The “scandal” erupted after Madonna sent President Joyce Banda an informal, handwritten note requesting to meet with the President and then later complained to the press about having to check-in on departure from Kamuzu International Airport like a normal person. Malawian State House officials responded with a formal public statement denouncing Madonna’s charity, character, and musical talent. This on top of previous accusations of mismanagement by the President’s sister, Anjimile Oponyo, who was hired to head the now-defunct Raising Malawi Academy for Girls.

If only Celebrity Deathmatch still around so they could settle this once and for all. (“Development Deathmatch” spin-off, anyone??)

Though President Banda was “incandescent with anger” at the release of the statement which she claims she did not authorize, this incident is just the latest development in the much larger backlash against celebrity involvement in humanitarian aid and development – from George Clooney in Sudan, to Ben Affleck in the DRC, to Bono everywhere.

In its public statement, State House officials noted that “among the many things that Madonna needs to learn…is the decency of telling the truth…[not] that she is building schools in Malawi when she has actually only contributed to the construction of classrooms.”

The officials also criticized Madonna’s expectation for “Malawi to be forever chained to the obligation of gratitude”, simply because she has adopted two children from Malawi. Eunice Kazembe, the Malawi Minister of Education, leveled her own criticism at the pop star, saying that, while her country is grateful for the assistance, an individual should not “go to some remote part of Malawi and start doing whatever… She promised an academy and we agreed on standards but she just changed her mind on the project without consulting us.”

Malawian officials, Ms. Kazembe, and the numerous other critics of celebrities without borders, have a valid point. While celebrity involvement has the potential to increase the visibility, and thereby deepen the pockets, of charities and their causes, transparency, accountability, and the White-Savior Industrial Complex are certainly issues of concern when it comes to celebrity involvement in development and humanitarian aid. But these same issues also arise with the work of larger charitable groups and NGOs.

Why is it, then, that so much attention and criticism is heaped on individual celebrities? Why do we not routinely take larger organizations with bigger budgets and wider reach to task on these issues? Here are some possible explanations:

Tabloid media: We live in a celebrity-obsessed culture in which actors, musicians, and reality-TV stars are subjected to extreme levels of public scrutiny, thanks to the multimillion dollar celebrity and gossip magazine market, which profits off of paparazzi photos and wild speculation. This is not, however, a culture of “hero worship.” Rather, it is a culture in which celebrities are “marketed, sold, and disseminated with… rapidity and cunning… and then just as quickly cast aside.”

Celebrities have become as disposable as the magazines that cover them. Publishers and readers seize on any opportunity to criticize these celebrities for their bodies, their relationships, or their charitable work – to cut them down and make room for the next batch.

PR stunts: Many of us assume that celebrities get involved with charitable causes for purely public relations purposes, as a way to boost their public image or “diversify their portfolio,” as it were. (Actor and activist!) We are inherently suspicious of their motives and, often, their understanding of the issues, whether it’s genocide in Darfur or education in Malawi.

Putting a face to the name: It’s just easier to blame or criticize an individual than an entire organization. With so many moving parts to an NGO (operations, development, communications, etc.), it can be difficult to find a single person or department on whom to lay the blame for failed programs. Celebrity activists put a “face” to the problem –a blessing for raising awareness and funds, but a potential curse when the project fails to deliver.

Whatever the reason(s), we’d do well to cast the same critical eye and draw the same attention to the actions of all actors in the aid and development sectors, not just those with a pretty face. Celebrities, and the causes they advocate for, come and go. But the organizations working on these important issues have been doing so for years. They have greater capacity, greater funding, broader reach, and thus the potential for greater long-term impact. We need to make sure that they are getting it right.

How we do that, well, that’s a post for another day….

Do you think celebrity philanthropy is over-scrutinized? Leave a comment below.

“All of this branding serves as an inescapable and depressing reminder of the dependency of the nation and its inability to provide for its own. It is a constant message: you live on hand-outs. Your basic needs, as much as they are met, are only done so through the charity of faceless others”.

For their part, agency heads tend to justify branding as a means of increasing the “transparency of aid”, informing taxpayers where their money is going, and improving the image of the donor country among recipient country citizens.This justification does little to satisfy Stewart. When brand recognition “starts to drive development strategy and funding priorities rather than the other way around,” the line between aid agencies and advertising agencies becomes disconcertingly blurred.

