Keizer Mark I ?? maar alles in het landsbelang!         

 

Stop het rotten van onze democratie

Marcia Luyten, NRC 12 mei 2012

Een gedachte-experiment. Stel dat Emile Roemer de verkiezingen van 12 september wint. Samen met Geert Wilders wil hij Nederland uit de Europese Unie halen, maar demissionair premier Rutte vreest dat Nederland dan naar de knoppen gaat. In een poging het land te behoeden voor een destructieve recessie, belt Rutte met de stafchef van het Nederlandse leger. Ook de baas van de nationale politie komt naar het Torentje. Uitkomst: de demissionair premier blijft nog even aan.....

===========================================================

Mijn reactie:

Luyten goed op dreef, lang verhaal, soms gecompliceerd, maar de boodschap komt wel over. Wat ik er vooral in lees is dat de aloude “Verdeel en Heers” politiek vermoedelijk weer ergens naar toe werkt, hoe en wat, dat zullen we meemaken.

De vergelijking met het oude Rome dringt zich op. Caesar kreeg even ruimte van de senaat om problemen op te lossen. Voor het gemak, en vooral natuurlijk in naam van het landsbelang (hee, Rutte noemt dat het “magische woord” ook steeds meer…), benoemde hij zichzelf tot dictator voor het leven, waar dan weer ons woord “keizer” van is afgeleid. Hee, ook dat verklaart al veel, zo doe je dat dus.

Kortom, l’histoire se répète, wat kunnen en moeten we daarvan leren, al is het tegen beter weten in. Beelden van 14-18 en 40-45 komen ook naar boven... Moeten we ons zorgen maken?

Toeval bestaat niet, maar is wel net zo logisch als onvermijdbaar. De wet van Murphy bestaat echter wel en samen met het “Peter Principle” is dit een gevaarlijke combinatie.

We stonden erbij en keken ernaar. Voer voor journalisten. Ik denk ook niet dat Rutte fantasieën heeft over legergroen met epauletten en centripetale macht, maar het proces waar hij en met hem andere Europese leiders in verzeilt geraakt is, kan soms een eigen dynamiek krijgen. Wat velen vergeten, of niet weten, is dat Hitler in het begin in het zadel is gehesen door vooral de farmaceutische industrie, die droomde van één grote onbelemmerende Europese markt voor zijn producten. De rest is geschiedenis.

Rutte heeft het ook steeds meer over het grote belang van de afzetmarkt voor Nederlandse producten. Toeval? Ik maak uiteraard geen vergelijking, maar er zijn wel overeenkomsten voor de oplettende lezertjes.
Europa onder één bestuur. Caesar droomde ervan, de farmaceutische industrie eveneens en nu is het dan de beurt aan dictator nr. 3. Brussel.

Elk voordeel heeft zijn nadeel. Een van die nadelen is de bijkomende democratie. Begonnen in het oude Griekenland om problemen op te lossen, maar altijd vooral gericht op de korte termijn. Laten we niet vergeten dat de democratie begonnen is door je voorkeur op een scherf te kerven, dus eerst moet je wat kapot maken om het te herstellen. De Grieken weten er alles van; democratie lost geen structurele problemen op, geven alleen uitstel totdat de meest geschikte dictator zich aandient. Dan eet de revolutie weer zijn eigen kinderen op en beginnen we weer met een “schone” lei. Berlusconi weet er alles van.

Wie is de volgende? Wie het weet mag het zeggen. De toekomst is vaak een spiegel van het verleden en we weten hoe het met Caesar en andere Europese groot dromers vergaan is. Wie trekken er in Brussel nu echt aan de touwtjes? Wie is eigenlijk “Brussel”? Unilever, Shell, BAE Systems, Bill Gates, Tata, of nu al China? Wie heeft het meeste belang bij die ene, grote Europese markt?

Was de toelating van Griekenland een gecalculeerde vergissing? De daardoor ontstane chaos heeft toch ook weer veel voordelen. Welke grote “leider” gaat het oplossen en hoe zal het bijbehorende “zwarte pieten” uitpakken, wie krijgt de schuld van de problemen, waar gaan we onze pijlen op richten? Weer op links, of op de democratie? Een bevolkingsgroep of toch maar een religie.

Alles is goed, als het zich maar niet massaal kan verdedigen, dan het vuurtje goed aanwakkeren en er alles aan doen dat de strijd lang duurt. Dat loont het meest. Wordt vervolgt.

...

Can (water) charity organizations be trusted?

Research shows the sector has a long way to go in terms of public awareness of the regulator, says Joe Saxton of nfpSynergy

Less than half of respondents to a new poll have heard of the Charity Commission, according to a new survey.
The poll of more than 1,000 people, carried out by the consultancy nfpSynergy in November and December, found that 43 per cent were probably or definitely aware of the regulator and 38 per cent were probably or definitely unaware of it. Nineteen per cent were not sure.

=========================================================

My comments:

Public trust indeed is key; in The Netherlands we have similar issues with charities. Especially charities that work in developing projects are becoming more and more suspect; they work far away and can easily manipulate. They can have a nice brochure, flashy website, celebrities or big names to support them, etc. Of course, development work is not easy and there are often unforeseen problems, but it’s all about maintaining the right balance and transparency.

