While dropping Celine and Taryn, who were visiting from Rwanda, off at the bus stop, I was approached by a scruffy looking man with red eyes and slurred speech. He asked me for a 1000 shillings (40 cents). He had a very nice argument for why I should give him the money: "It means nothing to you".
If you look around my car, you will find around 10,000 shillings in loose change and notes lying around. The disregard with which they are strewn around the car is proof that I am not missing them. I have essentially written it off as lost funds. And yet, I will not give the guy a 1000 shillings. Why?
"It will make them dependent on it" - I am all for foreign aid. Do we believe that as a nation, Uganda is capable of resisting dependence but at as individuals Ugandans cannot? That seems absurd and a little hypocritical. Or maybe the parallel I have drawn here is not correct. The assumption is that we don't want a city full of beggars. If 100 dollars are given, there will be 100 dollars worth of begging since there aren't any opportunities that provide a higher return. The more money that is given, the higher the number of beggars. Coming back to the assumption that I quickly glazed over, do we want a city full of starving coat hanger vendors working the traffic lights or comparatively well fed beggars working the bus stations? One is a contributing factor to GDP while the other isn't.
"They will use the money to contribute to social evils" - I am responsible for how my money is spent. This is why I don't donate to Al Qaeda. I am assuming that money will go to "evil" but I it is not always true.
The real reason I didn't fork out the 40 cents is that he smelt terrible but was not threatening enough for me to buy my safety and I felt no personal connection to him. Though if you pressed me, I would use one of the arguments above.
**********
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/09/21/the_welfare_queens_of_ramadan
**********
No comments:
Post a Comment