Seven Reasons for Outrage. And why anger is not the answer.

In our hyperconnected world it is hard to escape bad news. It is easy to get distressed or angry, yet we cannot turn away. I refuse to live in ignorance, indifferent to the broader context that shapes our lives and the lives of all around us.

I therefore decided to restart my blogging by sharing with you the seven main issues that I find most troubling in our world today (I will follow in my next post by eight reasons for hope and optimism!).

Is your list similar?

You can find the links to source(s) for each statement at the end of this post. Some are very informative.

Reason 2. Amoral worldviews thrive, with 'might is right' disturbingly prominent.

The crude philosophy of 'might is right' - power dominating justice or any other moral or ethical concern - is a concept with its origins in ancient Greece (Thrasymachus). It continues to drive atrocities and conflicts, usually over resources or strategic location, wrapped in hypocritical statements about freedom, human rights, self-defense or terrorism (let us not forget that one country's 'terrorist' is another's freedom/resistance fighter).

The best modern examples are the wars and attacks on militarily much weaker societies such Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, (then) Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza.

Economic sanctions, disproportionally applied by powerful nations, impoverish societies and seldom lead to the regime change that tends to be their real purpose. Among others, the US imposes 3 times as many sanctions as any other country or organisation, and often on the poorest (usually resource-rich and/or strategically located). In 2024 the US issued more sanctions than all other countries in the world combined; 66 countries were under some form of US sanctions regime in 2024, including 60% of low-income countries - that is, at least 16 of 27 low-income countries worldwide! This has devastating economic and social consequences for countries such as Cuba, Syria, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, some of which have been under sanctions for 5-7 decades.

Sanctions have also been placed on thousands of individuals and institutions, with the most atrocious recent example the US sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC).

'Might is right' has marginalised traditional philosophies and frameworks rooted in cooperation, harmony and shared humanity, such as Confucianism, Taoism, Ubuntu, African Communalism and Indigenous worldviews.

It is even highlighted in Pope Francis' famous encyclical, Laudato si' (article 82): "This vision of 'might is right' has engendered immense inequality, injustice and acts of violence against the majority of humanity, since resources end up in the hands of the first comer or the most powerful: the winner takes all."

Reason 1. Poverty can be easily eradicated; the world is (very) unjust, rather than poor.

Just 22 men own more wealth than all the women in Africa combined.

The wealthiest 1% has amassed more than the GDP of 169 countries combined. Millionaires and up have gained 14,000 times more wealth than the poorest 60%, while the bottom half owns just 2% of global wealth.

3.3 billion people live in nations that have to spend more on interest on serving their public debt than on health or education. Very often, a majority of this debt is held by private sector lenders unwilling to offer relief.

The global system produces billionaires - and soon likely the first trillionaire - with ease, while eliminating poverty could take another 229 years based on current trends.

Despite decades of development rhetoric, global poverty rates have seen only marginal declines, with China accounting for the vast majority of progress.

If income was shared more fairly and invested in universal public goods, global poverty could be eradicated many times over.

Reason. Real power remains concentrated in the hands of a few, embedded in global systems.

There are complex reasons for the persistent inequality and divide between the Global South and Global North.

However, the so-called 'rules-based international order' is a particularly prominent one. It is a euphemism for a system designed to actively constrain the Global South/Global Majority while advancing the interests of the Global Minority. The bestseller Confessions of an Economic Hitman explains in detail how corporations and governments use economic manipulation to control the Global South, and this is still valid today.

Among others, inequality is firmly embedded in the international financial architecture. For example, Africa pays 10 times more in interest on debt than Germany, and most of the debt is held by private entities in the Global North that have no incentive to provide debt relief. The system is in essence structured to prevent economically poor countries from attending to real development priorities. And ISDS tribunals allow multinationals to secretly sue governments - usually in the Global South, and often for billions of dollars - over unfavourable regulations.

These asymmetries in power allow the exploitation of resources and labour from the Global South through unequal exchange, draining up to US$10 trillion per year.

Over the same period official ODA or 'aid' was only US$223 billion - a mere fraction of what has been drained. Disaster capitalism and the aid industry are simply Band-Aids, helping to keep a very unfair system in place.

Such exploitation is not only starkly visible in the frequently noted minerals extraction, but also in supply chains such as the US$130 billion cocoa industry. Cocoa farmers get less than US$1 dollar per day, accounting for just 6.6% of the value of the final sale of a tonne of cocoa.

Reason 4. Staggering hypocrisy reveals how much some lives are valued over others. Naked racism is on full display.

