When do politics matter?
by Rachel Berkowitz on February 15, 2010
“Solo se puede cambiar la salud con cambios politicos.”
Changes in health can only happen with changes in politics.
-Dr. Miguel Orellana
After a brutal civil war, the 1992 Peace Accords, and 20 years of right wing rule by the Arena Party, last March El Salvador elected its first FMLN president, Mauricio Funes, with 51.3% of the vote. Sitting in Dr. Miguel Orellana's office learning more about ASPS, we weren't expecting a lesson on the manifestation of the former guerilla party's ideology in contemporary Salvadorian nonprofit work. According to Dr. Orellana, many of the leaders of current social justice/human rights/global health equity oriented groups are headed by former "compas" (former guerilla army fighters and sympathizers). Though opposing political groups malign the FMLN as a "terrorist organization", according to our faithful Lonely Planet guide,"El Salvador's FMLN has proven to be a model example of a former guerrilla organization successfully joining the formal political process."
Several meetings into our time in El Salvador we've recognized the strength of this network and its ability to effectively enact community-based health interventions. It seems now, that the government is on their side, this network and the work it is doing really has an opportunity to blossom. And though we were warned by another organization in San Salvador to stay away from the language of "human rights" and rather focus on "human needs" so as not to isolate ourselves politically, this type of language has in fact been a strong context for connecting GlobeMed with some of the organizations that have excited us the most.
There has been an on-going debate in our network both about how GlobeMed as an organization should relate to political issues and campaigns and about how an individual chapter should relate to the politics of its partner's country. How do you understand GlobeMed's current relationship with politics? Given that the values of these self-proclaimed left-leaning organizations align so intimately with our own, we are inclined toward pursuing potential partnerships with these organizations. Would these partnerships, however, be inherently political? How would this type of partnership relate to GlobeMed's concerns about being overtly political? Are we already political? If these explicitly left-leaning, politically-minded groups are the originations doing the most effective community health work in a country, do their politics matter?
This post is #7 of an ongoing series for the GlobeMed Partner Search Fellows Program, through which GlobeMed's two PSFP Fellows, Rachel Berkowitz and Hannah Robbins, aim to build partnerships between GlobeMed and 15 new community-based health NGOs in Central and South America. These posts will help us follow their journey, as Rachel and Hannah help GlobeMed expand to new university chapters and community-based partners this coming year. To read the entire series of blog posts, click here.
Victor says on February 15, 2010 at 5:38pm:
Important and difficult issue. Indeed, politics does matter, but how we define "politics" in these contexts is really important, along with how GlobeMed defines its core goals when forming a partnership. On the former point, I think we need to realize that politics is part of any partnership; but the type of politics is key. Are we dealing with the politics of figuring out how to best deliver health and other key human "needs" or "rights" (the language in this case matters less to me)? Or are we dealing with the politics of "left" and "right", of posturing and positioning for political gain? Or, are we dealing with the politics of direct revolution, side-stepping a democratic, non-violent political process? These are all different types of politics. To me, only answers to the first question I pose aligns with GlobeMed's mission and goals in working in partnership, and it's vital to see clearly through the complexity of the varied forms of "politics".Evan Blank says on February 17, 2010 at 2:17am:
Thanks Rachel (and Hannah!) for another great blog post. You’ve raised some really important and deep seated questions. In short, I believe that GlobeMed is already political. Regardless of whether we like it or not, many people do not share our network’s vision of health as a human right. While we may not openly discuss it, our actions on the ground, including our choices of partners, projects and communities have political consequences. I was struck by this during my time in Uganda while attending a commissioning ceremony of a local development project. The project was completely funded by USAID, yet the plaque on the building only displayed a local politician’s name. In reality, the US taxpayer unwittingly subsidized a politician’s re-election campaign in rural Uganda. Is this ok if the politician’s constituents received the services they required? I’m not sure that the answer is cut and dry. As an organization that is concerned with not only the health but human rights of the impoverished around the world, we have an obligation to ensure that our partnerships strengthen the overall well being of communities. With this in mind, we must strive to find partners that are advocates for the poor and have strong support from the communities that they serve. Although it certainly is a delicate balancing act, a partner’s political leanings should not automatically disqualify them if they are a strong advocate of health equity and human rights. As always, it would be great to hear what everyone else has to say on this subject. Keep up the great work guys!Best neurosurgical hospital says on March 10, 2010 at 4:12am:
Pleasurable Post! I feel affection for your post.