Aid to the hungry

Monday through Wednesday of this week, the municipality of Concepción, Copán, distributed bags of food stuffs and of soap and bleach to more than 1600 households. 

I accompanied them as I had done in the first distribution in Holy Week when 1623 or so bags were distributed.

My truck ready to go to a community

The contents of the food bags were each worth a little more $25 dollars and included basic food stuffs, like salt, sugar, beans, rice, shortening, tinned fish, and coffee.

Bag from the first distribution

This time a non-governmental organization that works in the area with a child-sponsorship project, Plan International, was also distributing goods, but only in two communities. To prevent duplication, and to open the way for more assistance, they worked with the municipality to avoid any duplication and in hopes of expanding outreach to needy families that had been missed in the first distribution.

The municipality of Concepción was perhaps the first to do the distribution in April. From my experience, they tried to avoid any favoritism and politicization. In at least one village where I was, I saw that they adhered to the decision not to give more than one bag to a household. (I have been told that there might have been problem in another village whose authorities had presented a list with more than one person from a household.)

A few days ago I saw the public announcement of the president of Honduras about the distribution. What disturbed me was the decision that had been made to have the military distribute the goods in some cities. In a highly militarized society, where there are serious human rights issues, especially in relation to the military, this worried me. But in our municipality the distribution was mostly done by employees of the municipality with no military presence that I saw, except for a few in one village during the first distribution (because there were some concerns about the situation there.) I was very happy to see that the distribution was not militarized here and that this time neither the mayor nor a vice-mayor were present, as far as I could determine.

Helped by a member of one of the communities

The distribution went fairly well, though we found some needy families who had not received anything in the first distribution. This ended up being a problem. The government had decided that only those who had received the first distribution would receive the second. I think this was done to minimize the problems of the first distribution in some areas. But I think it was misguided. There were places, even in our municipality, where more than one person from a household received a bag in the first distribution; this should have been corrected. There were any number of persons who did not receive anything in the first distribution but were obviously in need. In addition, at least in our area, it was determined not to give a bag to people who had a small grocery store – a tienda or pulpería; but some people who had only a trucha, a small area where they sold mostly drinks and snacks, and who are obviously poor were denied a bag in the first distribution.

What ended up happening in our area is that the coordinators in the villages were told to contact the persons in charge of the distribution about those needy families that had not received anything. Because Plan International covered a number of households in two communities, there were perhaps fifty sacks that could be distributed to those in need.

Our experience, it seems, is not what people are experiencing in other parts of the country. I have already mentioned the militarization of the aid in some cities. In addition, there are charges of politicization of the aid, favoring those who belong to the party in power. In addition, the aid has arrived all too slowly in some urban areas and people have come out in protest.

                                                           

But worst of all are charges of inflated prices for the goods. I don’t have details of this but I would not be surprised if this happened due to the rampant greed and corruption in the country.

But there are other possible problems to keep in mind.

In Honduras the political parties have used aid to the needy as a weapon in their political campaigns, as a way to sway voters. It is not always aid that does not help those of other parties but it does give the impression to some that if they want to get aid they have to support the party in power. Some of this is a political naïveté that confuses government aid with aid from a politician or political power; I once heard of a woman who showed off the concrete flooring in her house and said that the president had given her this. Sometimes it’s not so subtle as the bags I saw being distributed about a year ago with the name and picture of the president on the bag.

A second concern is the way that this aid seems to take away people’s initiative to do things themselves. I remember a few years ago when I visited a village and had to take an elderly woman to a nearby clinic. She had fainted. When I entered the house I knew what had happened. The house was low with a tin roof: it was an oven. We left her at the clinic overnight because she was dehydrated. I recommended that the village members, most of them close relatives of the woman and her husband, make adobe bricks to raise the roof of her house. It never happened until a few years later when the mayor’s office gave them funds for this.

This sort of dependency can help perpetuate the corruption of political leaders, having the people feel that they need these leaders to get things. Such dependency just leaves a larger space for corrupt politicians.

It also creates a belief that they need to seek the favors of these politicians. A commentary on the Jesuit-supported Radio Progreso recently spoke about this:

Favors are given when people stop believing in their rights and when their dignity has been crushed. Leaders of the society, for the most part, have de-educated society. They have educated people to expect the favors to come from above, in response to people's pleas and humiliating requests.

What is valued is begging. Demands are seen as rude, as enemies of democracy and national reconciliation. This practice of begging and granting favors is typical of a society based on patrimonialism [what the government gives is a gift of the ruler to his subjects]. And what is patrimonialism? It’s the mentality, culture, and political practice which educates in order that  the entire society is convinced that the assets of the State are the properties of  the politicians, who can use them to grant favors or make donations in exchange for loyalty, silence, and obedience. Whoever receives a favor, shuts up, can no longer say anything against the one from whom he received the favor. A favor is never a right. It's a gift, and one gives thanks by shutting up. 

Patrimonialism needs people who don’t think for themselves.

But what does one do when there is great need?

I believe people and governments must respond in ways that respect the lives of the people and their dignity, without any political ties.

At times, giving out the bags, I heard the people say thank you. Several times I said, “No. It’s what you need and ought to receive.”

In the long run, I think we have to think of ways that people can get together and help each other. This is happening in some areas of the country, but it needs to be encouraged and promoted so that, when this ends, people can begin to live with less dependence on the politicians and with a greater sense of interdependence -  a sense that we are in this together.

ADDENDA:

I did hear of one case in another municipality where the person receiving the packet said he didn't need it but would give it to someone who did. That is one step.

One last note. In one community the people brought us bananas and plantains. They probably have more than they can use because they can't get out to sell them. But it was a nice gesture - and I;m looking forward to frying some plantains today or tomorrow.