Moral Dilemma - Is Rotary a hypocrisy?

In my early encounters with Rotary, I primarily perceived the organization as a bunch of supercilious and showy people who meet regularly to wine and dine, occasionally sparing a moment for those who are not as fortunate as they are. I first came into contact with Rotary at Makerere University through a friend who was a Rotaractor at the time. I considered the organization that used to meet at the University Guild canteen a group of rich children whose parents had residences in the plush and pristine neighborhoods of Nakasero, Kololo, and possibly Muyenga. I did not consider myself – with humble origins from Nakafumu - worthy of being a member. I firmly but politely turned down many attempts to be enticed into joining this brood. More than a decade later, I was approached again and this time, I decided to join. After 11 years of my life as a Rotarian, I must say I am proud to be associated with Rotary, and what it does, to the extent that I have managed to convince three other people to join the organization. It is true that there is some wining and dining, but on the whole, Rotary does a lot of good for humanity. That notwithstanding, recently, I read two books that are forcing me to re-examine my membership in Rotary. Life is full of dilemma, you know. Time and again you have to choose between A and B, yet none of them is likely to give you the peace you are looking for. I am now in that state – a state that makes me think that being part of Rotary and associating with its activities may be morally wrong, while on the other hand, I believe that keeping away from Rotary is selfish and unethical. The essence of my dilemma is that Rotary may be trying to solve a problem it creates – a quandary that accepts one truth only to discover a contradictory one. As a young man attaining adulthood in the late 80s - when communism had started collapsing - I need no second invitation to be convinced that capitalism is the best socio-economic system. History teaches us that after the death of feudalism in the 19th century, three choices became available to the world. The question then was, what would the new politico-economic system be - communism, capitalism or the third way? It can be comfortably argued that the third way was a ‘still birth’. Of the other two choices, while communism sounded great in theory, it never really worked leading to its demise or the collapse of countries that so ardently practiced it. Capitalism on the other hand thrived, providing a healthy, happy society where one could buy whatever they wanted, at a price. Capitalism is built on the notion that the harder one works, the greater one’s reward. It encourages competition usually rewarding richly those who work hard and almost nothing to those who don’t. No matter where one starts in life, everyone has an opportunity to make it big, and there are many examples of ‘rags to riches’ stories. Indeed, the happiness map published by scholars from the University of Leicester (2010) indicated that, the more capitalist the state is, the happier its people are. Countries like USA, Canada, New Zealand and the whole of Western Europe are considered happiest in the world. It is as simple as that! Under capitalism, everyone is happy as long as they can work they will be rewarded. But what about other aspects of human nature like altruism, kindness and patience? Do these exist in a capitalist setting? The most passionate supporters of capitalism say, yes. They argue that there are tens of thousands of registered charities providing not-for-profit activities including Rotary International. The opponents to capitalism on the other hand don’t. They argue that the system places so much emphasis on money, competition, and success and none on humanity and selflessness, which makes people behave inhumanely in pursuit of success. The anti-capitalists further observe that capitalism traps people in the same lifestyle, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. They further contend that in capitalism, powerful corporate organizations influence governments to make laws that help them gain advantages that eventually drive out the small businesses, and because the competition is destroyed, people have no choice but to produce for, and buy from them. Paul Kingsnorth, in his book ‘One No Many Yesses’ illustrates how capitalism killed off the small farmers in Latin America. He says that large conglomerates bought off big chunks of land, and with their genetically modified crops managed to out-produce, and out-compete the small farmers. Naturally, the price of produce like rice, wheat and coffee went up once the smaller farmers were out-competed. Rather than have these products readily available in their communities, poor people now had to buy them from supermarkets run by the big players. Back closer to home, here in Kampala capitalism killed off the small shop that we were all accustomed to as we grew up, the one where we knew the owner by name, and the one where we would buy things like sugar and soap on credit guaranteed merely by mutual trust. Supermarkets are now everywhere in the suburbs of our