“مراقب باشید”

“Be careful”
Goddess Amani

Throughout the history of charity work, one of the approaches to dealing with social problems such as poverty, homelessness, hunger, and illness has been through charity actions. Charity actions, both on an individual and organizational level, have been one of the simplest, most immediate, instinctive, and emotional ways of dealing with social afflictions. Modern technology has provided new forms in the field of charity work and social participation, making the collection of financial aid a global and widespread citizen participation. The collection of financial aid for earthquake victims in Haiti and Nepal through mobile phones and support projects in providing goods and services through virtual institutions and platforms that exist for collecting financial aid has made the “charity-centered” approach easier than ever before in history.

The positive aspect of the “charity-centered” approach is that the needs of the beneficiaries can be directly and immediately met. However, one of the shortcomings of this approach, in its individual and organizational dimension, is that the beneficiaries and recipients are not present in the process of addressing their needs, and these needs are addressed from the perspective of charity providers. The lack of interaction and active involvement of the beneficiaries results in them remaining in a cycle of poverty, violence, homelessness, and other social problems even after their immediate needs are met. The “charity-centered” approach, which is also encouraged and promoted in various religions, is not a sustainable long-term solution and the power dynamics between the charity worker and the beneficiary will continue to exist, with the dependency and reliance in these relationships remaining unchanged. The beneficiary is not empowered to break free from the cycle of problems and social issues that they are struggling with, and cannot use their own power and abilities to address their needs.

Another approach that exists in dealing with the needs of beneficiaries is the “needs-based” approach, which is the opposite of the “charity-based” approach. Since the mid-20th century, the idea that individual and group charity actions, interaction and dialogue, consultation, and the presence of beneficiaries in responding to and meeting their needs is essential for addressing the needs of beneficiaries and the economic development of communities. The process of identifying the needs of beneficiaries should involve their participation so that donors of goods and services can be more effective in their actions. This way of thinking not only played a key role in shaping the “right to development” movement in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a human right, but also had a significant impact on the performance of civil society groups and organizations.

Therefore, today many grassroots organizations and human-friendly foundations invite individuals who have experienced these social harms to their board of directors. In the board of directors of safe shelters for women who have experienced violence, women who have been empowered and saved themselves from the cycle of violence, and in organizations that are active in defending the rights of cardboard sleepers, refugees, and migrants, there are definitely several of them present. This leads to more effective and efficient decision-making, interaction, and exchange of ideas between those who receive aid and the organizations and individuals who provide it.

The “needs-based” approach in addressing the needs of beneficiaries at the local, national, and international levels in developing countries was the dominant discourse for several decades. This approach was more effective compared to the “charity-based” approach or charitable aid. Its strength was the mutual interaction between aid givers and receivers, and the mutual respect in meeting needs. The weakness of this approach was the lack of participation of civil society organizations, foundations, and group activities in creating structural changes in the political sphere. The belief that non-governmental and civil society organizations should not participate in government work and policy-making at the local and national levels maintained a duality and a paradigm of the beneficiary and the benefactor, the poor and the wealthy, and did not hold those in power and government institutions accountable. Since these institutions and public participation can only be realized when there are economic resources, meeting the needs of beneficiaries is only done at a small and minimum level without continuity, and long-term solutions are not achieved at

At the international level, development projects and economic aid have truly failed to bridge the enormous gap between poverty and wealth in each of the world’s countries and between countries on three continents and the Western world.

In individual and civil society settings, this approach can lead to frustration and emotional deadlock for aid workers and their institutions; because without intervention and breaking the cycles of social problems and structural changes, it will continue to revolve around the same issues.

The “rights-based” or “human rights” approach is based on recognizing human rights and human dignity. Human dignity is a natural and inherent right of every individual and plays a central role in the discourse of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent covenants and treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are among the guarantors and protectors of the “rights-based”, “human-centered” and “rights-based social development” approach.

The absence of discrimination and equality for all individuals in the enjoyment of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights, without any racial, sexual, gender, religious, age, ethnic, political beliefs, gender identity, and other distinctions, is the political framework of the “rights-based” approach and human rights for all members of human society.

The right to housing, education, work, health, economic development, and other rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent treaties is an inseparable set that no one can violate and everyone is entitled to equally. The responsibility and accountability for ensuring the human rights of citizens in society falls on the government and its affiliated institutions. In fact, by signing international documents, including those that emphasize human rights, countries commit to providing these rights to their holders – who are members of society.

Furthermore, responding to the needs of beneficiaries and addressing social harms in the “rights-based” approach requires a strong and independent judicial system to ensure fair laws that respect and protect the rights of citizens. Therefore, the “rights-based” approach can only be effective in addressing social harms at a macro level when society is built on freedom and democracy. The “rights-based” approach also relies on a capable civil society and independent grassroots organizations that can monitor the government and its affiliated institutions in ensuring the human rights of citizens and holding the government accountable for fulfilling its international obligations.

In fact, passing from charity to “justice” can provide long-term solutions in not only addressing the needs of beneficiaries and social problems at a macro level in society, but also empowering them to elevate the community.

If the “charity-oriented” approach addresses the urgent needs of food, clothing, health, and emergency issues, the “rights-oriented” approach questions the level of wages, employment in society, homelessness, cardboard and grave sleepers, and seeks to find and address its roots. If the “charity-oriented” approach deals with social harms in terms of their immediate removal, the “rights-oriented” approach questions the overall budget of the country, the gap between poverty and wealth, social and financial corruption, non-payment of taxes by capitalists, and unfair distribution of wealth. If the “charity-oriented” approach addresses the medical needs of patients, the “rights-oriented” approach looks at the healthcare system in a just and equitable manner, questions the deaths of poor children, exorbitant medical costs, and drug prices set by pharmaceutical companies (in this regard, it is worth mentioning that, for example, American pharmaceutical companies often raise the prices of some drugs exorbitantly without any consideration).

If the “charity-centered” approach addresses the needs of returning soldiers and families of fallen soldiers, the approach of justice and “rights-based” turns towards the right of humans to peace and pays attention to the roots of war and policies that cause war conflicts.

Freedom and democracy create an encouraging space for social participation in addressing social issues and meeting the needs of vulnerable individuals. The level of social participation of citizens and the spirit of collective support in society reflects the social well-being, a sense of camaraderie and overcoming “indifference” and “apathy”. The modern social movement of human rights or the rights-based approach does not operate from a position of weakness, but rather from a position of power, relying on the community, government, and related institutions to be responsible and committed to meeting the needs of citizens.

The “charity-based” and “needs-based” approaches cannot bring about social changes for the benefit of the majority of a community. Social movements and the “rights-based” movement are necessary for addressing social injustices and creating a platform for political changes and policies that address the structural and root causes of social problems and the suffering of those in need. The political will and moral and legal obligations of those in power, in cooperation with the participation of citizens and grassroots organizations, are the only hope for tackling issues such as hunger, homelessness, poverty, and other social and economic challenges. We must “break the sky and create a new plan.”