There are many people in Zambia and around Africa and around the world who seriously question the use of the term “poverty eradication.”  Is this something realistic, feasible, possible, achievable, doable? 

Furthermore, there are many people who question whether churches really have anything significant to contribute to meeting the challenge of poverty over and beyond prayers and the works of charity.  Should the opinions and inputs of churches be taken seriously in the policy debates and decisions surrounding the response to poverty?

In this article I want to address these two important questions.

• First, why should we advocate poverty eradication in Zambia today?

• Second, is there any value-added component in the churches’ participation in the policy debate about poverty eradication?

WHY POVERTY ERADICATION?

From the outset, I want to be analytically very clear that poverty is a sign, a symptom of something very wrong in human society.  And it is also a cause, an influence that perpetuates an unacceptable situation in human society.  What do I mean by that?

Recall the great definition given by Pope Paul VI in his 1967 statement, Progress of Peoples: “Development is the movement from less human conditions to more human conditions.”

• Poverty is a sign that development has not occurred, if people are not enjoying the basic human conditions owed to them by reason of their innate dignity as daughters and sons of God, made in God’s image.

 

• Poverty is a cause that blocks that development by preventing people from working toward these human conditions, marginalising them in the process of empowerment and achievement and thus bringing about more inhumane conditions.

Poverty is not, I repeat is not, a necessary, inevitable human state of being or an acceptable God-willed situation.  It is a consequence of the way we humans have designed the economic, political, social, cultural, gender, ecological and religious structures of society.  It is the explicit outcome of conscious decisions made by some humans. 

This fact is obvious -- simply reflect that there is sufficient food produced in the world today to eliminate global hunger.  But economic and political decisions have been made that prevent access to a daily sufficiency of food to more than two billions of our sisters and brothers this very day, millions of them struggling to survive this very day here in Zambia.

Morevover, here in Zambia, we do indeed have adequate resources  to  meet basic needs such as housing, clean water, education and health services, but we lack committed priorities to put those resources at the disposable of true national development.  Simply put, Ministers drive Mercedes Benz vehicles, children lack schoolbooks!

That is why I frequently prefer, both on analytical grounds of clarity and political grounds of motivation, to speak not of the “poor” but of the “impoverished.”  People are impoverished, in the sense that their condition is by and large an imposed condition, the result of policies and programmes, priorities and politics!

They are indeed poverty-stricken, to use another phrase.  Oh, yes, of course, some people are poor because they are lazy, lack responsibility, and are culturally ready to accept their deprivation.  Oh, yes, maybe 1% of the 80% in Zambia….  But let us be realistic and talk about the vast, overwhelming majority, not the handful of exceptional cases!

I emphasise this obvious point because one still can hear in many circles the assertion that poverty is really a natural situation, one that we realistically cannot speak of ever eradicating.  And then the positive, supposedly irrefutable point is made from Scripture, didn’t Jesus say, “The poor you will always have with you!?”

But, please recall two points.  First, Jesus made this as an empirical observation not as a policy mandate!  Yes, the poor are in our midst, and indeed in great numbers, but that does not mean we should be sure that our policies are such that we perpetuate their presence!

Second, and the strongest point, Jesus made that comment in the scriptural context of the Old Testament recognition that the presence of the poor in our midst is a sign that we are not living out the Covenant.  Deuteronomy makes this very clear.  And that is why Jesus could say so strongly, echoing Isaiah, that his mission was to “bring good news to the poor,” overturning their structural and structured situation by means such as setting prisoners free, opening eyes of the blind (including the blind political and religious leaders!), lifting up the oppressed and proclaiming and establishing the Jubilee rule of freeing slaves, redistributing land and cancelling debts.

IS POVERTY ERADICATION UTOPIA?

But what about this phrase, “poverty eradication” – is not that a bit idealistic, even quite unrealistic, especially in our context of Zambia, or of wider Africa?  Let me make some appropriate distinctions and then conclude why I believe we must keep that phrase of poverty eradication as our solid guide.

• Poverty alleviation – this is the work of lessening the suffering of the poor, meeting their immediate pressing needs.  Welfare, handouts, social security, safety nets, etc.  Deal with the widows and the orphans, the elderly and the handicapped.  This is, basically, the assistance of charity.