Migrants dying in large numbers in the Mediterranean have received scant interest from EU organs and nations, yet many are quick to lecture the Global South / Global Majority on freedom and human rights.

Will we ever forget the racist and dehumanising reporting by Western journalists at the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict - "They look just like us ..."? And the staggering difference in mainstream media coverage compared to the many atrocities being committed in Sudan or DRC?

Powerful Western leaders designate the war in Ukraine as genocide or as a series of atrocities, but not the conflict in Gaza. The killing of six white aid workers provoked outrage among political leaders, but much less so the 85,000 tons of sophisticated bombs that have destroyed the tiny area that makes up Gaza and slaughtered tens of thousands of women and children.

The fewer than 100 Israeli hostages still in Gaza have been constantly in the headlines, while the plight of thousands of non-combatant Palestinians, including children and women, in Israeli jails are largely ignored - many in administrative detention without trial and according to various agencies, often subject to atrocious conditions and even torture.

Compensation disparities are stark: 9/11 victims received $2 million each, while the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster victims received US$2,200 each. The US military compensates civilians with around US$4,200 per life. In Iraq, US payments were at most US$2,500 for death and US$1,000 for serious injury. Payment for innocent Afghan citizens killed in raids was almost non-existent, while in Libya NATO did not bother to establish a compensation system at all. Similar injustices exist in the UK system.

Reason 5. Propaganda is everywhere, especially in democracies, making all more clueless, subservient and unwilling to stand together to address global challenges.

The widespread efforts by 'democratic' governments and their media to mislead and indoctrinate their citizens - despite democracies being thought of as beacons of free thought - are very clear to those of us who make the effort to go to original sources, explore different viewpoints, and sift through mainstream, alternative and social media for patterns. Media echo chambers ensure only one perspective is amplified, suppressing alternative views, while the replication of narratives across platforms creates an illusion of consensus.

There are several sets of basic principles of propaganda. All these principles are playing out in Western media and their dominant narratives, most visibly in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, in efforts to weaken China's soft power, and in the Gaza conflict, where Western media treatment of events have been stunningly one-sided.

Words have weight. Linguistic manipulation is everywhere: regime" rather than "government"; "terrorists" rather than freedom, guerilla or resistance fighters (remember Che Guevara and Nelson Mandela?); the patronizing "developed" and "developing" countries.

Dominant narratives are often just carefully curated propaganda: Is there really a decline in poverty and inequality as a result of neoliberal policies? Are Western media really independent and unbiased? Is China really the military aggressor, or the purveyor of a debt trap in Africa and Asia? Was the Ukraine-Russia war really 'unprovoked'? Is there really no Global South / Global North distinction?

The most destructive dominant narrative over the last few centuries has been the assumption of our fundamental separateness. Most non-Western philosophies have been rooted in the notion of holism, relationality, a systems view of life. If whole continents' populations were not slaughtered or made to believe that their cultures and philosophies were 'primitive', blending all our wisdoms could have helped the world to flourish instead of being at great risk today.

Reason 6. 'Might is right' over nature is devastating our beautiful planet.

At a rate estimated to be 10,000 times higher than natural extinction levels, more than 1 million species face extinction due to human activities. The associated annual costs are estimated to be around US$10-25 trillion (US$10-25,000,000,000,000!) per year.

Plastic pollution now impacts all nine planetary boundaries, affecting the environment, health and human wellbeing. 19-23 million tonnes of plastic waste are dumped into oceans, rivers and lakes every year. Plastics mimic hormones, and the resulting feminisation of nature disrupts reproductive systems and population dynamics.

Over 100 billion animals are killed annually for meat and other products; more than 90% estimated to live on factory farms which cause unimaginable suffering and environmental degradation.

The practice of animal testing affects 47 million animals annually. A striking recent example in the news: a study by the NIH on motion sickness involved researchers removing parts of kittens' brains, strapping them to hydraulic tables and rocking them 360 degrees.

Reason 7. Political leaders are failing us spectacularly - especially those causing our destruction yet not fixing it, and mostly not interested in doing so.

Out of 195 countries, not one offers its people a "safe and just space" in which to live. We live in an era of ecological overshoot. Humanity has already exceeded six of nine planetary boundaries, and not a single nation has achieved equitable development within these limits.

The world's richest have used up their fair share of the 2025 carbon budget in just 10 days.

The Global North / Global Minority is responsible for around 92% of excess cumulative CO₂ emissions beyond the planetary boundary of 350 ppm, climate change. Some calculations show that they owe the Global South / Global Majority approximately US$ 170 trillion (that is US$170,000,000,000,000)! Yet contributions to initiatives like the UN Loss and Damage Fund have been negligible, highlighting a profound lack of political will.

