Disability politics

In two days, over two interviews, I gained brief exposure to the deep and complicated politics of the disability sector in Zambia. Who said a cause as urgent and worthy as the rights of persons with disabilities wasn't political?

On Sunday, a successful lawyer, well-established on the boards of various political agencies and non-governmental organizations, physically disabled since age four, agreed to participate in my awareness-raising project. We spoke on my veranda for the good part of three hours.

Among other things, he mentioned the weekly column on disability affairs he publishes in Zambia's most widely read newspaper, The Post, called "The Disability Desk." I was surprised and impressed by the reach of such a column and the level of publicity already enjoyed by disability advocates in Zambia. He told me about his latest column, which argues for the importation of seeing-eye dogs to help the blind in Zambia. Again, it surprised me that such issues were being discussed in the newspaper that half the people in the street seem to be reading at any given time.

The next day, I met up with a second prominent disabled person, a lifelong civil servant who lost his sight from cataracts in his early childhood. He has also served on various boards and even directed the precursor to Zambia's current government agency concerned with disability. He also agreed to participate in my project.

When I mentioned the man I interviewed the day before, his first reaction was to bring up the column about the seeing-eye dogs. Seeing-eye dogs are the last thing Zambia's blind need, he said. They're expensive to train. Blind people are poorer on average than other Zambians – where would the dogs stay? What would they eat? In a culture that doesn't value dogs as domestic pets, they would surely be abused – by people and by other dogs.

Similarly, while the former emphasized the importance of litigating rights, of suing those who breach the rights of persons with disabilities, the latter questioned this approach. While litigation might work in Canada or the U.S., he said, Zambia is a country of advocacy, of discussion. For example, $50,000 put towards strategic advocacy and lobbying goes much further in Zambia than $50,000 put towards litigation. With the money used for advocacy, one could even sit down with relevant ministers and influence policy directly.

These simple disagreements between two individuals represent the world of obstacles that the disability sector in Zambia faces. Added to a shortage of funds and political will, there is fragmentation among disabled people's organizations (DPOs) and controversy over who should represent the voices of disabled people. In my numerous interviews, I learned that both the government agency and the civil society umbrella concerned with disabled people are seen as largely ineffective, yet it is they who receive most donor funds.

Back in October, I worked with Dr. Bob to draft a national civil society programme on disability. I modeled it on various studies already conducted on Zambia, as well as international norms and case studies. Yesterday, I learned that Dr. Bob pitched this programme to major Norwegian donors while in Oslo for the signing of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and received a highly favourable response. The gist of their approach and mine is to seek out smaller organizations and build up their capacity, rather than lazily channeling funds through the larger umbrellas. It looks like the Norwegians are serious in the long term, and plan to invest heavily to build up a stronger foundation of disabled people's organizations.

This is exciting! In the meantime, I have been working on a more modest project and avoiding politics at all cost. I'll post my posters in a few days.