Serious grievances

Its shocking when you work for an international organisation that works for human development and come to find out that it is full of inept, misguided, harassing lunatics. I mean, the majority of these people do not know how to relate to people within the office, on a humanist level, much less people on the street. In the process they use the hierarchies within this organisation to compete, climb over people, backstab, maliciously gossip and generally treat people like budawa manure. Management is comprised of a couple of weirdos who do not care about the people or programmes they are spossed to be managing. The Number 1 is a languid, airheaded, lacking substance womanizer who plays ambient music in his post-modern furnished office, and cannot even answer basic questions about human development or MDGs. The Number 2, soon to be transferred to Bangladesh - god help the country - walks around with a puffed up chest, wears glasses like Austin Powers and sports pink shirts. All the while he cannot make decisions and blocks the efficient processes in implementing our programmes. At this rate of administration and hurdles, due to bad management (with managers hired on a nespotic basis), countries in Asia-Pacific will not attain Millennium Development Goals by 2015, most likely 2200 - to be generous.

That brings me to the latest flavour of the development world: the Integrated Package of Services, or the costing of MDG attainment in counties. Its the newest version of Structural Adjustment Programmes, where a number of international organisations, revamping neoliberal private sector mentality, try to restructure governments so that they take priority to achieve the MDGs, without looking at the very particular context of each country. Essentially, this latest programme attempts to impose a macro-economic model, still at its very conceptual and abstract stage, on a country that may not have the technical capacity or fiscal ability to adopt such a model. As I see it, each agency has to come up with priorities of which MDGs it can meet by 2015 and how it will cost the government to do so. Of course, it is not the responsibility of just the government to carry human development objectives forward, it has been launched by (in)formal civil society and collectives.

Loads of development money is funnelled into this programme, but it could likely fail given its poor management and top-down construction, probably developed by the top men economists in the world. If more women or feminist economics were consulted on its design and implementation, it may be more open to accepting feedback from people living in poverty - in a way that asks people what they except from donors or development community, how these international so-called experts can work on their immediate behalf. (For starters, maybe these folks can give up a fraction of their ridiculous salaries and business class treatment - unless there is a dire health or well-being complication, such as special healthcare for staff living with HIV). Its an extremely political programme, with staff getting lauded for their so-called good work on rolling out the implementation of this MDG costing in its 4 pilot countries. Yet these countries (Afghanistan, Bhutan, Mongolia, Pakistan) have not been a success. Afghanistan has fallen apart as any kind of state with the obvious occupation of US and other imperial governments. Bhutan has its own indicators (Gross National Happiness) on measuring and financing human development objectives. Pakistan has met obstacles because leaders in several international organisations have objected to the paradigm of the MDGs, saying that they are not fully inclusive and have been devised in a top-down way. Mongolia is one country that may move further in the implementation. But this programme is another example of policy wonks formulating massive, abstract packages to shove onto Southern countries shoulders - rather than being truly altruistic. Moreover, the leader of this programme is a genius but acts like a prankster child who needs an army of people to clean up after his ideas - who does not necessarily have the practical sense on how to manage or implement things.

Basically, the development world is screwed in this region if management continues to operate like headless chickens. Meanwhile, programme staff who are achieving a good number of things, in terms of linking civil society or networks of people living with HIV and AIDS, or ensure that policies are examined in a gender-sensitive manner, are stunted from moving their projects forward. There are added challenges of power relations (and personal politics) within this organisation, particularly those within South Asia. Too much talking from men, not enough doing, for instance. Or uber-aggressive women without much compassion for other team members.

I honestly do not know how much longer I can sit through these hierarchies and abuses of relative power. There are too many massive reprecussions for speaking out and there is no appropriate forum for expressing grievances.

Then again Im on a precarious contract anyway, so I could bloody well be sacked for any reason - so maybe they are more threatened by me, as I am part of the disgruntled masses who preach ethics, social justice and equality....Perhaps.