Participatory Development on Social Development

August 11, 2009

Cyl Bryan Bagadiong, International Relations, MUGSGS

 

On the developmental spheres, it is said that flawed premise breeds flawed model of development, thus, produces flawed explanatory constructs and flawed practices.

It is on this note that this reflective and theoretical discourse  will take off in its attempt to take a closer look at participatory development as an approach or method to implement social development initiatives which is making wave, not only in this part of the globe, but in Europe and Africa.

However, this discourse will no longer dwell on the history and inception of participatory development but will instead take presumptuously the tenet that others believe – that is - that the concept of participatory development was “baptized” by the western thinkers. This student contends that the concept had already been in existence and practiced in the East as a way of life ever since the kingdom come. It was only the western thinkers that coined the name “participatory development” but Asian culture had been living the concept ever since.

Empowerment, people-based, people-focused, human capital, social capital, multi-aspect, partnership, cooperation, and enabling governance are the core ideological concepts that form the tenets of participatory development. Asian countries history is replete with this concept since pre-colonial times. The Philippines’ Barangay system of communal living, the Malaysian’s kerajaan  basic villages,  Japan’s hamlet society during the Joumoon period until the Yayoi era, Bangladesh’s communal system of “bang” villages of Dravidians migrants, among others, already exhibited the symptomal characteristic and the basic principles of participatory development integrated in their daily lives.

Added to this, the theories of participatory development, as an approach to social development, can already be glimpsed on several writing of noted Asian writers prior to the emergence of western writers who are now on the frontline of exposition of participatory development theories, concepts and practices. Buddhist economics, Sarkar’s progressive utilization theory, Sri Aurobindo’s verdict economics, Vivekananda’s socialist visions, and Matahma Gandhi’s precepts already had touched, at least in passing, the importance of enabling and empowering people to sustain real development.

Modern western writers such as Chambers argue that indeed the most potent approach to development should be participatory, people-based, enabling and dynamic. Participatory in a sense that there must be a shift from the upper-to-lower power focus to lower-to-upper focus of power relations. People-based in a sense that the ultimate objective of development and the process itself should be shifted from “things” to “people” – the participants of the development itself and in which the development is being strive for. Enabling in a sense that the end goal of development should not only be measured on the traditional indicators of normative and classic economics but should also focused on how the participants became empowered and how its position had been moved from the margin to the center stage. Finally, dynamic in a sense that it should be responsive to the needs and issues of the participants of the developmental process and it should be both a means and an end. Thus, based on this tenet, modern writers had formed and created several theoretical frameworks based on their theories and analysis which, now, is prevailing among the Asian countries.

But implementation of these approach and concepts in this part of the world had been marked by failures on the past, albeit, success stories had also been sporadically recorded and had been used by the western writers as their leverage to further promote participatory development theories, concepts and approaches. Recent high rate of success of participatory development approaches, however, cannot solely be attributed to the concept of the western writers and scholars. What they do not know is that these concepts had already been mutated by the Asians to fit this different part of the world. Albeit, still, the kudos will remain to these early espousers of this approach for spreading this infectious wave of developmental perspective.

For the purpose of this term paper however, this student will raise some points I deduced during a reflective moment which will comes now under the disguise of academic freedom and discourse.

ii.            THE PREMISES

This student believe that regardless how noble the very concept of western participatory development, it is still based on a flawed premise. The premise that is usually being taken by other participatory development facilitators is based on the premise of scarcity. Like their concept of social development, Western development thinkers’ core premise of scarcity is very evident on how they view the “poor” as person or persons whose status are somewhat deprived of some things such as money, food, dignity, knowledge, etc, thus, reflective also of their model of participatory development models. These “poor” are therefore considered on the lower part of social and economic stratification. Chamber argued that there must be a reversal of role wherein the lower should now be put at the top while the upper should now be at the bottom. The very existence of the lower and the upper is reflective of the western core premise of scarcity that thus echoes their values of production, distribution, consumption and exchange both at the macro and micro level.

