Event Planning

If a project, carefully designed years ago, comes unstuck because the government does not cooperate, the staff of the agency are the ones who will be blamed, not the government. This has allowed a peculiar system of quid pro quo in relationships with the government to emerge in the Congo. It’s based on the extraordinary but accurate perception that donors need their beneficiaries more than the beneficiaries need the donor, so we cannot afford to alienate them.

This sets in train a fascinating series of bargains.

You want to give us money? OK we’ll agree, provided you also rehabilitate our offices. . . and we need computers and a photocopier. You agree? Good. We also need a car. You won’t give us a car? Then we must seriously reconsider our position.

Some days elapse.

Very well, we will accept your offer, but will need you to pay the salary of a secretary to prepare the monthly reports that you are demanding.

This is a true story, and even to this day, the fact that no car was given provides the beneficiaries with a sense of justifiable grievance.

You didn’t give us a car, so we don’t see why we should co-operate. Don’t be surprised if we keep your big cheese waiting when he comes to meet us on one of his visits from London.

Somehow our project has avoided this sort of blackmail, partly because it does not give commodities and partly because our events do not require much money. That was, until last week.

The Government came to us asking for help in disseminating information about decentralization. In particular, they wanted to involve the Universities. We agreed and set about engaging consultants to lead the day-long debates. Terms of reference were prepared which the Universities accepted.

Then came a stand-off.

They said they had only agreed to hosting the event on the basis of the usual arrangements. It is normal, they claimed, for anyone hosting a function at the University to pay for the support which the university must provide. For example, who will pay for the security guards? You must have security guards to protect the premises and make sure that the students don’t get out of hand. Yes, of course security guards are employed by the University, but they should be given a bonus for helping with an important event like that. And, of course, hostesses: people to usher the VIPs such as Professors, to their seats. How can you run an event without hostesses? And since there must be a report, we will need at least two rapporteurs. Then, of course, a University professor must receive an honorarium to be the Chairman of the proceedings. You cannot expect him to sacrifice his valuable time to an event like this without getting paid. What do you mean, they should want to participate of their own free will, in the spirit of promoting learning? Why? That doesn’t make sense unless they will get paid more.

No, we say stiffly, we don’t do that.

But wait, what is this? The University refers us to the terms of reference which, they say, include all these things. Impossible we claim: the terms of reference say nothing about hostesses. You’re wrong, they say, and there it is, in black and white. Hostesses, security guards, the lot.

Gradually the penny drops. After everything had been approved, someone had cunningly changed the terms of reference and added a list of things that we were supposed to provide: you guessed it, hostesses, security guards, rapporteurs etc etc. They can now, with righteous indignation, claim that we have gone back on our word by refusing to provide hostesses, security guards, you name it . . .

I wonder who thought of that trick? Was this the act of someone creeping into the offices, and under the cover of darkness changing the terms of reference, and sending them by a covert email? You never know.

But before I had had a chance to give a Germanic “Nein”, I was warned that this was a battle better ignored. The University would never have given in.

What’s more we had promised it in our Work Plan which had been approved by our respected funding agency. How bad would it look if we failed to do what we promised?