Inspired by and with credit to Habib Onifade
In the development sector, we invest heavily in frameworks, theories of change, impact pathways, and innovative programme models. Yet sometimes, a single reflective question cuts deeper than any technical tool. Recently, I came across a powerful message by Habib Onifade, a message that challenged me far more than any workshop or report ever has.
He asked a question that landed like a punch to the chest:
“Would you treat your parents the way you treat beneficiaries?”
As a development practitioner, this question forced me to confront my own blind spots. It exposed the gap between our intentions and our behaviour in the field. It made me uncomfortable—and that discomfort is precisely why it matters.
This article is my reflection on that question and what it means for real development impact in 2026 and beyond.
Why This Question Cuts So Deep in Development and MSD Work
If my mother were waiting in the sun for three hours because of me, would I stroll in late?
If my grandfather had given up a day’s income to attend a training, would I ignore his sacrifice?
If they nodded politely, would I automatically assume they fully embraced my ideas?
We already know the answer. Yet these behaviours have become normalised in many programmes.
What Habib Onifade highlighted is not theory—it is the lived reality of thousands of communities across Africa and beyond. And whether we work in Market Systems Development (MSD), livelihoods, resilience, health, or humanitarian programming, the principle remains the same:
Respect is not optional. It is the foundation of impact.
How Disrespect Quietly Becomes Normal in Development Work
Over time, our sector has normalised habits that would be unacceptable anywhere else:
- Arriving late for community meetings
- Keeping people waiting in the harsh sun
- Offering small refreshments and calling it participation
- Collecting data without consistent feedback
- Rushing activities because of reporting deadlines
- Prioritising photos and visibility over long-term ownership
If these same things happened to our own parents, we would rightfully call them disrespectful.
So why do we excuse them when they happen to communities?
This is the uncomfortable mirror Habib held up—and it forces us to rethink how we show up.
A Nod Is Not Buy-In — Understanding Real Adoption
One of the most important truths in Habib’s message is this:
A nod does not equal adoption.
Communities listen. They nod. They cooperate.
But:
- A nod often means “I understand your logic.”
- It rarely means “This fits my reality.”
- It definitely doesn’t mean “I will implement this.”
We mistake politeness for commitment. We confuse agreement with ownership. Then we wonder why adoption rates remain low or why we keep “sensitising” the same communities repeatedly.
Real change requires solutions that fit people’s incentives, culture, time, and constraints—not just our project timelines.
When Arrogance Blinds Us to Local Wisdom
Habib shared a powerful example: a project team classified a locally consumed substance as “alcohol” and therefore a social problem—without understanding why it was used.
Turns out:
- It was nutrient-rich
- It powered physically demanding farm labour
- It functioned as a culturally accepted form of payment
- Labourers preferred it over cash in some cases
The team never asked why. They only assumed. They only judged.
This is how programmes misdiagnose problems, miss opportunities, and design irrelevant interventions.
Context is not a baseline report. Context is a daily discipline of humility, listening, and curiosity.
The Hard Incentive Question: Do We Truly Want Communities to Be Self-Reliant?
Habib posed a question many in the sector avoid:
“If people truly became self-sufficient, would our sector shrink?”
We may not like the implication, but incentives shape behaviour. They shape programme design. They shape the pace of systems strengthening. They shape whether we build dependency or resilience.
This does not mean people intentionally sabotage progress. But it does mean we need honesty about what drives our systems.
Real development must aim to make itself unnecessary—not permanent.
My Personal Commitment for 2026
Habib Onifadei’s message forced me to look inward. Here is how I intend to change my practice:
- Show up on time and respect community schedules
- Observe more deeply—not just what people say, but what they don’t
- Listen without assumptions and validate local logic
- Treat beneficiaries the way I treat my own parents
- Focus on co-creation, not extraction
- Strengthen systems, not cycles of dependency
- Prioritise dignity in every engagement, no matter how small
If I cannot give communities the same respect I give my parents, then I have already failed them.
A Call to the Development, Humanitarian, and MSD Community
If our sector truly wants to transform impact in 2026, we must rethink:
How we engage
From token participation → to true collaboration.
How we design programmes
From designing for people → to designing with people.
How we operate in the field
From convenience for ourselves → to dignity for communities.
How we measure success
From reporting activities → to strengthening systems.
How we view beneficiaries
Not as beneficiaries, but as partners with agency, wisdom, and lived expertise.
Behaviour—not frameworks—is what creates real transformation.
Conclusion: Let Discomfort Lead to Transformation
Habib Onifade’s message made me uncomfortable. And that discomfort is the greatest gift I could carry into 2026.
Because discomfort wakes us up. It reveals blind spots. It forces growth. It reminds us that the communities we serve deserve the same respect, urgency, and dignity we give to our own families.
If we want a sustainable impact, then we must first change how we behave.
Real impact begins with respect. And 2026 deserves better behaviour from all of us.
#DevelopmentPractitioners #CommunityEngagement #SustainableDevelopment #MSD (Market Systems Development) #NGOWork #SocialImpact #HumanCenteredDesign #BehaviourChange #SystemStrengthening #DevelopmentImpact
Leave a Reply