Take for example in the case of the Philippines, Filipino minds don’t work that way. If ever a modern Filipino do believe the scarcity mode, it is because consumerism, which is the hall mark of revivified market as introduced by western political economy centered on mercantilism and physiocracy, had made us to think like that. Filipino still keep eating five times a day, whether poor or not poor, they rarely keep a savings account, and this is true not only among Filipinos but also with other South East Asian Cultures. In Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, among others, practice of hoarding is not a virtue. Sharing is the name of the game. Whenever a family in these Asian countries cooks a meal, the excess is gathered not to be hoarded for another day, but the proper virtue is to share the excess food to neighbors and kins. This is because, deep within the psyche of these people, is the concept of abundance. They think that Mother Nature, and someone from transcendent spheres, will provide the needs of the community every day.

This basic premise of abundance is being undermined by some participatory development experts. They tend to believed that the “beneficiaries” are people of “nothingness” thus nothing or have less to share and so therefore must save. Thus, by allowing them to participate through, usually collective efforts, development will be achieve by strengthening the social capital as the basic foundation of the approach. But taking back a look at the premise of abundance and its effect, the very practice of sharing creates within a community a reciprocity-based relationship. This reciprocal virtue in turn becomes the basis of volunteerism and human asset accretions arising from networks of social groups within the community. This human asset, which the western thinkers such as Peter Evans called social capital, is the same kind of capital that is a catalyctic factor in various participatory development endeavors.

Thus, instead of undermining this premise of abundance, which I believe were sub-consciously retained by majority of eastern people, participatory development must seek to reinforce this among the “participants”. There must be a bridge between these premises among the theoretical models espoused by the approach.

iii.          THE MODEL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PARTICIPATION

Gandhi and Marx, in their various articulations, both premised people’s participation to the society on the abundance. They believe that people live according to their needs. Resource materialization abets this belief. Marx argues that the premise of scarcity encourages pauperization on the proletariat class.

With the understanding that needs vary from one community to another and that the planet has more than enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed, this student therefore argues that true participatory development do not lie on the reversal of roles of the “top” to the “bottom” but to the equalization of role of both the “top” and the “bottom”, both in the structure and the process itself. I believe that there should not be a reversal resulting to an inverted pyramid, but what we must have is the model which is flat, that is, every participants, whether its government, NGO, “Facilitator”, “beneficiaries”,  community, donor, I mean, everyone, must be on equal footing in an equal and level playing field to catalyze development.

With each of the players on equal footing and each truly respecting one another, only then a free and true participation and resultant development can ensue. But if one of the player sees the other as one which is lower than himself or lower than the other, and one sees that the other is just being “consented”, “allowed”, or “tolerated”  to be above him for the purpose of the process, then, no matter what participatory strategy be adopted, true development will never occur. This is because; the sense of being undermined is still there which runs contra to the very essence of empowerment and development.

iv.          THE EXPLANATORY CONSTRUCTS

Various participatory development methods and approaches put emphasis on the shift of paradigm from things to people. They argue that the rhetoric of development must put people first and poor people first of all. They further argue that participatory development must shift the power from the local and to those who are poor.

I contend therefore that this is a flawed constructs of participatory development.

First, I would not argue that indeed, empowerment is needed especially by the people and the poor first of all. But who says that other participant does not need empowerment? Empowerment must not only be defined on its sense of being enabled. Empowerment must also include the sense of learning how to exercise that power responsibly, share that power and even to the point of being less powered so that others may be empowered too. So instead of shifting it, why not just share it? Some participants in the approach or in the process of development may have the power institutionally, but they too don’t wield that power for they too need empowerment on how to exercise that power. Others may seem not having the power but they have the power but only they fail to recognize that they have the power.  Poor has power. Their even learn to use their powerlessness to their advantage so in a sense they being poor is already power enough. Poverty can sometimes be empowering. Sometimes, they even abuse their power of powerlessness to take advantage of those who has no power or even those who have power. Point is, empowerment takes many forms not only the form of enabling, sometimes, to be empowered; there is a need to de-power.

Second, to shift focus to the people from things also spells fallacy. People are people thus have limitations and weaknesses. People have intricacies that really lived to the expectation of being intricate. People’s grasp of reality differs from, not only from one group to another, but also from person to person. Thus, if we are subscribe of shifting the focus base on people, then, there will be no standard reality that we can grasp thus it will be a pure rhetoric again, subjective and unrealizable to its hyper-volatility of scope and concept of truth or reality.