city (Old Kira road from Bukoto Roundabout to Kira Trading Centre, a stretch of about 6 km has 6 big supermarkets – averagely one every kilometer). One wonders what happened to all the small shops that existed in Ntinda, Kigoowa, Najeera, Naalya and Kyaliwajjala as recently as 1995! If all their owners closed shop due to lack of customers, what are they doing now and where are they? If some of them returned to their ancestral villages and now have to wait for a free medical camp organized by Rotary, should I be a proud Rotarian or an ashamed capitalist? Therein lies my dilemma. If you believe in capitalism like I do, shouldn’t we feel responsible for the poorer societies whose situation we try to alleviate? Am I not a hoax if I abate and support capitalism in its true form and then turn around to give handouts to people that the same system I espouse has made destitute? We face a dilemma because although everybody is better off than they've ever been at any time in our history, we've also got the biggest gap between the rich and the poor that we've ever had, and we've potentially got a planet which is going to go bust any day- Sir Stuart Rose, former Marks & Spencer Chairman As a firm believer in capitalism, I am increasingly feeling responsible for the situation that we Rotarians are trying to alleviate. Although I haven’t read any statistics, I have cause to believe that the majority of Rotary’s membership (with the exception of probably Uganda) comes from the business fraternity and in fairness to Rotary; this is most likely true for other service clubs. If my assumption about Rotary’s membership (and other service clubs) is true, then it is obvious that, we, members of these clubs are responsible for creating the state that we are trying to improve. In my business, I get commissions to design and manage the construction of some of the big supermarkets around town. I am happy and I, enjoy the frills of my association with these contacts. That’s what the system is about - everyone can have the satisfaction that they are doing their bit for society – and earn money for it. Sometimes, I ask my clients to support our activities and they do; it probably makes them feel more socially engaged. What I am doing is not illegal, but I am hard pressed to say that it represents the values I believe in, and what I want to see as a Rotarian. If my business actions lead to the failure of someone else’s livelihood, shouldn’t I be feeling guilty? Thankfully, many business leaders are starting to see the need for more social engagement, more social responsibility and more accountability. The Chairman of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, recently made a direct link between Starbucks’ record profits and the larger societal role the company has to play. He made the case that his company has to start treating all people involved in the production of their much sought after drink fairly, yes including coffee farmers. This same company previously blocked the Ethiopians from branding coffee produced in Ethiopia because they probably thought it might lead to a reduction in their profits. – that could possibly be the case – but according to Paul Kingsnorth, the Ethiopian farmers were to earn more from their coffee if it had happened. In this classic example, Starbucks wanted to maintain a grip on the people producing coffee - paying them less than what their coffee is worth so that the owners (read shareholders) can earn more money and grow even richer. Simply, the poor are made poorer and the rich get richer. The rich then come to the ‘rescue’ of the poor by giving them some help through service clubs and other forms of philanthropy. Incidentally, I am not the first to feel that Rotary is a source of dilemma. In his book entitled Service Clubs in American Society (1958), Jeffrey A Charles reports of ‘debunking’, a term used by the American society in the 1920s to expose service clubs (including Rotary) for their ‘materialism, hypocrisy and conformity’. In fact Paul Harris himself is reported to have started Rotary partially as a way of improving business for his law office, which he had opened in 1899. That Rotary has its roots in capitalism is even a bigger moral dilemma for me. The author quotes one critic whose opposition to service clubs was incidentally cited in the Rotarian of 1924 (Americans have always been great proponents of free speech). -Clarence Darrow who was unforgiving in his attacks is reported to have said that ‘Service club members’ only value for life is that it brings them money’ but also added, ‘these boy scouts of business do a dirty trick a day, if they can get away with it but it’s a small trick, in aggregate they provide an army of contented cows’. In other words, while he acknowledged that these businessmen did dirty tricks, stole and had unfair competition whenever they could, what they did in return for their community was greater and we could forget about their little transgression. Is this still the case today? Are we comfortable with the dirty tricks we play as long as we do some good for humanity? Is this an acceptable way of living or is it hypocrisy?