Анализ 'Orchestrated Grief, Charity and Philantropy

Orchestrated grief, charity, and philanthropy

by Marta METODIEVA

T

he 20th century of the Western world chose to live far from its faith in God; it survived two world wars and a few revolutions, and it managed to gather the pieces of what was left of its philanthropy by creating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A century later, these pieces, stuck closely to one another, are trying to keep Europe’s map together; but gaps are inevitable. Especially at the Eastern ends of the continent, known for also adding half a century of communism and one and a half decades of recovering from it. One could say that at this geographical latitude human rights are a fairly recent subject without strong roots - for the majority of their citizens, people have for a long time been far being the object of interest or significance, not to mention their rights and even life.

Despite its dramatic history of secularism and genocide, or maybe because of these, today’s Europe will do anything to secure the absolute protection of its citizens’ rights. Beside the economic interest of its members, one of the prime goals of the establishment of the European Union, was to guarantee life in a humane environment, especially for children. This is not because they are cute, innocent, small, and so on, but because they are incapable of making decisions regarding their own existence, or, if they do make them - incapable of seeing them through. Children are dependant on the power of adults and this is why the latter look after them. Or fail to look after them and abuse their rights. Abuse of children’s rights happens throughout the EU, and all kinds of measures are being taken to see that it happens as rarely as possible.

These measures are severe and mandatory, but there will always be a poor example. Still, rules will be rules: human life must be protected at all costs, and the cost is even higher when it comes to children. For, although Europe has distanced itself from its God, Who is love, it will never forget that the child is the purest and greatest instrument of this love.

However, it is uncertain whether the children of Europe in the East, for which it can be doubted if it was ever a true believer, have been awarded the same important place as with its neighbouring post-Christian states. This is a statement which can, unfortunately, be supported by a host of examples; however, one will suffice to describe the situation.

The sadly notorious case of Mogilino, which provoked a series of arguments, conflicts, and various thoughts, has bared some obvious truths, which are worth repeating, as they seemed to have been lost amidst the overall blabber about the home.

The show charity, on the one hand, and the reaction of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood where the new housing for the children from the home is to be built, presented two very sincere manifestations of the human spirit: in the first case, show and entertainment freed forms of generosity and compassion, which would otherwise not have been possible; in the second, a radical decision triggered the natural reflex to flee from suffering. The common ground between these two cases are the elemental human reactions, which were encountered and taken advantage of; reactions, which are

1 OBEKTIV

totally devoid of a higher concept or motivation and are, consequently, the result of transitory action after which things will go on as before. Just as any big happiness is followed by a big tragedy.

The question that springs to mind is whether it is possible, in the environment of post-communism and living atheism hidden in the nationalistic loyalty to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, for a society to be born where observation of human rights and especially children’s rights is a higher value and not a pose? For Europe, although now secularised, is based on St. Paul’s message that the meaning of everything lies in the love between people, and if love is lacking, then there is nothing, including human rights; for how can someone be good if they do not know love?

This brings us to the issue of orchestrated compassion, product of the Bulgarian media environment and an excellent example of all deficits, weaknesses, and faults of the Bulgarian non-civil society. For were it really a civil one, it would not have to wait for its monopolistic media to dictate, uncover, and popularise - at its own judgement - the occasions for joy, grief, and compassion. Slavka Kukova would not have been one of the very few people thought to fight for ·a cause” by some, and a mediator of foreign interests by others. She would have been like the rest who have devoted part of their life to the sorrow, unhappiness, and sickness, as well as the willingness to help those afflicted.

But now, alongside all the mayors and the usual political figures, she is the only one who went to make sure that the children from Mogilino have been transferred to their new homes with the appropriate care and means, and that t h e change will be real a n d mean-

Did a debate take place at the European Parliament on 4 March 2008?

by Slavka KUKOVA

T

ingful for them rather than yet another faking of activities against EU requirements. What is the point of mourning, talking, dismissals of various officials, and other high-flown actions following yet another tragedy resulting from a pure accident at the background of absolute indifference to everyday suffering caused or tolerated on purpose.