In The Netherlands we have a similar organization for charity registration, but not as effective as your organization. Therefore many NGOs are not registered there because they receive little service and contribution is relatively high.

An issue for charity registration is also, that registration gives the public a kind of guarantee that the charity is doing a good job. Unfortunately, this is absolutely not the case. For instance in the water sector, there are many charities that do more harm than good. Sometimes even without being aware of it, because it seems such a nice idea for instance, to give a water pump to a community. But if the water pump cannot be maintained by the community, the people are frustrated in the end, while the charity is already making another good impression on its donors by doing the same disaster in another community. Follow up and sustainability is often missing, especially in water projects. Very sad....

The good news is that the public is very forgiving and is always prepared to donate to help people. The flipside is that many water charities can in fact do whatever they want with the funding, because they are accountable to nobody about the poor results.

Better results from water projects often means that the water charity has to spend more funding to get things right. Although they often have millions on the bank, in practice we often see that water charities are penny wise & pound foolish. They go for cheap solutions that only work for a while, and are becoming amazingly capable in cover up failures and sweet talk about what they do.

It’s a complex issue, and not an easy one to speak about; charity is often not to be discussed, because its all for the good. Is it really?? As long as fundraising brings in such huge amounts of money for such charities, where many people have well paid jobs and enjoy the respect of the public because they do “so incredibly well” for the poor in Africa, change for better results is not likely.

In the meantime, millions of people in Africa are still waiting to get real and sustainable help. The water problem is real, statistics are hard to beat. Already 40 to 70% of previous installed charity donated handpumps don’t work anymore. But most charities just go on as before, completely ignoring the problems they pretend to solve and that they create themselves.

The latter is even worse and probably the real problem to solve. Fundraising business looks like what Mark 11:15-19 described, will we ever learn?

We hope that the Charity Commission also has an open view in this and will be a bit more pro-active than it’s sister organization in the Netherlands. Charity is a good emotion, but it can easily be misused by many pretending, unprofessional “good-doers”, and that is not the intention. The public already start to ask for more transparency and that is good.

Hope they pick up the idea.

...

Water management & water problems

I think it is important to make a clear distiction between water management problems and the description of what you actually see. For instance, low coverage is not a management problem, but a problem for the people. Its terrible, yes, but it is the result of a problem and not the problem on itself regarding management.

i also think that lack of funding is not a management problem, in fact, i don't think that there is a lack of funing, the water sector as whole in Africa receives some 5 tot 10 milions of US$ ...... EACH DAY to fund all kind of water projects, so money is not the problem. Although everybody could use some extra cash to do something.... But hpow is the funding spend? Often mostly on charity problems, i'm afraid....

Contradictionary, one of the main problems for water management, is the fact that water projects do not really solve basic problems, in other words, who finally profits from the water projects and how does this shows up as a motivation to keep the service working over time, by that group that profits from the project?

Yes, a water project can HELP a community, but that does not mean it really solves it problems with "just" water. In other words, if a water pump in a community does not lead to better conditions and more jobs, cash flow, etc. but is just "more convenient", it will not create the needed extra funds for the maintenance so it will stop in some time.

Example: if you make a water pump, and people can now irrigate and sell vegetables, they make some money and can maintain the pump. But just to give water so they dont have to walk for 1 hour, does not necessarly create cash flow....

think about that, the issue is not charity, but management issues, so it all comes back to how is the cash flow with time!
...

about me

Paul van Beers, co-founder of FairWater, is the program manager of the FairWater Trust Fund Projects, he holds a M.Sc. in Environmental Hydrology & Hydrogeology and has a vast international background and professional contacts based on 30 years of research and project management in Rural & Peri-Urban Water Supply, Hydrology and Environmental projects in Burkina Faso, Mauretania, Mozambique, Kenya, Angola, Benin, Chad, Niger, Mali, Senegal, Gambia, Ghana, Cameroon, South Africa, Namibia, Ethiopia, Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia, Tanzania, Brazil and Oman.

After completing his studies in Geographical Hydrology, Remote Sensing and Geophysics, he started his professional career in Portugal (Hydro-geological studies in coastal aquifers 1980 - 1984). In 1985 he moved to Africa, Burkina Faso & Mauretania, mainly working in Rural Water Supply, and part-time bush pilot and flying instructor. To keep in touch with the new developments in The Netherlands, he returned in 1994 to work as project manager in environmental projects.

In 1996 he signed up as Country Director Mozambique for the Dutch NGO SaWa, worked at the Mozambican Water Department and was involved in many studies, such as "Capacity & Willingness to pay" in rural and urban areas for the WorldBank. To see and learn more of the water projects in other African countries, he worked from 1998 to 2001 as individual consultant all over Africa for NGOs and the WorldBank. Focus of these studies was how to arrive at sustainable rural water supply, involving all aspects and stakeholders.

A new phase started when he was asked to lead the RWD program, one of the largest rural water projects in Kisii, western Kenya. His last long term assignment was in Angola, as WatSan Advisor to the Government up to 2006. Since 2007 he has been fully committed to develop the BlueZone concept with the reliable BluePump and to start with the FairWater Foundation in order to improve the sustainability of handpump water projects in Africa.

He is a member of the Dutch NEDWORC ''Consultants for Development Foundation'' and also a founding board member of Global Rainwater Harvesting Collective and has worked for Universities, Consultancy firms, The World Bank and National and International NGOs.
...