 

• Poverty reduction – this is the task of lowering the numbers of those living below the poverty line, eliminating them from the rolls of the deprived.  

Provide them with jobs, with health and education services, with opportunities to rise above the poverty line.  This is, basically, the commitment of development.

• Poverty eradication – this is the challenge of restructuring society so that the impoverished disappear, the immense absolute numbers decrease to minimal exceptional cases.  This calls for planning, for priorities, for shifts in power, for restructuring society, for “revolution.”  This is, basically, the transformation of justice.

Now why would I insist that in our policy debates and decisions we focus on poverty eradication?  Let me give a parallel case.  Let me compare poverty to sin.  For example, the sin of corruption, or adultery, or racism or sexism.  All serious evils, all to be condemned, all to be overcome with God’s gracious help.

• Sin alleviation – well, corruption or adultery, racism or sexism, continues, but we lessen its impact on people who might suffer its consequences.  We comfort the sinned against but do not confront the sinners.

 

• Sin reduction – we try our best to lessen the instances of corruption and adultery, racism and sexism.  We pass restrictive laws, we educate and promote moral development to reduce the numbers of sin.  Adultery three times a month, not three times a week….

 

• Sin eradication – we work to change the attitudes of hearts and the structures of society that make sin present, that encourages and facilitates corruption, adultery, racism and sexism.  While recognising the universal and lasting presence of “original sin,” we promote a conversion that would do away with its influence and its suffering

Now you and I know that it is not possible to completely eradicate sin in this, our human vale of tears.  We have no heaven on earth!  Yet this is an ideal that we labour to achieve, that we struggle to establish.  Because we have a vision of honesty, of fidelity, of respect for human dignity, we do not rest with only alleviating the suffering of sin or reducing its numerical instances.

No, we commit ourselves to eradicating the sin, with a cooperative effort to realise the ideal that we pray for every day: “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven!”

And so it is in the task of poverty eradication.  This phrase or concept, with its attendant policies and priorities, gives us a vision that motivates our hearts and guides our heads – ultimately, that opens our hands in our active involvement to transform society.

Let me add that it also gives us a particular direction in our work at the JCTR.  One of our close partners in the work of justice, development and peace in Zambia, Professor V. Seshamani of the Department of Economics of the University of Zambia, has cautioned that a focus on reduction in numbers of those classified as poor – e.g., reducing the poverty statistic by 15% or 20% in the next ten years – can miss the most important dynamics of society.

For we can have policies that provide those close to the line of poverty with improved conditions (e.g., health, housing) and thus pull them above the line, thereby reducing the absolute number to some desired goal.  But these very desirable policies might not “trickle down” to those living far below the poverty line, the really destitute.  Yes, some improvement, but in the instances of poverty and not in the intensity of poverty.

Professor Seshamani argues -- and I believe his argument should influence our own work in Zambia -- that poverty strategies should focus primarily on those who are most extremely poor and enable them to move progressively to less extreme, less inhuman, levels -- even if this does not significantly reduce the absolute levels of poverty.  While such a policy might not appeal to our international partners or national political leaders who emphasise poverty reduction, it promises to lay a more solid foundation for the poverty eradication that must be our clear goal.

Valued-Added Dimension of CST

The African Forum for Catholic Social Teaching (AFCAST) considers the church’s social teaching (CST) to be something that is realistically very important, contextually very worthwhile, and potentially very influential.  Before addressing the second question about the value-added dimension of the CST, let me most briefly explain what this CST is, where it is found and what its purpose is.  Let me reveal what has often been called “the church’s best kept secret”!  This is a very brief synthesis of what our Church’s Social Teaching Project does at the JCTR and what Joe Komakoma (of the Cathoilc Centre for Justice, Development and Peace) and I share in our classes and workshops here in Zambia.

By CST, I mean the body of social wisdom, about human individuals in society, and about the structures of that society that enable humanity to come to its fullness.  That social wisdom (touching both head and heart) can be found in:

• Scripture

• Writings of theologians

• Documents of churches

• Witness of just persons and communities.

