Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Community Development: Notes from South Africa

I had the privilege of visiting South Africa last summer with the O.U. Aids in South Africa program coordinated through the Nelson Mandela Municipal University, NMMU, in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. We had lectures at NMMU as a means of orientation to the country, history, and community in which we would be volunteers. The following are principles of community development that are used as guidelines in the Eastern Cape (province), South Africa, where Port Elizabeth is located.

Community development should address:

1. Abstract human needs, but development progresses addressing concrete needs. It is not FOR people, but WITH people. Thus, it is a joint effort and problems of hierarchy are diminished in the service of human dignity, self reliance and happiness.

2. Learning – all must learn together

3. Participation – at all levels and it begins with decision-making for the community.

4. Empowerment – through information, knowledge , experience + power

5. Ownership – the community owns it – It is the outcome off participation and empowerment.

6. Release

vs. relief

the process of empowerment in problem solving

7. Adaptiveness

* There is no blue print - each community is different

* Learn as you go along, make mistakes and correct – if necessary

8. Simplicity

* Bigger is not necessarily better

* Local motivation is a key factor

It was stressed that development professionals MUST, above all, listen to the community voices. Dialogue, get their input, use a democratic forum. Our lecturer told the following story: Nelson Mandela was going around to various communities building schools. He arrived in one community, to open the new school, and was told “We didn’t need a school. We need a clinic. Why didn’t someone ask us what we could use in our community?” To Mandela’s credit, he told the story himself, to make the point.

The point is, outsiders cannot make those community decisions. Government causes itself and people a lot of problems trying to impose from the outside, what it thinks should be done.

Another example: A community had a problem of an inadequate water supply. The outside development specialists said “ You need to solve your water problem.” The people of the community insisted that they needed a soccer field, BEFORE they needed a new water supply. The outsiders threw up their hands and exclaimed “ What can you do with these people, they want a soccer field before an adequate water supply. Typical Africans, they just want to play soccer, no wonder nothing ever gets better.”

The community won that round and a soccer field was built. The community rallied around a soccer league and the community literally developed itself making new friends and talking amongst their neighbors at soccer games. The next year they told the development specialists: “ We are ready to go forward with the water project. We have been talking and planning and believe we can get it done now. Before, there was too much strife and contention as to what should be done.”

3 comments:

  1. I very much agree with you Ellyn that “development professionals MUST, above all, listen to the community voices”. I however caution against assuming that the presence of dialogue inevitably implies the existence of a democratic process.
    Unfortunately, as well intentioned as practitioners have been about using participatory approaches to development, often times what is expected to allow all voices to be heard, fails to reach everyone, thus, making it in the end not very democratic at all.

    For instance, the example you gave of the community who had a problem of adequate water supply but insisted instead that they needed a soccer field, made me question how many women’s voices were amidst that “community.” Were these voices heard as a part of a community meeting/forum? If that’s the case, women’s perspectives and wants could be easily overlooked as women rarely participate in community forums. So then, the attention should be placed on not just making sure that the community is heard, but on making sure that ALL of the members of the community have a chance to express needs and demands.

    I expressed concerns that women’s voices might have been overlooked in the example of the soccer field, because in Africa, it has been shown that South African women walk the equivalent of to the moon and back 16 times a day just to fetch water; or 319 times round the earth's equator. (http://www.africanwater.org/development.htm). By way of the division of labor, men do not have a direct interest in water supply but women as the numbers above show, definitely do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. From Moriah:
    Ellen you make the comment that "outsiders cannot make those community decisions. Government causes itself and people a lot of problems trying to impose from the outside, what it thinks should be done", this is indeed true. Another problem that arises is that this become an unintentional consequence to local development agencies that hope to foster community development trhough participatory approaches. As a result, local organizations end up having to revert to a top-down approach to projects because of issues associated with resource allocation and capacity. It is something that continues to hinder the capability for communities to actively engage and solve their own problems.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I expressed concerns that women’s voices might have been overlooked in the example of the soccer field, because in Africa, it has been shown that South African women walk the equivalent of to the moon and back 16 times a day just to fetch water; or 319 times round the earth's equator." (-Nini)

    I agree with both you, Ellyn, and Nini.I think that the NGOs and development groups are sometimes so eager to help in they way that they think is right, that they often do not take the time to think about what actually should be done to better the community or area. However, Nini, I often think about the issue you brought up, and I think it was displayed somewhat in our role-play activity. In our discussion and through the reading, it seemed that we recognized it was an issue that men were not incorporated into the discussion about micro-finance. The water plan that Nini brings up portrays the same issue. Did everyone have a voice in discussing if they could use the soccer field? Where is the empowerment, ownership, or participation in that scenario?

    It's a shame that its hard to see a win-win here. Women are excluded, men are excluded...why can't we get everyone together?!

    ReplyDelete