord with
the projections of the international developmental institutions, certainly fall
below the proverbial ‘international poverty line’, the fault inherent in the international hypothesis of a 'poverty level' becomes quite glaring. Immediately it was confirmed
that what had bitten my said acquaintance was a snake, the village folks
directed the victim to the local traditional healer, a man of prestige and comfort
in his rural setting, held in very high esteem by the community. After
observing the nature of the bite and hearing a description of the rascal snake,
the traditional healer went into his hut, a hut made of mud and topped with roof made
from palm leaves which served as both residence and consultation room, and came out with a concoction which he administered on my
acquaintance. A few minutes after ingesting the concoction, my acquaintance
went into a bout of vomiting, a feat which drew pleasure from the healer and
his apprentices – who thereafter informed the victim of the snake bite that
with the vomiting, treatment was ended, and he was now ‘discharged’ and free: the venom from the snake bite had been flushed out and neutralized. The
bill for this quite, effective less than 30-minute treatment, was less than 200
Nigerian Naira (at today’s exchange rate, approximately US $1.25). The cure was absolute effective!
Does that make 200 Naira in real terms, equivalent to US $55,000 as both sums equal to the cost of treatment for copperhead snakebite? Both sums, in US
Dollars and Nigerian Naira, did treat similar life threatening situations. And
yet, going by the much trumpeted ‘poverty line’, a local resident of my village
will never be able to afford the cost of treatment for copperhead snake bites
even if all of one’s savings in 50 consecutive lifetimes were aggregated and addressed to
the treatment.
The above comparison could be stretched in a thousand and one
directions encompassing various life pursuits, requirements for daily and
sustainable existence and human aspirations:
For instance, whilst an apartment overlooking the Atlantic Ocean in
Maine, USA could command a multi-million dollar price tag, an apartment
overlooking the same ocean in Banjul, The Gambia, would be 'rated' as worth
nil-dollars. The fact that both apartments enjoy unrestricted access to smooth
ocean breeze, natural ambience and serenity of the surrounding environment
seems immaterial in factoring values. One is called a condominium and the other
a mud hut – they both however serve as homes to their different owners; these
comparisons could go on ad infinitum.
Faced with the diversity of values, it became ‘appropriate’ under a 'new world order', to find a
leveling mechanism that would strive at a unified global perception of values,
which is precisely what the ‘international poverty level’, strives, with doubtful
validity, to achieve. Apparently, what
has transpired in the quest of attaining a global values system or a global
equilibrium to ascertain the poverty line appears to be to generally
underestimate and undervalue what some others have whilst placing a premium on
what is available in other climes – this hypothesis sure sounds smart to those
who are in a position to do the ratings and whose values and norms are
invariably rated at a premium to the detriment of the values and norms of other
cultures.
Abstract as the foregoing discourse may appear, its application has
real life consequences in how humanity relates with one another. The
consequences are quite dire for the billions of peoples across the globe that
are deemed to live below the poverty line.
The totality of the lives and livelihoods of those who are said to
live below the poverty line are valued in such a condescendingly dehumanizing
and derogatory manner as to engender their being treated and perceived as
sub-human. It has become the norm, in some international economic circles and
discourse, to arrogantly compare the daily upkeep cost of, for instance, a pet
cat or dog or the daily maintenance cost of livestock in some climes with
the daily earnings of those who live 'below the poverty line' – and coming up
with such unfortunate conclusions as: ‘it costs more to keep a pet cat than
what it costs to keep a family living below the poverty line’. This comparison
is hurtful, false and indirectly founds a plethora of xenophobic and some racist
mannerisms, as in most cases, the majority of peoples deemed to live below the
poverty line are of identifiable physical characteristics.
The reality is that every people have their own inherent wealth,
values and parameters of determining fullness and well being. For as long as
this individuality of peoples is subsumed under an ‘international poverty line’, for so long will the goal to ‘end poverty and shared prosperity’ which the
World bank Chief Executive, Jim Yong Kim, now admits to be the goal of his institution,
continue to elude us all with the attendant result in conflict and
misunderstanding between our race.
Video: Confession of World Bank Chief Executive
Jim Yong Kim in interview with CNN’s Richard Quest: the bank was now only beginning to plan for the dual goals to ‘end poverty and
shared prosperity’
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/business/2013/10/09/world-bank-poverty-jim-yong-kim-qmb.cnn.html
Picture: Some
children who are amongst those deemed by the obnoxious global 'regime' to live below the U.S. $1.00-a-day
poverty line but exuding what is obviously a million dollar mien.
No comments:
Post a Comment