We wait for ·The Bulgarian Christmas” charity campaign - yet another media event - to send a few text messages without realising that donating the same money we already paid as taxes for the event under the President’s patronage will not do the trick, as the tickling wish to feel good and generous, the real goodness and generosity lie elsewhere, namely in the daily and personal, human, and civilian attitude toward people’s rights, be it children, sick people, elderly people, or just any one of us. But still we ask ourselves how such a behaviour is to be motivated when there is nothing in our private lives to provoke it, for lack of personal initiative (as the popular answer goes), or insufficient spiritual grounds (goes the metaphysical).

Because the part played by Slavka Kukova and the few others like her is that of the father watching over his flock and knowing all its joys and sorrows. But he is never alone and weak, as he has the power to team up all of his children for a good deed, as he will not only rely on human laws but on the power of his God, too. He, Who has said that we should be good to each other, as we are all his children.

hat is the question. We had gathered there to think about institutionalised children with disabilities across Europe. There were MEPs, organisations of people with disabilities, European Commission social policy commissioners, advocacy organisations, alternative care foundations, journalists - some 7080 people altogether. The Bulgarian NGOs currently working with the children of Mogilino were there... sitting among the audience. The film ·Bulgaria’s Abandoned Children” was supposed to serve as the occasion to discuss the crippling effect of life in an institution.

Statements varied: putting children into institutions must be criminalised; it is high time to lay down common European standards for the care of children with disabilities; it is ridiculous to have more standards regarding chickens than children; children’s rights must not be the object of charity, and the violation of their rights is always an international problem; the European Commission must control EU funds assigned for social services for children with disabilities, since most of the money is spent for repairs of institutions, whereas life in an institution dehumanises and dooms Europe’s children to a nonfuture.

Bulgaria was not the object of discussion. Despite the need for translation and the request not to take the debate personally, the Bulgarian MEPs would not give up their conspiracy theories and were unable to look at the problem maturely and openly. Namely, we have a problem, we can resolve it, but we don’t know how, so we need help. But no, they were offended and aggressive. They spun long and confused effusions about how much Bulgaria was doing for its children. They insisted that the UK was sneaking into our back yard and meddling into our domestic affairs; that the film was fiction; that the difficult situation in Bulgarian homes was due to poverty; that there will always be a need for homes. It was not children they were talking about, much less so Bulgarian children. They did not speak any foreign language. They were not listening to what we were saying. Their thoughts were consumed with Bulgaria’s national day and Bulgaria’s image in Europe. They missed the fact that it was precisely the Briton Laura Parker from the ARC Foundation that first closed down a Bulgarian institution (a home named ·Nadezhda”, which ironically means ‘hope’) by transferring its children to a near-family environment, and is currently working on four more homes. They failed to hear about the For Our Children Foundation, founded by Britons, which managed to start work with Mogilino and bring the children back to life, make them smile again, communicate, walk. A few days afterwards, MEP Iliana Yotova announced that she was intending to pay a visit to a home, and this was news.

On 9 March President Parvanov concluded that the film about Mogilino was part of an anti-Bulgarian campaign and was made with anything but love for Bulgaria. At an event organised by himself, some paediatricians suggested that we start saving only ·reliable children”. None of them ever made it to Mogilino.

A debate with the Bulgarian government about a policy for children with disabilities is simply not possible - whether in Sofia or in Brussels. It is because they never speak of individual children but of conspiracy, money, enemies; because they don’t know Bulgaria’s children; they don’t see them or care about them. We share neither a common language, nor a common understanding of human values. For the time being, it is better not to talk, so that a few good people may do something worthwhile for the children in spite of the state. Otherwise, the government is still refusing to give a penny for the reform in Mogilino. But it will distribute the 10 million Euro EU funds, which Minister Maslarova keeps bragging about, between various mayors to do some pressing renovations of children’s homes and ·reinforce” the institutional care they provide for years to come.

OBEKTIV 2