But that goes without arguing that indeed there must be shift from things. For things, as I had already mentioned is a concept of maldevelopment that had been espoused by mercantilism and physiocrasy. But the shift must not solely to the people. Why not to an idea? An objective? A vision? A mission? An aspiration? Conceptual they may be, yet they are enough for the development to be more focused as the process is locked on in a specific agreed fixed target that the empowered participants themselves had previously and collectively locked on, than on a mobile target. Mobile in a sense that since it is based on people themselves, it may be subjected to change frequently depending upon their whims and caprices or the frequency of the evolvement of their pressing needs and issues. But locking on doesn’t mean the adaptability or dynamism of the process must be killed. Instead, why not look both on a macro vision that is fixed and supplement it with micro objectives that are dynamic?

v.           THE PRACTICES

I use to start a small-group discussion (SGD), whenever I am given the chance to participate in a “community catalyzing” (community development or community building for the western thinkers) activity as a social preparation work for implementation of a socio-economic project under participatory development approach, in this rhetoric: Just imagine that you are all in one boat. The boat is in the middle of the water; its sail is waving majestically on the blue sky while the blue ocean is under your boat tossing you up and down. Everyone in the community is in that boat. And you saw a land. Everybody wants to go to that land. So what will you do? Of course, everyone must paddle towards that land, in one direction, all at the same time, all the same strength and same length of paddling. But while others may paddle long enough for they are strong, others may paddle for just a short time for they are weak, it’s perfectly all right to let others take some rest, for if others grow tired, then they can paddle too. What is important is that everyone must do their share, no matter what are their capabilities for everyone has capabilities and none of incapability…in that manner, everyone and all at the same time, can reach that land you saw from afar”.

Every time I started my teach-in in that manner, at the end of the rhetoric, someone will always asked me, “where will you be then during those times we are paddling our boat?” “Maybe, he’s with us stirring the boat?” said another. “Or maybe he is with us in the boat, drumming a beat so that everyone of us will paddle at the same time, like those boats in the Chinese dragon boat race” opined by another.

My answer always will be “No, by the time you paddled, I already jump from the boat to the water. It is your boat and it’s your land. I’m just one of the cheering squad”.

While many government organizations (GOs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) approach the participatory development in a manner that they are deeply involved in the process of development, it is quite understandable as they have to protect the interests of those who sent them there at the grassroots level. In these cases, accountability is divided among the grassroots partner and the government or the donor. This comes to focus whenever the priorities and needs of the participants are different. Thus, it is quite often that we find ourselves looking at the interest of the people, the government, the NGO, the donors and all other stakeholders competing against each other or being anathema with each other in worst cases. Often than not, each participants is forced to create a state of development that is perfectly acceptable for each other, for each and every one of the stakeholder fears to fail in protecting their own interests and objectives . But this state of development in no development at all. It is a temporal state, a purgatory, where, sure it may be better than hell, but nevertheless, is not the heaven.

This is so because participants fail to recognize each and everyone’s role. There are many factors why these happened and some are already been discoursed theoretically on the preceding paragraphs. Some are from relative shift of power and how the concept of empowerment is viewed. But in participatory development and with all its complexities, we must always ask these questions “whose future is being charted? Who must chart it? Who must pursue it? Then what are you doing here? How do you help? Why do you help? What help? Do they need help?” among others. These questions will always make each participant to be kept in focused of their role and every one’s role. Indeed, sometimes, participatory development approach is accomplished by not participating at all.

vi.          THEORITICAL PROPOSITIONS

I cannot offer any manual on participatory development as I do not claim any expertise on this approach. I only posed this reflective points, not to agitate, but more to enhance the exchange of ideas on this very potent method of development. Thus, I cannot help but to conclude this blabbering, disguising as a term paper, on the following points:

·         VALUE-BASED INTEGRATED FRAMEWORKS

Participatory development as an approach and method must have more on value-based integrated frameworks rather than those being currently espoused that are gradually becoming to be scientific and empiricist in treatment. Yes, participatory development must not shun participatory evaluation and other methods it being an applied science, yet, we must welcome also ideas that are being given birth by the combinations of the ideas of our eastern thinkers, western thinkers, and the locales. These ideas usually results to frameworks that are often value-based. Participatory development approaches must have the capability to bring these resultant frameworks from the margin to the center. Ideas such as social enterprise and developmental co-sharing are slowly gaining ground in the East Asian countries such as the Philippines. These ideas are value-based and participatory in methodology. Albeit, they are not in the formal framework of participatory development, but anything that work for the empowerment and enabling of the people and the community must be given due consideration and be promoted.

 

·         GOING BACK TO THE BASICS

Participatory development worked because it is simple not complex. It is understandable and does not require a four-year course of learning. It does not require people to understand the complexities of the terms. It exists as it exists because of the societal needs to exist, survive and live harmoniously. But looking at the various manuals of tools for one supposed to be use in a participatory method, one cannot help but to be confused or be afraid of terms such as “Teach-ins”, “research by immersion” “visual mapping” “needs assessment” ”interactive planning” etc. Would it be simple if you sit with a group of farmers, bring a basket of peanut or anything than can be munched or a bottle of a local brew, and chat with them regarding their problems and what they want to do to resolve them without mentioning anything that resembles the terms as mentioned above? Sometimes the tools mentioned in the manuals are not really helpful as foreign terms and processes usually intimidate them and tend to be inhibitory.

 

·         PROVIDER TO ENABLING

The role of other partners and participants must also be examine and dispensed carefully. The role of the NGO’s, donor, government, must be approached in a manner of not being a provider but an enabler.

If one will be a provider, a patron-client relationship will be created. This will breed the same old problem of breeding of rent-seekers, NGO now acting as a “beneficiaries”, or it will further reinforced dependence among the grassroots.

In participatory development process, everyone, every participants must be an enabler for each other. Each stake holder must perform a catalytic role, and must be able to challenge each and every one of the participants to continuously embark on the pursuit of the developmental goals that they themselves had locked in. In that process, stakeholders will be strengthened and their understanding of each and everyone’s needs, issues, and aspirations will be deepened.

 

·         SYNERGY AND EQUALITY

Finally, each of the participants and stakeholders in this developmental process must continuously engage each other in the co-determination of development. Each treating each other equally and each actions are in synergy. Development cannot be done by the government alone, nor by the donors, nor by the NGOs, nor by grassroots, or not even by only two or three of them. But development must encompass all, not only the direct stakeholders but also the indirect stakeholders such as private institutions and business sector. They too must have a synergy of action with the people and their vision of development, for if everyone is in synergy, the social capital which is the fundamental development base will be as strong as ever and colossally formidable.

 

vii.        CONCLUSION

Participatory development, whether as a means or an end, a process or just dynamics, an approach or a method, is concept that had been making wave everywhere as a potent approach towards social development. Western thinkers may have coined the name but the practice and its essence had proven to be already in practice and existence in as had been told by history. The existence of which was brought by the basic instinct of humanity to survive as a community, each of them, recognizing the vital contribution of each other to the existence of one another.

Recent developments in the Participatory Development as an approach and method however seems to undermine some core tenets that the concept itself had espoused and some of the western frameworks of ideas are not adaptable to eastern way of thinking. Thus, there are some reflective points that need to be shared so that at least theoretically and academically be given some steaming off. These reflective points basically points to the direction of paradigm shifts that the approach had espoused.

But like all other conceptual theories, this student understand that framework of the approach must continually evolve to the changing society which has a changing needs that developed through changing times. Nevertheless, Participatory, with its “ends” in perspective, is a noble and potent approach towards social development. It is said the participatory development approach must, too be a dynamic process. Then, it must prove therefore its dynamism and its capability to adapt to a dynamic society ever pulled from different directions. But is my view that since participatory development strength rely both on elemental and collective strength of the stakeholders and participants, it will never be a passé nor be antiquated. It may take many forms or may continue to evolve, but its core tenets and principle will always be there as long as man is a society.