Realism and idealism: Kony 2012 in perspective
If you’ve logged on to Facebook in the past several weeks you’ve almost certainly seen a link to the Invisible Children (IC) organization’s “Kony 2012” video that the group uploaded to video hosting website, Vimeo. The video describes and depicts the atrocities committed by Uganda warlord Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).
KONY — Despite its worthy cause, fundraising questions rise about Invisible Children. Photo credit: Invisible Children
The video is a slickly-made production filled with emotional appeals and calls to action. The response to Kony 2012 has been all over the chart, with many enthusiastic supporters plastering every corner of the Internet with links to the video and dressing themselves in Invisible Children T-shirts and various other paraphernalia.
On the other side, the film has its detractors who have criticized Invisible Children on issues ranging from what they describe as IC’s oversimplification of a complex issue to the fact that just over one-third of their finances go toward programs of direct aid to Northern Africa where Kony operates.
My advice to those on both sides of the debate is fundamentally the same: reject easy answers to hard questions. That’s true in just about every aspect of life, but it especially applies here.
IC’s detractors can be broadly filed into one of two camps. The first camp consists of the eye-rolling cynics taking potshots at the “armchair activists” who made the video viral.
The second camp are those with legitimate concerns and complaints regarding IC’s finances and their approach to ending the conflict with military action instead of diplomacy.
As a recovering cynic, I would like to address that camp first. Look guys, I understand where you’re coming from. It can be frustrating when people think that watching a 30-minute video and posting it on the Facebook wall of everyone they’ve ever met, seen or smelled will end a decades-old conflict in Northern Africa. There’s a lot I could say here, but I’ll keep it brief: IC’s supporters may be naive in some respects, but know that we need people like them who believe that positive change is possible. More practical steps must be taken, but they can only be the result of the idealists believing in them.
While not the most prominent of IC’s detractors, the perspective of Anywar Ricky Richard caught my eye. In a piece written for National Geographic NewsWatch, Richard, formerly one of Kony’s child soldiers, pointed out several problems with the Kony 2012 approach. His main opposition to the military approach to stopping Kony comes from the very grim reality that Kony’s forces mainly consist of child soldiers. “As a result,” Richard points out, “any attack will be on the abducted children.” He recommends resuming peace talks and expresses optimism that if the Sudanese government is involved this time, they could have significant positive sway.
“We thank Invisible Children for making people aware of what has happened in Northern Uganda and request they continue to focus their enthusiasm and resources toward building a better Uganda,” Richard said in the article.
The second major criticism is, again, the fact that only 37 percent of IC’s funds go toward programs. The group has, in the wake of these criticisms, made public their financial statement via their website, and have been independently audited by accounting firm Considine and Considine, who gave IC an “unqualified opinion” — which, in layman’s terms, means that nothing in the financial records that IC released is amiss. The rest of IC’s money goes into awareness-raising (which they’ve been very open about) and administrative costs (which every group has). One could argue that awareness-raising is not the best approach at this stage, but to suggest something sinister is afoot financially would not be fair.
To IC’s most fervent supporters I have only this to say: keep fighting the good fight, but be cautious. Learn about the organization you work with and think critically about whether or not their approach is the best approach.
Idealists have the fervor and the enthusiasm to make big things happen and the realists keep the idealists honest and level-headed. We need both realists and idealists to accomplish great things in the world. These two groups should not mistake each other for the enemy.