Sometimes we tend to focus primarily on the documents, but we know that the authority and the authenticity, the relevance and the credibility of the documents come from their foundation in scripture, their clarification in theological reflection, and their evidence in lived experience.

The purpose of the social teaching can be said to be three-fold:

• Personal: to guide individual consciences in making just decisions – e.g., about wages to pay, the treatment of woman, the respect for the environment.

 

• Ecclesial: to shape the response of the church to social issues – e.g., about racial attitudes, political involvement, care for the poor.

 

• Societal: to influence the activities and structures of the public sector – e.g., about economic policies, international relations, peace and war decisions.

A very important point to note about the church’s social teaching is that it does not provide a set of answers or a course of prescriptions.  Rather it offers guidelines to follow, questions to ponder, directions to pursue.  It is a light for our paths, not a roadmap for our journeys.

To be specific to this topic, can the church’s social teaching provide an approach to poverty eradication that offers a viable alternative to the rigid prescriptions of orthodox economics (or what is often referred to as the “Washington Consensus” developed by the World Bank, IMF and USA Treasury)?  You know very well that this orthodox economics of neo-liberalism controlled the recent Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) we endured – and continue to endure -- in Zambia (the most rigid and most rapid adjustment programme on the continent of Africa) and now may pre-determine so much of the PRSP activities today.

But to offer an alternative approach requires more than a mere outline of different policies and strategies.  Fundamentally, it requires another vision of what is valuable, another perception of what is possible, another recognition of what is required.

I believe that we can be helped to offer that vision, perception and recognition through reflection upon the heritage of our church’s social teaching.   While I must repeat that this church’s social teaching does not offer specific answers and concrete  programmes, I want to emphasise that it does provide a framework of principles and values that enable us to address specifics in a holistic fashion.  And in this direction lies its value-added dimension to public policy debates. 

To speak directly to the issue of poverty eradication as the desired goal of policies to be pursued in Zambia by the people and their government (I purposively repeat, the people and their government!), there are four stages where the church’s social teaching offers a value-added dimension:

• Entry point: what is the foundation for our approach to poverty eradication programmes?

 

• Process:  how is the poverty eradication strategy designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated?

 

• Content:  what are the major priorities that are manifested in the programmes?  Who is benefiting from the changes and bearing the burden of the changes?

 

• Outcome:  what are the consequences in society at large of the poverty eradication programmes?

ENTRY POINT

The church’s social teaching takes as its entry point into policy formulation a belief in the fundamental dignity of every human person.  This is a scriptural teaching – Genesis 1:27.  Made in the image and likeness of God, every woman and every man has basic rights and corresponding duties.  These are inalienable and are not the consequence of benign state action but rather of generous creative endowment.

That is to say, the state does not grant rights, only God grants rights.  The state has the obligation to protect, foster and promote rights.  (This point should be especially remembered as here in Zambia -- and elsewhere in Africa -- we debate constitutional review.)

The dignity of every person arises not from any human quality or accomplishment nor is it the consequence of any human achievement or attainment.  It knows no specification because of gender or race, age or economic status.  In economic parlance, human beings are not units of production or outputs of transformations.  Human beings are not the objects but the subjects of economic activity.  Put simply in the CST, the economy exists for the person, the person does not exist for the economy.

This belief in the fundamental dignity of every human person requires not only that people are treated in ways that reflect and respect their inherent dignity, but also that every policy, every programme and every priority must be measured and evaluated by whether it enhances or diminishes human life and dignity.

To speak directly to the issue of poverty eradication, this principle of CST serves as an entry point that orients all else that follows.  We are not dealing with technical or mechanical or automatic or purely natural arrangements in society.  We are dealing with arrangements affecting persons whose worth and dignity is a consequence of their imaging the infinite worth and dignity of their Creator.

Poverty and poverty eradication are not primarily economic issues.  They are moral issues.  I believe that in Zambia this conception has the value-added force of clarifying issues and motivating responses.

PROCESS

The equal dignity of each human person demands that decisions that affect persons must involve those persons in the process of decision-making.  As you know, according to the conditions required by the World Bank and the IMF, the preparation of the PRSP must involve “meaningful participation of civil society”.

