Madonna and the Malawian adoption

Madonna and the Malawian adoption

• Get well soon George, it's all forgiven

• Why Africa flops at World Cup

• Can Europe be home to an African?

• Looking into Zimbabwe from outside

• 2005 Zim personalities of the year awards

• Mandaza: pitfalls of supping with devil

• Zimbabwe's small minded rulers

• Mugabe cornered by events out of his control

By Chido Makunike

THE international furore over pop star Madonna’s adoption of Malawian infant David Banda seems to be subsiding. The whole episode has had elements of farce to it, but there are many things it reveals about the new interest of Western celebrities in Africa and about the African condition.

One of the striking things is how the African players in the saga were by and large bystanders as Madonna more or less dictated the agenda, despite a substantial part of the drama being played out on Malawian soil. Whether by design or default, Madonna herself was very much the issue, with the boy, his confused-seeming father and the hapless-appearing Malawian authorities merely being props; bit players to the singer’s script.

There is no doubt that David will be better of materially and perhaps in every other way from being adopted by Madonna than to grow up unloved in an orphanage. Looked at from that perspective, it may be an open and shut case about the dramatically improved life prospects of one lucky infant. But the passionate feelings the adoption has raised are because the issue is not quite that simple.

There are the formal, surface questions about whether procedure and legalities were followed, with some NGOs voicing the most concern about this. Despite the protestations of Madonna and some Malawian government spokesmen, it seems absurd for them to argue that this was a “regular” adoption in which her celebrity and money did not influence the process.

I do not downplay the importance of the precedence that is being set for adoptions in Malawi by whether Madonna and the Malawian government followed its own laws in this case. Yet it could be argued that this legitimate concern has in this case been obviated by the several positives-David’s “good fortune” to go from a life of possible life-long rags to one of certain riches, the support his adoptive mother has pledged for other orphanages in Malawi and so on.

These and some other issues to do with the various aspects of the adoption and its symbolisms have been dealt with from several angles by pundits from all over the world. Yet there have been several times throughout the saga when I have felt there were some key pieces of information I would have liked to have had to better understand it. Other times I have had burning questions that I wished the media had asked.

"This story has been so high profile because of the fleeting fascination with Madonna, not because of the long-term issue of African orphans"

CHIDO MAKUNIKE

One could not help feeling sympathy for David’s father, who is said to be an illiterate, impoverished peasant father who gave up his son to the orphanage after the boy’s mother died soon after his birth. It was never cleared up whether he gave up the child for adoption or for “safe-keeping” until the boy was a little older or until he (the father) was able to look after him.

To better understand the plight of the father, I would have like to have known how many other children the father had. If poverty and sheer inability to take care of his son’s material needs were the main motivators for putting him in the orphanage, rather than the mother’s death, is there any thought being given by the Malawian authorities into discouraging this man from siring more children he cannot take care of? Is being a father essentially the ability of a male to deposit fertile sperm into a woman and then go off to screw around again, or is being able to take care of the resulting offspring materially and emotionally just as or even more important?

If this is not a part of the discussion, and I am not aware that it has been so far, then an opportunity to address the deeper issues to do with African child welfare is being lost. There are not going to be enough Madonnas coming from London to take care of Malawi’s or Africa’s neglected children for this to be a significant part of the solution. We therefore need to take advantage of this opportunity to ask ourselves questions that go to the heart of reducing the severity of the problem rather than just the surface ones. What efforts are being made in Malawi/Africa to encourage the well-to-do to adopt more orphans in their own communities? Can governments not do more to encourage and modernize the age-old African custom of “adoptions” within extended families that is reeling under modern economic pressures?

Now that we have felt sorry for the father’s apparent destitution and the loss of his wife that caused him to give up his son, I would have liked to have known whether he ever visited David at the orphanage. This would help clear up for me the controversy over whether he gave up the child for good or “temporarily” as he initially claimed. A closely related issue that this would have helped clear up is the bizarre aspect of someone side-stepping the thousands of actual orphans with no parents or know relatives to adopt a child whose father is alive and known. This strange part is what has led cynics to allege that Madonna bought out the father and the Malawian government.

Even if we do not impugn cynical motives to Madonna even if she did indeed effectively “buy” David from his father and from Malawi, it leaves the last two entities looking pathetic. There is the confused father who does not seem to know whether he is coming or going enough to keep his story straight about any aspect of this drama. He does so many flip-flops that he makes one’s head ache and makes the inconsistencies of notorious former Mugabe propagandist Jonathan Moyo seem amateurish in comparison.

The Malawian government also comes across as looking somewhat sheepish. They plead poverty and inability to deal with the country’s many abandoned children, but in a way that makes them look out of control in relation to Madonna, which perhaps is the sad reality. They were completely unprepared for the media onslaught and from very early on lost any ability to project the Malawian side of the issues. They were left scrambling to respond to the barrage of questions and the derision, but did so poorly. They gave the impression of being so over-awed by Madonna’s celebrity and money and so flattered by the attention of the famous “madam” that they were willing to be made to look sheepish and out of control of their own processes.

For instance, the idea that Madonna’s care of David will be monitored for 18 months in lieu of the requirement of a prospective adoptive parent to reside in Malawi for that period of time sounds absurd. What capacity does Malawi have to do any meaningful monitoring of David in London? Now that the deal has been done, can you imagine a scenario in which the Malawian government says in 18 months, “After careful consideration we have decided that we are not allowing Madonna to complete the adoption?!” I don’t think so, not at the prospect of forfeiting Madonna’s pledged millions! It would have been better to just admit at the beginning that this requirement has been waived and deal with the flak from that angle, rather than pretending to have the power of exercising a kind of control which they had agreed to cede in exchange for Madonna’s money.

Which brings me to one of many reasons there are mixed feelings about this. However good the adoption may turn out to be for David, the way the saga has been mishandled smacks of a rich Westerner doing as she pleases in a weak African state in which it is not obvious or clear that the government will act in the best interests of citizens. Elements of patronism (I guess “matronism” in this case) and of Africa being the new “fashion accessory” of Western celebrities come into play. While it may be good to have various African issues championed by them, it is often in a way that leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

There is the issue of the failure of Africa to take full responsibility for solving its problems. Is it good enough for African governments to largely fold their hands and say “we have many problems but are helpless in the face of them, Westerners come and rescue us?” We know what Madonna is going to be doing for Malawian orphans in the coming years. But what renewed commitment, if any, has the Malawian government pledged to dealing with the problem? Should we feel happy and relieved if the “solution” to this issue is thousands more Malawian infants being adopted by Western movie stars and singers like pets? Would we simply analyse the issue at the level of “at least those kids are better off in Europe and America” or is a lot more required of us?

The Western media is already tiring of this latest titillating distraction and “entertainment news.” This story has been so high profile because of the fleeting fascination with Madonna, not because of the long-term issue of African orphans which we the Africans must continue to contend with after the interest has died down.

My fear is that because so much of the focus has been on the peripheries of the issues, not much change in the plight of Malawian and African orphans will result from this fascinating but unsettling drama.

Chido Makunike is a Zimbabwean writer. He writes from Dakar, Senegal. CONTACT CHIDO: chidomakunike@yahoo.com

JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS