Giving...

Giving to the sick, the orphaned and the desperately in need is fine.  I am asking: why not use giving as a preventive medicine? If we cement giving socially, it can become a daily habit, as natural as putting on your shoes and looking out the window. We, our kids and our community can give every day. Why wait for disaster to strike? You can prevent disasters from having a devastating impact by giving.

I was shocked when I heard in the past, in the aftermath of the great tsunami, that no more money is needed because humanitarian organisations cannot spend it. In my view, we should be interested in trying to prevent tsunamis from having the devastating effect they are having. We should be interested in discussing the effects of climate change, pollution, global warming and others. We should be interested in giving.

Giving is not just about money; it’s about time, effort, knowledge and thoughts. Giving is about a new climate change that makes us contribute every day to society.

Let us give justly.

And they called her Dignity...

Dignity is the result of credibility. Credibility is the outcome of authority. Authority is a God given right to human beings to look after humanity. When we look at our father and mother and their creation, we find that this cycle of abuse needs to end.

We, as men and women, come from our mother Eve. The dignity of woman is equal to the dignity of man and the authority of woman should be equal to the authority of man. In my view, authority means taking responsibility for our communities.

If a man abuses his authority because a woman can be physically weaker, that man is abusing a whole community. The issue of abuse, rape and sexual harassment is as old as the age of humanity. Why does the civilised world of the 21st century turn a blind eye, keep a deaf ear and turn its back on the victims of such a degrading act?

I cannot believe what I read recently on twitter:

The phrase “national sport” upsets me especially.  Is my mother, my wife, my daughter, my auntie a ball, a net or a stick people toy with?

Our world has a big issue to address through fairness and justice. Do we just turn our back to the victims, whether they are African, Asian, Latino, White, Aboriginal etc.?

We need to come back to the basics of life and remember that humanity cannot function with one hand, cannot be driven on one wheel, cannot see through one eye, heard through one ear or built by one individual. Humanity has to be built by two partners that God created from one another through dignity, respect, honour and equality. If we lose one, we lose humanity.

A doughnut please...

When I was a young boy, playful and energetic, barely in primary school, my mother wisely told me to mix with the less fortunate children.  In my opinion, this is a good way to bring up children in the middle of a cosmopolitan city such as Cairo.

Some people look down on the poor, oprhans, destitute and cannot imagine that somehow, someway, these people could be as “good” as they are or achieve as many things as they can potentially achieve.  When some people see an orphan or a poor child wearing nice clothes, riding a new bicycle or eating a doughnut, they get shocked and think that such things should be above their reach.  In my opinion , thinking that some people are beneath and undeserving is wrong.

The doughnut dilemma is, sadly, happening in the humanitarian field as well. Young, dynamic, innovative organisations are being overlooked. We talk about impartiality, partnership, transparency and empowerment. However, we gasp in shock, just like some people when they see orphans holding a doughnut, when an organisation has an initiative. We look at the size and resources of an organisation, just as we judge an orphan’s appearance.

Whenever I see this attitude in the humanitarian family, I remember what my mother used to tell me when I was a young boy, playing football in the back streets of Cairo. She used to say: “Son, people look at an orphan with pity until they see them eating a doughnut. Then they gasp in shock because they think they don’t deserve good things”.

The climate change and the cooking pot

Today I want to talk to you about another type of climate change.  Some places have four seasons in the year, whereas others have only two. Each season has its own climate and harvest potential.  God is the only one that makes the seasons change and maintains the climate, however human beings are the ones that cannot sit still and always look for change.

We have seen the big debate on the negative climate change that is leading slowly to global warming, desertification and large areas. However, in my opinion, we have also started to see a positive climate change. This time, it’s not about the weather, but about the social climate change. 

Last year, four Arab countries managed to successfully lift the lid of the cooking pot. We have yet to see if they will manage to change what’s inside the cooking pot.

This reminds me of the damage unexpected storms can do to harvests.  Both farmers and change-makers need to realise that taking off the lid is not the end, but the beginning of a long-term process of social climate change. A cooking pot brewing for 35-40 years is bound to have some problems.

I would also like to advise the young change-makers that the national pot doesn’t belong in the national kitchen, but in the international cuisine, doing everyone proud.

