Help them to help
themselves: Why and How?
Rudrajit Sarkar
There has been huge claim on success of the participatory
model of development. But still there is little evidence of its long term
effectiveness (Cleaver, 1999). According to the theorists of participatory
approaches, participation simply has two basic benefits. Firstly, the
efficiency of project outcomes gets improved and secondly the key stakeholders
of development get empowered (Nelson and Wright, 1995). Participation boosts
the capacity of individuals to improve their own lives and promotes social
change. Participatory development projects always target these short and long
term objectives. Although, as a developmental project is at all times more
practical than theoretical, it emphasizes to fulfil more practical and less
strategic need with quantifiable costs and benefits, with time-limited
activities and budgets (Eyburn and Ladbury, 1995). Therefore, there is a strong
need to understand the non-project matter of people’s lives better (Giddens,
1984).
Measurement of participation is not permanently found identical in all meetings with villagers. In most meetings practically, village groups engage themselves in choosing their perfect representatives. Consequently, sometimes the image of that representative remains unbiased group participation and sometimes they merely remain individual participation. Cleaver and Kaare (1998) observed that in public meetings a single woman’s speaking meant group representation while a single men’s representation only implied individual one. Despite being a hub of human and other resources, a lot of communities face the common difficulties of civic dispute which often crafts difficulties in equal involvement. This small problem does not allow them to sort out big obstacles for the community. Moreover, cultural barriers create hurdles to bring out depiction from all micro social groups in a village community. These groups based on caste, religion, occupation etc. endure in a wide range of under-socialized to over- socialized. For that reason, economic rationality works as more important factor than social norms when there is a point to attract all towards participation. Modestly, if a group finds out that the meeting or work in which they are called, will serve as some benefit to gain livelihood opportunity, they come together for broader aims. Participation also differs on type of job required to be done by individuals. Every so often, people with more burdens of work and family responsibility (e.g.- working mothers and daily labours), can not contribute adequate time and workforce together when compared with relatively free individuals. Even though, there remains an extensive scope of mobilizing them so that they themselves motivate their family members or co-workers to grab the cost and benefits of participation. Another hands-on problem is that during moving towards community participation, project implementing agencies often put priority based on their institutional setting and project objectives. In the same way they target to maintain relationship with local government, research institutions, and donor advisors and manipulate the jobs as people’s participation. This is the harsh reality in many organisations.
There are lot of systematic ways of
getting people’s participation in development projects. During concept
development (need identification), planning, implementation and monitoring, development
professionals need to implement several techniques. PRA techniques,
particularly participatory mapping and modelling, transect walks, matrix
scoring, well-being grouping and ranking, institutional diagramming, seasonal
calendars, trend and change analysis, and analytical diagramming have revealed
themselves as utmost important tools of public participation. Mascarenhas et al., (1991) have identified three
basic components of PRA as participatory methods, behaviour and attitudes of
external agents, and sharing of knowledge and experience. PRA has some issues
too due to unpredictability and diversity of village farm environments,
suitability of questionnaires and data collection tools, equity in villagers’
participation, training of facilitators, personal behaviour and learning
attitude (Chambers, 1994). People’s attitude towards establishing their own
best judgement can be a better solution to properly empower themselves to find
out community problems smoothly. Chamber (1997) himself stated that, during
PRA, outsiders should not dominate and lecture; rather they should sit, listen
and learn.
Although,
participation has become a widely advocable methodological principle in
discourses of sustainable rural development, it still requires proper attention
throughout field implementation. Proper training, patience, and curiosity to
comprehensively understand field reality may deliver apposite scope for
participation. Govt. staffs, NGOs, rural development professionals,
academicians and scholars should spend enough time with villagers with keen
interest. Then only long term effectiveness can be achieved in development
objectives which will empower them to grow interest on developing skill and efficiency.
REFERENCES
1.
Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory
and Practice. London: IT Publications.
2. Cleaver,
J. (1999). Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to
Development. J. Int. Dev. 11,
597-612.
3. Eyburn,
R. and Ladbury, S. (1995). `Popular participation in aid assisted projects: why
more in theory than in practice?'. In Nelson, N. and Wright, R. (eds) Power and Participatory Development.
London: IT Publications, ch. 17.
4. Giddens,
A. (1984). The Constitution of Society:
Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
5. Cleaver,
F. and Kaare, B. (1998). `Social embeddedness and project practice: a gendered
analysis of promotion and participation in the Hesawa programme, Tanzania'.
University of Bradford for SIDA, June.
6. Mascarenhas,
J., Shah, P., Joseph, S., Devavaram, J., Jayakaran, R., Ramachandram, V.,….
& Pretty, J. (1991). Participatory
Rural Appraisal: Proceedings of the February 1991 Bangalore PRA Trainers
Workshop, RRA Notes, No. 13 (London: IIED and Bangalore: MYRADA, August
1991).
7. Chambers,
R. (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, Potentials and
Paradigm. World Development. 22(10).
1437-1454.
8.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First
Last. IT Publications. London.
**********************************
No comments:
Post a Comment