Orphanage Idol in Nigeria

I think my jaw dropped when I watched a commercial for Melody Star. It's a televised singing competition for orphans. There's a cash prize for the winner, and other prizes for the runners up. The sponsors come across quite earnest, but it's extremely exploitative. As in many countries, homes for disadvantaged and abandoned children are for the most part privately run in Nigeria. Even state supported homes don't really get that much support. So creative ways of fundraising help. However, publicly displaying - to the entirety of West Africa - the children as sad, poor victims and having them sing for their support may not the best way to do it.

I met up with my old supervisor/mentor/superwoman from my first gig out of college - the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice in Ghana [she now works for ISODEC. Great places - look them up.] We got on to the topic of the emergence of corporate social responsibility in Ghana and it's impact on Accra's orphanages. Here too, company's are realising that they should give back to communities - and are also realising that it gets them great press. But there is limited needs assessments or community consultation as to how their help could be best used. So we end up with a case of classic SWEDOW. Companies donate food, clothing and toys to orphanages without much concern for whether they need those items, and then in return receive a performance of song and/or dance for their cameras. She said that over weekends, the orphanages can be so booked up with donations that the children end up working all day. Yet the orphanages are wary of shunning the support - it is charity and also draws attention to the issue of neglected children in Ghana. A number of orphanages are actually more like foster homes, hosting children that do have surviving parents or relatives, but are unable/unwilling to care for them.

There are other ways to promote your company's compassionate side without exploiting your beneficiaries - obviously. Donors, such as CIDA, are becoming slightly more interested in CSR and supporting companies develop their programs in a responsible fashion. Perhaps a new avenue for West African CSOs could start with CSR programs with a child protection lens?

What the CBBCs comment actually means

NATO official Mark Sedwill, in an interview for the CBBC program “Growing Up in a Warzone” stated "Here in Kabul and the other big cities (in Afghanistan) actually there are very few of those bombs. The children are probably safer here than they would be in London, New York or Glasgow or many other cities." The comment has caused a stir across the western media and outcries from public councils and humanitarian aid agencies, such as Save the Children.

Mr. Sedwill later tried to diffuse the statement, saying that it was not very well put. And he’s right – it wasn’t. But the essence of what he was trying to say is important. The news often distorts day-to-day life of people living in conflict affected areas. In states affected with armed conflict, not every moment of every day, in every location, is there life threatening danger. Pocketed and fragmented fighting is localised and that often means a good chunk of a state is relatively safe for people to go about their daily routines. What is more, general crime rates can be lower in these areas, as well as the lure of dangerous activities such as drugs and alcohol. Finally, societal bonds are stronger, with a neighbourhood formed to mimic a large family – meaning many people are looking out for your wellbeing, rather than the isolation that is becoming a norm in Western cities. Because of this, it can be argued that if one looks at a child’s access in the city, and the safety net surrounding them – in many cases it may be on par or better than life for a child in some of the West’s more notorious cities. This is a question of physical security.

Indeed, the plight of children in developing areas – particularly in fragile and conflict affected states – fair far worse on a human security level. Save the Children noted that 1 in 4 Afghan children will not live to see their 5th birthday, and UNICEF in 2009 declared it the most dangerous place to be a child. There are greater barriers to life saving health care and nutrition in these areas. Gender equality is at a greater disparity, and so is access to education. But what Sedwill’s statement should have done is allowed us (and kids) to review our perceptions of what safety is and what it can be to others. Moreover, it reminds us all that people around the world are not so different from each other – and face similar problems.