We know that in Zambia it has meant the truly creative and meaningful input of Civil Society for Poverty Reduction (CSPR).   But it is important to emphasise here that participation in the PRSP process is not simply a political device to gain support of the programme but rather it is an ethical demand to guarantee legitimacy to the orientation of the programme.

I want to argue that respect for involvement of “civil society” can be seen to be a contemporary expression of the traditional church’s social teaching principle of “subsidiarity,” i.e., the requirement that decisions should be made at the closest possible level to the people affected.

Subsidiarity disperses authority to the maximum feasible local focus by involving people not in perfunctory consultation – “What do you think of this document we expert outsiders have prepared?” – but in genuine participation – “What shall we do together to come up with a consensual document?”  As we all know, in policy preparation there is a world of difference between consultation and participation!

Involvement of civil society thus requires both (1) a democratic mechanism that assures adequate representation of all interests and (2) a technical capacity that assures competent input into the process.

CSPR has struggled in Zambia in the past two years -- sometimes with encouraging successes and other times with discouraging setbacks -- to establish a democratic mechanism in the process that respects the rights of individuals to participate in choices that affect their lives.  When the World Bank and IMF emphasise that the PRSP must be “home grown” (i.e., designed through processes driven by countries themselves), this must be accompanied by concrete steps that ensure that all parties operate in a public, transparent and accountable fashion.  For example, public review of agreements between lending institutions and governments must be mandated at each stage.  Monitoring of implementation must be integral to the programmes.

Moreover, putting the principle of subsidiarity into practice in the PRSP process requires that national governments and their citizens should ultimately hold authority to decide their own economies and national development plans, according to their knowledge, experience and values.  In my opinion, it is neither ethical nor efficient for the World Bank or the IMF to hold a “veto” power over PRSP documents that arise from a well-deliberated and widely consultative process.

Furthermore, commitment to strengthening the capacity of civil society to comprehend and analyze technical information on poverty and economics is also essential if subsidiarity is to be truly effective.

Therefore, emphasis on the rights to participation requires that the new opportunities for input into PRSP must be strengthened through capacity-building efforts (information gathering, analytical skills, advocacy planning, monitoring capacities, etc.).  I am pleased to say that our efforts in Zambia have indeed been assisted by our cooperating partners to secure a very high level of competence.

CONTENT

The substance of economic reform programmes that are influenced by the church’s social teaching should be marked by two fundamental principles: first, mutually shared rights and responsibilities, or the promotion of the common good.  Second, special concern for the least advantaged in society, or the preferential option for the poor.

Common good considerations raise basic questions about consequences in the ordinary lives of citizens. 

• Who receives the benefits from economic reform programmes?

• Who bears the burden that such programmes create?

The principle of the common good requires that the elements of the reform programmes should benefit everyone in society, not simply the rich and the powerful.  The benefits must be clearly directed towards all.  So-called “trickle down” benefits coming to the less advantaged from the investments and achievements of the rich -- something always more promised than realised -- are simply not acceptable.

Moreover, the burdens of economic transition toward a more open market -- such as down-sized budgets, retrenched work forces and market-driven increases in the cost of living  -- should  not  fall only on those who already are suffering from economic hardships, leaving fairly untouched the already advantaged sectors of society.  The common good requires a sharing of burdens as well as a sharing of blessings.

Let me highlight here what I believe to be one clear consequence of an emphasis upon promotion of the common good.  This is the qualified place to be accorded the operations of the free market.  Yes, the church’s social teaching has been suspicious of command economies (socialist models).

But it has also been suspicious of liberalised economies (capitalist models).  The challenge to both comes from the same principle: the promotion of the common good.  So in the construction of poverty eradication programmes, we have to weigh the operation of the market, or, to put it into the jargon of the day, we must appraise macro-economic structural adjustments in light of their impact on the value outcome of their operations.  I like the expression of one analyst I recently read: “The market may be a good servant but it is indeed a bad master."

Second, the principle of the option for the poor means that the content of economic reform programmes must be evaluated in terms of their impact on the most vulnerable part of society, the poor, especially women and children.  The content of poverty eradication programmes obviously are oriented toward the poor, but whether or not the poor actually benefit is something to be rigoursly analysed, constantly monitored and diligently evaluated.