The Power

I was invited to deliver a speech at the University in Cairo about humanitarian work as soft power. As we all know, the socio-political and economic field recognises two types of power: hard (politics, economy, military) and soft (media, culture, art, history, religion, fashion, food, sports, technology, language, education, human resources).

In my opinion, westernised audiences are familiar with the effectiveness of the soft power; however I wanted to talk about the context of the Arab Spring.

In my opinion, power reflects strength, ability, command and vision. Soft power, in my understanding, should be the one which can make a change without conflict or over a long period of time. In the cases of Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Tunisia, one of the emerging powers in the Arab Spring has been that of women.

The Soft Power doesn’t stop at those mentioned above; for example, Hard Power can have its own Soft Power, often used by governments to implement policies using the “Carrot and Stick” approach.
While reading around this topic, I came up with a new term: “Rough Power”. This surprised the academia in the room and I saw a few raised eyebrows and shrugging.

In my opinion, Rough Power is the Soft Power that has been changed from being soft, smooth and conflict-free to become confrontational and conflicting for the community. Such examples of soft powers that have been transformed into rough powers are religion and history.

In the example of religion, so-called scholars have misinterpreted certain aspects of the sacred texts. Narrow-mindedness and taking things out of context, together with not keeping up with the times and the emerging culture of civil society has lead to the transformation of religion into Rough Power in some cases, in my opinion.

On the other hand, history has been corrupted as well. Let us take the history written about Muslim communities and countries. It is all about war, conquests, bloodshed, coup d’état, political manoeuvres etc, without focusing on the social aspect of the lives of the millions of people that lived in these countries. Historians failed to mention the achievements of the Soft Power, focusing instead on the Hard Power: military etc.

Another good example of a Soft Power changed into Rough Power is the Media. For various reasons, whether economical or others, some Media outlets fuel cross-cultural conflicts instead of encouraging partnerships.

In my opinion, in every situation, it is a question of moral value. Soft, Hard or Rough, it is still a form of power and it should be used by the citizens to help other citizens. It is not for citizens to use against other citizens. If we focus on the shared values of the citizens of the globe and we use all the power to empower others and maintain the life of other creatures, we are both serving and saving the life of humanity.

The Law Taker

A friend of mine read my blog the other day and was puzzled because they couldn’t understand who the Law Taker was. We left it out intentionally for you to puzzle over so congratulations to those of you that spotted it.

The Law Takers are those people in suits, tuxedos, tailcoats, evening dresses or ball gowns. That’s not all. They also sit at desks in the high offices of power: governments, political parties and economical institutions. They are the ones who are having the final say in the boardroom.

These people will always manage to take the law their way and then bend it, twist it and change it in their favour.

This is why I call them Law Takers. Any investigator will fail in pinning them down and getting the ultimate truth out of them, because even if they have broken moral laws, they haven’t broken any civil laws.

We have seen many such cases all over the world recently. They take the law in their pocket, while we’re left with empty pockets.

Some change please!

Don’t worry, I’m not going to ask you for money, as the title implies. I am asking you for change.

A friend of mine once told me that the only constant in life is change. Change is happening all around us, day and night, every hour and every second. Sometimes we realise, some other times we do not realise, because we are too busy to look around ourselves. Change is part of nature and all creations of God on earth. If we accept that change is part of nature, a process, how can we accept the evolution of change?

For example, development and evolution are long-term processes in the humanitarian field. I am asking you, does evolution entail innovation, renewal, pioneering? Is evolution ever monotonous?

The other day I was discussing with a friend Darwin’s theory. My friend was saying that according to Darwin’s theory, everything starts as an amoeba, and then becomes a monkey and then it becomes a human being. In my view, the philosophy of the development of the evolving process of change has to be put in the gearbox of every civil society and humanitarian organisation.

Whether amoeba becomes a monkey, or a fish becomes a horse is not the issue. In my opinion, to meet the community’s needs, with our expertise, we have to change our amoeba organisational stage into a horse type delivery. Civil society will always be innovative, dynamic and forward-looking. Our work should not be owned by an individual group, party, religious cult or government. It should be community owned and driven to guarantee the safe delivery of the evolutionary process of change.

If one group dictates the process, amoeba can never become man, as this is against the laws of nature. We must go back to the basics, at community grass root level and allow them own the idea of developing the evolutionary process of change to see the pioneering effect of community owning their cause.