Instead of working together towards the large-scale transformations the world needs, many leaders today - including many in the so-called 'free world' - are unethical, immoral, corrupt or weak. They divide societies, break promises and instigate conflicts. Citizens and subnational structures like cities are left to tackle such transformations on their own.

Some countries are preparing for a nuclear war in the most ridiculous ways, rather than seeking diplomacy and peace which are well within reach despite the overwhelming propaganda to the contrary.

In 2024, the world spent US$2.443 trillion on military forces. US spending alone was a cool US$811.6 billion, followed by China and India at a rather measly (by comparison) US$298 billion and US$81 billion respectively. Imagine what could have been achieved if these amounts had been allocated to doing global good, such as addressing poverty, climate change and systemic inequality?

Why anger is not the answer

I am no longer angry as I once was, long ago, when I first started to understand the world below the layers of hypocrisy and manipulation.

Most prominent societal philosophies encourage controlling anger in order to foster harmony within oneself and in society. They see anger as a destructive, counterproductive emotion, undermining personal and collective wellbeing. African and Indigenous philosophies advocate for community and harmony. Eastern philosophies like Buddhism and Confucianism emphasise individual mindfulness and self-control. Western traditions, from Aristotle's 'golden mean' to Stoicism, stress rational management and self-discipline.

Complexity and systems sciences show us that periods of instability and uncertainty are moments of opportunity. When a system becomes unstable, new patterns and structures can emerge spontaneously. This is why crises often lead to unexpected innovations. And when a system reaches a critical threshold - a tipping point' - it can transition to a new state, making radical shifts possible.

Therefore, now is the perfect time to care passionately, and to act boldly.

Each of us can make a difference, right where we are, firm in conviction, without anger. I am privileged to be working among professionals and others around the world, from both the Global South and North, who do exactly that.

FOR LINKS TO ALL EVIDENCE USED IN THIS BLOG POST, SEE THIS VERSION.

The good intention

Leaving no-one behind is the "transformative promise" of the SDGs. It has become a mantra in development planning. It is everywhere, invading discussions, plans and interventions with a raft of good intentions. It has even developed into an acronym, a sure sign of having arrived in a world awash with short forms of speech. It is a persuasive argument that unless those worst off see their lives dramatically improved, we cannot claim that the SDGs have been met:

"As we embark on this great collective journey, we pledge that no-one will be left behind. Recognising that the dignity of the human person is fundamental, we wish to see the Goals and targets met for all nations and peoples and for all segments of society. And we will endeavour to reach the furthest behind first." (my emphasis)

And:

"By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status."

Governments and those engaged in development everywhere feel compelled to attend to it, and over the past five years evaluators, evaluation thinkers and evaluation commissioners have had this notion firmly in their line of sight. Speakers in conferences and webinars continue to ponder on how best to help ensure NOLB through evaluative practice. Discussion documents, guidelines and evaluations with a NOLB focus have proliferated, giving hope and showing strong commitment to the intent in spite of the challenge of moving from rhetoric to action.

In their thoughtful 2019 book, Leave no-one behind: Time for specifics on the SDGs, Homi Kharas and his co-authors bring together many perspectives and experiences applied to different NOLB foci - gender, poverty, farmers, refugees and migrants, education, health care and more. Like so many articles and reports, they offer insights and recommendations on what can be done. They also eloquently point out the scale of the challenge, and the countries most deeply affected.

The key point? The countries where NOLB is of greatest concern, where most of the interventions are concentrated, are all in the Global South, that part of the world in shades of red or some other vibrant "this is bad" colour in just about every map that visualises data on the state of the world, where everything to do with development is more challenging, more resource-intensive, and a greater burden on governments and others who want to make a difference.

This means that the burden of supporting and sustaining a majority of 'leaving no-one behind' efforts fall inevitably on many of the poorest (low-income) countries in the Global South.

The problem is that they cannot afford it, nor can they sustain it.

It will therefore be unfair to hold such countries accountable for 'leaving no-one behind' strategies.

The ethics of 'Leaving no-one behind'

There are two sides to the ethical imperative for 'leaving no-one behind'.

It is unethical to keep on neglecting the most vulnerable and those on the margins of society. It is equally unethical to intervene with time-bound interventions to 'leave no-one behind' when they have very little chance of being sustained once the source of financing leaves. This causes too much destruction of societal systems, too much hope that is created and then shattered, too much behaviour that is changed temporarily without thinking of the long-term, often negative consequences.

