The Cure for African Underdevelopment: God.

A recent article in the Times seeks to ruffle a few feathers by suggesting that African development is dependent upon faith. The development industry, guided by secular voices, cannot bridge the current gaps that prevent Africans from taking ownership over their own development. Faith, or at least the evangelical espousing by faith-based NGOs and their ilk, provides the proper grounding and renewal (or rebirth) necessary for real development to take place.

The author, Matthew Parris, says that he has come to the realization, against his rationalization as an atheist, that religious (he focuses his argument to Christianity) organizations are the best conduit to development. He writes of his time in Malawi, "In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall."

This is contrasted with the tribal beliefs that foment hostility and individualism. "Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders."

This groupthink (his word) stifles creativity and prevents individualism and, by extension, entrepreneurial experimentation. Therefore, he argues, before we can advocate development "A whole belief system must first be supplanted."

I won't quote the final statement but it is, to my mind, especially condescending.

The responses to the 'article' are almost evenly divided between those that applaud Parris' argument and those that cringe at his selective memory. A couple of interesting points are below:

"I was born in Nyasaland, too. I am delighted to hear of good works but fear that things are just a bit more complex than Matthew thinks.

How, for example, does he view decades of Catholic teaching against contraception (i,e use of condoms)?"

Robert in Vancouver is more direct:

"Balderdash. Missionaries should never have entered Africa -or any other country - in the first place, disrupting culture on a devastating scale

I say this in honour of the millions killed and traditions abolished by the Holy cross and the white habits.

Oh, those Brits will never learn !"

Thoughts?