The Dilemma of Change

The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it. Remember that to change thy mind and to follow him that sets thee right, is to be none the less the free agent that thou wast before. Observe always that everything is the result of a change, and get used to thinking that there is nothing Nature loves so well as to change existing forms and to make new ones like them.
-Marcus Aurelius “Meditations”

Change is not a function of time but of movement. In the absence of movement, there is no measurement of time. From where does change originate? My experience with the NGO’s in Africa is consumed with the issue of change. All of the good intentions for change mean nothing if change is not the result.
I do not have answers. Only questions.

Several times already, I have been faced with the dilemma of temporary change versus permanent change. Giving someone food merely makes them dependent on you for food. The real goal is a populace that makes its own food.

My friend in Nairobi works with an NGO that provides support to the Kenya Network of Women with Aids. Many of the children as a result have aids. This week they completely ran out of food. Most of this food came as donations from businesses. The drought last year eliminated the surplus that created these donations. Giving money may not help because the money can "disappear". I've thought about hiring a truck full of food but the truck would also "disappear" in the slums. Even if enacted successfully, neither of these solutions is sustainable. In Kenya, you need street savvy as much as you need altruism. Africa is the graveyard of good intention.
There are those who would say that good intention in itself is a worthy goal whether change is the result or not. I find instead that naïve good intention leaves behind ruin and dissatisfaction. Catastrophic social change is a boil requiring the pain of the lance unless change is considered with savvy and forethought. Gradual and effective social change is incremental and works within what is sometimes the troubled system itself. Gradual and effective social change will factor into the equation the inefficiencies of the present system with a view toward the gradual standing down of that ineffectual system i.e. sometimes you have to add the bribe to the cost of effective change until accountable systems come online.

What happens when the cost of affecting change means enriching the pockets of the very people causing the problem? Are you creating an unsustainable system by encouraging the very thing that you are trying to alleviate? Should the simple act of providing food and water be adulterated with politics, graft and corruption? Is it inevitable? Should every aid budget have a line item saying “corruption fee”. It’s like drinking fetid water on a lifeboat. You really need the water but at what cost. Should we even think twice about paying these fees when you know 35 children who are less than 3 miles from you going to bed hungry? Immediate gratification or long term pain for the sake of permanent change?