Pro-poor programmes should provide not only social sector development (e.g., health and education) but also productive sector opportunities (e.g., agriculture services for small farmers, youth employment generation schemes, micro-credit facilities for women, etc.).  Economic growth objectives must be pro-poor from the start.

Poverty concerns should not be tacked on to traditional macro-economic policies as after-thoughts.   And when tensions or trade-offs emerge between growth-oriented and poverty-oriented policies, they should be resolved in favour of poverty-oriented policies.

To repeat points made earlier, these content concerns from CST for  both  the  common  good  and the option for the poor can be summed up in the oft-cited principle that the economy exists for the person, not  the  person for the economy.  This states clearly the primacy of human dignity and rights as the foundation for all economic activity.  I believe this is the point behind the advocacy of the Catholic Commission for Justice Peace (CCJP) for a truly pro-poor budget, advocacy based upon CST and shown, for example, in its recent Pre-Budget 2003 Public Forum.

OUTCOME

Finally, we can rightly ask, where is this poverty eradication emphasis headed?  In the long run, what would we hope to achieve?

The overall vision of the church’s social teaching for society is expressed in the principle of solidarity, the recognition of the interconnectedness -- ethical as well as empirical -- of personal and institutional activities that make up the social fabric of human existence.

In the church’s social teaching, solidarity is promoted in conscious acts that build community.  When economic activity undercuts community -- e.g., creating the great gaps between rich and poor that exist in Zambia today -- then solidarity is destroyed.   Poverty eradication programmes and promotion of pro-poor economic growth build up real solidarity.

If ever we wanted to sense the idealistic character of CST, it is here when we speak about the principle of solidarity.  Pope John Paul II has spoken most eloquently about solidarity -- moving it beyond mere interdependence or a system of interrelationships based on economic factors alone.  He calls it a moral category, rooted ultimately in the religious fact of the community of solidarity manifested in the life of the Trinity.

Solidarity among humans is not vague compassion for the less privileged but active structuring of a society of mutual and socially just sharing.  The outcome for a poverty eradication programme would be a society where great gaps between rich and poor do not exist, at national as well as global levels.

Let me be clear: solidarity does not demand an egalitarian society where everyone has exactly the same.  But it does demand a more equitable society where the gross inequalities of participation and distribution are eliminated.  And that, as you can appreciate, is an immense task!

One contribution that we at the JCTR try to make to this task is the preparation of our monthly Basic Needs Basket -- basing our interventions on the principle of solidarity  that   calls   for   policies such as a poverty datum line, minimal wages, gender sensitivity, control of prices on basic necessities, and elimination of discriminatory fees for health and education services.

Another component of solidarity that must be emphasised is ecological, since we humans are always members of the earth community and must be respectful of the rights and demands of that community -- e.g., environmental justice.  This means that the outcome of poverty eradication programmes must also be evaluated in terms of the impact on the community of creation.  To be honest, this is something that we are still learning in the unfolding of the church’s social teaching.

Finally, let me note that the outcome of solidarity offers a powerful reason for something important for us in Zambia and at the JCTR, the Jubilee Campaign.  Support of the Jubilee principle of canceling debts, redistributing land and freeing slaves is support for concrete actions aimed at restoring the bonds of broken community and thus assuring the reality of solidarity.

In recent years, there may have been some people who were surprised at the very strong support in Zambia and around Africa, indeed, around the world, of the Jubilee 2000 movement.  But for those aware of the clear lessons of the church’s social teaching, especially the teaching on solidarity, there is no surprise!

Conclusion

The Zambian case study has offered a picture of poverty and the approach to meeting it through the PRSP.  Since I have said that our ultimate goal is poverty eradication, I have asked what that means and what value added-dimension comes from bringing the church’s social teaching into the policy debates and decisions.

This case study should not be a purely academic exercise or an interesting exhibition of yet another heroic but futile attempt to change the course of history.  No, I want it to be a stimulant for discussion and a focus for questions.  But ultimately, I want it to be a motivator for action.

Peter Henriot, S.J.
JCTR Staff
Lusaka