HIV prevention have had the

B ut some of the messages used for
HIV prevention have had the
unfortunate consequence of adding to
the stigma surrounding HIV. In some
respects, ABC is one such message.
ABC has proven less than ideal to
address the complexities of human life,
as it does not take into account the
critically important issue of gender. It
has failed to address masculinity, and
its often harmful and violent expression.
It avoids the reality of women being
deprived of their right to negotiate sexual
relationships. Some women’s
empowerment programmes for HIV
prevention have also added to the
existing burden on women as safe sex
negotiation strategies have become
their exclusive responsibility.
While abstinence may be appropriate at
some stages of life and faithfulness is
for many people the preferred choice,
they both unfortunately do not guarantee
protection against infection in the
community setting. There is no question
of the validity and the importance
of abstinence and faithfulness.
But highlighting these at the cost of
comprehensive and holistic prevention
strategies will not help us address the
root causes of HIV.
According to some interpretations of
ABC, the use of a condom automatically
puts a person in the category of one who
cannot be faithful or does not want to
abstain. This fuels stigma and precludes
safer sexual practices. Though the ABC
approach itself has its limitation, it is
sometime further truncated by some
faith communities who, having problems
accepting the role of condoms in
prevention, conveniently drop the ‘C’.
A limited ABC strategy becomes a
further compromised AB!
Many regions have a serious problem
of HIV transmission through injecting
drug use. The ABC completely
precludes dealing with this route of
transmission and other significant
routes of infection such as – mother-tochild
transmission and unsafe blood
transfusions. The strategy is also
incapable of addressing the social
issues such as poverty and the role of
harmful traditions and practises in HIV
transmission. The ABC approach is
also didactic and less open to dialogue
and participation of people living with
HIV. Many proponents get carried away
and seem to be quite sure about what
“we” are able to do for “them”.
Perspectives also become skewed
when faith communities talk to one
another, excluding other civil society
players, resulting in “I scratch your back
and you mine... I will ask you what youwant to respond to and you will answer
what I want to hear!”
As the AB approach now has many
proponents and sources of funding, it is
for faith communities to ask themselves
difficult and incisive questions, and
search for more comprehensive
alternatives.
The way forward
The African Network of Religious
Leaders Living with or personally
affected by HIV and AIDS (ANERELA+)
has developed a new model for a
comprehensive HIV response,