There is the need to dream, to have spectacular ambitions. But there is also the need for pragmatism among those engaged with development as well as those who evaluate for it.

As Oumoul Ba Tal from Mauritania, a former President of the African Evaluation Association, once said in a heated exchange with a senior evaluation specialist from an international agency:

"It is not about your project; it is about my country".

The need for pragmatism

The pressure to achieve the SDGs means that aid agencies inevitably have a focus on no-one left behind. Authorities in the Global South also feel compelled to attend it as a priority. It is a fact that this type of focus resonates well with all of us. Development and evaluation specialists are at heart most often idealists who want to help to make the world a better place. Aiming to ensure that no-one gets left behind appears to be a noble part of what we can do at this time in the world. It has become soft-on-the-ear-and-mind rhetoric, something to be done because it sounds and feels right.

But from a pragmatic perspective, if we really want to see development that is effective and that sustains, and that eventually succeeds in leaving no-one behind, we have to consider the following:

One, the level of cost and effort matter. In some countries 'no-one left behind' relates to the urban-rural divide; in others to the invisibility everywhere of the poorest of the poor, the most marginalised, the most neglected; in others to those displaced or victims of war. Those left behind typically present a 'last mile' problem that is always much more costly in terms of effort, resources and time - and even much more so in low-income or 'least developed' countries where whole systems need to co-evolve to ensure a positive development trajectory over a long period. It becomes even more problematic if the intent is to address first those who would qualify as most marginalised or vulnerable, as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and even the recently released guidance for the revised DAC criteria both suggest. This is a highly undesirable approach, also for the reasons that follow.

Two, sustainability matters. Development projects and programmes tend to be terminated after three or five or perhaps ten years, often without having achieved much. In low-income countries the chance that even well-crafted and implemented interventions aimed at ensuring no-one is left behind will sustain is highly unlikely without a massive, intensive effort over a significant period. Once aid agencies leave, local actors have to pick up the pieces - something that is incredibly difficult to do in the often fragile, resource-constrained contexts in much of the Global South.

Three, long-term development trajectories matter. Countries that are already well advanced on a positive development trajectory - where many vectors or indicators of national progress move in desired directions, where many institutional and other systems have already advanced and reached some form of reasonable stability - will find it much easier to make the 'last mile' no-one left behind effort. This is why China, despite its extraordinarily rapid economic development, waited until recently before focusing on eradicating extreme poverty in rural areas.

Four, dealing with choices and trade-offs matter. If a low income country starts to move along a positive development trajectory, trade-offs will be required. One of them is that some will have to be left behind, until infrastructure and institutional systems, societal relationships and capacities have evolved to a stage where there is enough to support and sustain the development of those who are most marginalised and vulnerable. What is important is how carefully and systematically inequalities are uncovered through evaluative practices, and managed and slowly woven into strategies as they evolve throughout the different stages of development. In other words, mindful that there will be trade-offs, the notion that no-one should be left behind can be implemented systematically and pragmatically rather than too quickly based on the idealism reflected in so many unsustainable development interventions.

Five, complexity concepts matter, in particular 'co-evolution'. All of the above reflect the need to view development through a complex adaptive systems lens - considering the path-dependence of societies' development, a long-term development trajectory instead of snapshot thinking, dealing pragmatically and systematically with choices and trade-offs, and ensuring the type of sequencing of action that will help ensure that positive results sustain.

Most importantly for successfully dealing with no-one left behind strategies is recognising that system co-evolve, especially in countries where much starts from a low base. Development normally requires societal values and beliefs, capacities, institutions, markets and more to evolve together. This takes time and ongoing effort. In low-income countries interventions can try to nudge systems in desired directions, but if they try to shift part of a system or a nested system too quickly, it may not work; it will strive to return to its former state.

The responsibility of evaluation specialists

Aid funding is increasingly concentrated in low(est) income countries in the Global South, and even within these contexts there is often a focus on the most vulnerable and fragile. It is crucial to think during evaluations about the systems on which they will depend when donor funding ends. What will be expected from local and national authorities when the financiers withdraw?

If the potential for sustainability of any positive achievements is lacking when financing comes to an end, any assessment against criteria such as 'relevance', 'effectiveness', 'efficiency' and 'impact will mislead unless others take on or complement the support. This places a major responsibility on evaluation professionals to be very careful in the assessments that we make, and to consider the implications for evaluative practice of issues raised in this post.

As Oumoul Ba Tal inferred so long ago, we need a country and systems lens, not a project lens, if we truly want to ensure development that sustains and bears fruit for all once the financiers have left.