Follow in the Footsteps

Throughout childhood my parents taught me to mitigate conflict and solve problems with a simple technique: "Put yourself in their shoes!"

"Katie was really bossy and yelled at me today at recess"
"Well, did you do anything to her first? Maybe you started it? Maybe she was just having a bad day herself? Put yourself in her shoes!"

I was taught to think through the circumstances that may exist outside of what I could immediately see and experience, and to be sensitively responsive to those forces.

Now here in DC, when I think of the Bank's mission of poverty-alleviation, I witness a bit of this empathy on the part of the Bank. Having evolved past controversial structural adjustment plan strategies - forcing the market as a solution to all problems - the Bank is employing new "put yourself in their shoes!" strategies, emphasizing community consultation socially sustainable development. I witness everyday the hard work of the Bank in truly understanding the communities in which they work. Projects are well planned and approaches rigorously researched, run by an incredibly intelligent body of employees. Especially in my capacity on the Panel I am part of a meaningful community consultation process in our every inspection.

But I know that not everyone and every Project is free from the corruption and inefficiency that most associate with the Bank. These human failures also exist, and persist. Exposes like John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" will tell you that the Bank is a far cry from empathetic, like other criticisms that accuse the Bank of fostering corruption, further screwing the poor into deeper cycles of poverty, and perpetuating the system in which the money-less don't matter.

Somewhere between the sensation pieces of Bank-produced-PR and disgruntled employee publications, there is a truth to the workings of the beast. And everyday at work I find myself battling back and forth between appreciating and vilifying all the Bank does, or sometimes, does not.

Trying to understand how the leadership techniques of the Bank effect the movement to end poverty, I am reminded of a document called "The Denver Principles" that illustrates leadership techniques in the movement to end AIDS in 1983.

The Denver Principles articulated the viewpoint of the HIV positive community at a time when they were being consistently spoken for instead of spoken with. People living with HIV/AIDS refused to be considered victims or scapegoats, and instead asked to be fully accepted for who they were as people living with AIDS. Among other economic factors, it is reasonable to say that the AIDS movement in the US was so intense and goal-reaching, because the people creating these Principles and fighting the fight were literally fighting for their lives. These 'Activists' had no other choice than to be intense, urgent, and immediate,when they and their friends were dying at frightening rates.

The dying has not stopped but rather transferred to new communities. But we are not hearing as much unified 'AIDS activism' in any concentrated way like the NYC/San Fransisco communities of the 1980's/1990's. In fact perhaps the only worthy comparison of unified AIDS activism would be the Treatment Action Campaign, who founder Zackie Achmat is HIV positive himself. He's already in the shoes from the get-go.

I am pretty confident declaring that no one who works in my Bank office lives in poverty. It is tempting to think we could exponentially increase the motivation and energy of the atmosphere if we really tried to put ourselves in the shoes of the poor (although that would necessitate them having shoes and they often do not -- a complicated endeavor from the start with immense metaphorical implications!). We might take a hint from the recent wave of Obama supporters speaking up to adopt Hussein as their middle name to campaign in solidarity with our own Barack H. Obama. Taking on and understanding the burden of others in order to be better advocates ourselves.

And in many ad campaigns and powerful speeches I think we have tried to do so with certain issues:



But what's our alternative? What if, instead of making sure leaders of poverty-relief institutions could empathize with the poor, we just hired more qualified leaders? Ones with lived experiences of poverty, who know the real issues and real obstacles?

What I am asking is, why is the leadership of UNAIDS not HIV positive? Although the UN offers many services and support to their own HIV + employees, are leaders who do not intimately know the destruction and complication of HIV as qualified to do this job? When leadership has lived through the trials of development, they understand the need for urgency and hard work as a moral obligation to address issues of poverty.

But would it be acceptable or would it be dicriminatory to hire on credentials of real experience? World Bankers raised in poverty get extra points on the application?

This past weekend a few Trumans attended two matches of the Homeless World Cup qualifying tournament t where players had to be homeless in order to make the team. I found the atmosphere so satisfying because no one in the stands - presumably a mix of strangers from the street like us and friends of the players and coaches - absolutely no one cared about the word 'homeless.' They cared about a good soccer game. While players were homeless and the tournament subtly raised attention to an issue of importance, it did so not at the expense of the players' dignity, but rather in celebration of their own agency.

I wonder if and how this day will ever come -- when we see leadership positions within international development filled not exclusively by rich white American men (as EVERY Bank President has EVER been), but with those who have uniquely valuable knowledge to solve the issue.

I feel as though solidarity is far more than just metaphorically putting yourself in the other person's shoes from your position of power. Sometimes you can be a more effective leader by just giving power to and then following those who know better.

xo kho