However, we cannot deny or ignore the power of branding to create awareness of a product, service, or cause. In her award-winning book and documentary, No Logo, journalist Naomi Klein examines the power and influence that brands such as Nike, Starbucks, and McDonald’s hold over our society. One striking example of this power comes during a moment in the film when a group of children are shown pictures of famous public figures – the president, actors, etc. Some of the children correctly identify a handful of the images shown, but for the most part, they show few signs of recognition. The children are then shown various brand logos – the golden arches of McDonald’s, the Nike swoosh – without the actual name of the company. The response is dramatic. The children correctly identify almost every image shown, some of them nearly jumping out of their seats in excitement to identify a particular brand logo.

For better or for worse, branding is a powerful tool for creating awareness and demand for products and services. But, why do we tend to focus solely on the negative aspects of branding, rather than the ways it can be used for good? Instead of railing against the branding practices of multinational corporations and aid agencies, we should be figuring out ways to coopt their strategies and put them to work for the greater good.

This is exactly the approach that organizations such as BrandOutLoud and Brandaid Project have taken. Recognizing that international NGOs have disproportionately greater access to branding, marketing, and communication expertise, and therefore donor funding, these organizations have committed themselves to creating that capacity within national NGOs who are often overlooked by international donors. By strengthening the brand recognition and marketing strategies of national NGOs, they are helping to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of natioanl NGOs and staying true to those principles of local ownership, self-determination, and capacity building that the development community prizes so highly.

Maybe what we really need is fewer Band Aid solutions, and more Brand Aid solutions.

These are individuals “with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems”, “who dream up and take responsibility for an innovative and untested idea for positive social change, and usher that idea from dream to reality, and who combine “the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination”.

Though the definition may vary, the appeal of the “social entrepreneur” among the Millennial Generation (those born between 1983 and 2001) is undeniable, as highlighted in a recent post on the Harvard Business Review Blog Network by Lara Galinsky.

As senior vice president of Echoing Green, a global nonprofit that provides seed funding and technical assistance to emerging social entrepreneurs, Galinsky has seen her fair share of bright-eyed, bushy-tailed Millennials eager to start organizations that will solve every problem from poverty to pollution.

Yet, Galinsky – despite or perhaps because of – her position believes that not all Millennials should become social entrepreneurs. Invoking the Igbo proverb of “It takes a village to raise a child,” Galinsky argues that it takes an “entire ecosystem” to solve the world’s biggest problems.

In order to succeed, social entrepreneurs need the support of fundraisers, designers, and communications and development specialists to transform their bold ideas into reality. According to Galinsky, to harness the Millennials’ passion for social change:

“We must move away from the antiquated concept of vocation, which emphasizes what’s in it for the individual: whether it will sustain their interest or bring them fame or fortune… They needn’t be founders of new organizations to have an impact on the world. But they should be founders of their careers.”

It’s a logical argument and a lovely sentiment, but it ignores the obvious question of why? Why is this particular generation – the Millennials – so captivated and fixated on social entrepreneurship? The problems they want to solve have been around for decades, even centuries. Why now? Why this generation?

Call me pessimistic, but I don’t think this surge in social entrepreneurial spirit is due to the Millennial generation being more altruistic or socially conscious than their predecessors. In fact, I doubt that altruism plays a major role in the decision of most Millennials to pursue this career path.

As the Chronicle of Education reports, a recent study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology compared the traits of Millennials, Generation X’ers, and Baby Boomers at the same age from 1966 to 2009 and found that Millennials place much greater value on money, image and fame than previous generations.

Basically, Millennials are more “Generation Me” than “Generation We”. This is a generation that has been raised to believe that they are special; that they can do and be anything they want. This is the generation that gave birth to the term “helicopter parent,” a generation that has been prepped and primed from an early age to get the best grades, participate in the most extracurricular activities, attend the best schools, etc.

So when it comes to the Millennial obsession with social entrepreneurship, I can’t help but think that, to them, it represents just another notch on their belt of accomplishments, another step on the ladder to individual achievement and recognition.

Millennials have spent their entire lives in the spotlight, at the center of their parents’ and their own individual universes. For many, I think social entrepreneurship provides an opportunity to remain in the spotlight, rather than assume a supporting role.

In her post, Galinsky admits that Echoing Green, and other organizations like it, “shines a bright light on social entrepreneurs, often making them stars.” Moving forward, though, she notes that Echoing Green will be “cutting the spotlight and raising the house lights” to focus more on the ecosystem needed for social enterprises to succeed.

But when the lights come up in the house, will there be any Millennials willing to work backstage?