PARTICIPATORY RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA: A SCEPTICAL POINT OF VIEW
LIMITATION OF THE PAPER
The source materials of the paper are mostly secondary and varied. Some are official docu-ments/pronouncements of the countries, others are mission reports of the UN agencies, seminar working papers and yet other publications by
various authors. They are of different periods.
Hence they suffer from several limitations, viz., (1) the source of the materials is not uniform;
121 they cover different periods, and
(3) none of them is direct and properly recorded statements of the rural people, specially the rural poor themselves; as has been done in an ILO publication.'
SECTION I
·For us, developing, the rural areas is a matter of life and death ... • - Ex-President K. Kaunda.
.... The greatest and most serious gap between precept and practice in the developing countries has been in the area ofrural development. Political rhetoric is hardly matched by the economic per-formance in the rural sector, hence the growing disillusionmfnt between the government and the people .... • - Country Review Paper of Nigeria,
1979.
.... Ifthe people are to be able to develop they must have power... At every stage of develop-ment people do know what their basic needs.: if they have sufficient freedom they can be relied upon to determine their0wn priorities
ff
develop-ment and then to work for them.. .". - Ex-Presi-dent J. Nyerere·Participation by the people in the institutions and systems which govern their lives is a basic human right and also essential for realignment of political power in favour of disadvantaged groups 1 The writer is grateful to Prof. Alula Abate, Department of Demographic Training and Research
Centre and Department of Geography, Addis Ababa UniversitY and his colleagues, Mr. J. Ericson and Dr. A.Y. Sulaiman, who kindly read the drafts of this paper and helped him to improve it with their substantive comments, as well as to Mr. Amare Bekele for his assistance in collecting background material. He is also obliged to Dr. S.C. Nana-Sinkam, Director, Joint ECA/FAO Agriculture Division, ECA for persuading, in fact, pushing him to resume writing under his own name after a prolonged break. Several drafts of the paper were patiently tvped by Ms. Guenet Haile. The writer is thankful to her. However, only the writer is responsible for any inaccuracy in and inadequacy of the paper. Similarly, the responsibility for the views expressed in it rests solely with him. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
and for social and economic development. Rural development strategies can realise their full poten-tial only through the motivation, active involve-ment and organi(ation at the grass roots level of rural people... "- World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (\NCARRD), Rome, 1979.
"Participation... raises questions very hard to face frankly -ot who is doing the choosing, how the choices are enforced and whether the style of development treats participation as a means or mainly' as an end ... Authentic participation...
(Thus) remsins an elusive aspiration... " 6_ M.
Wolfe
"The assertion that rural development serves afl, or almost allinterests is a necessary myth. The open recognition of conflict threatens the whole strategy of rural development as currently pur-sue• . .. where terms like 'participation' and 'part-nership' are used, it is clear the rural populatipn are the most subordinate of partners...«; J.
Heyer, P. Roberts and G. Williams
"... between changes courted from within, and change inflicted from w~thout, there is all the difference in the world"- A. Adams
The paper deliberately reproduces above sev-eral extracts of the statements on rural develop-ment and people's participation by famous and influential African personalities and authors, be-sides others. Each of these extracts read sepa-rately convey certain dream or reality. But, when read together, they seem inconsistent. One starts wandering where lies the truth or at least approxi-mation to it. Africa seems to be on the crossroads.
Is it going to leam from history or let the history of traditional process of economic growth of the (now] affluent world repeat itself? These extracts succinctly raises the issues involved in develop-ment of rural Africa.
DEFINITIONS OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION
There is no uni-modal means or thinking in social science. Diversity is its beauty or difficulty.
Proceeding from the same set of facts or policy statements different interest groups can arrive at different interpretations, objectives and rneas-ureslmethods to attain them. They cannot be graded as either right or wrong. All one can do is to objectively study whether they are logical and substantiated by available evidence. Hence, the variety of definitions and concepts of say, "rural development" and "people's participation". There is no genuine meeting of minds and cannot be either. For, each one is looking at them from his point of view, from his field of specialisation and from his position within the existing hierarchy of interests, power and influence. Can there be any meeting of minds between those, seating around a dinning table, enjoying the feast of life and those
waiting on them specially in poor countries, with acute disparity in distribution of income. The former, if pressed, may OPt for "tokenism" to diffuse any threat to the status qllg whilil, the latter, if organized, mBYnot settle for anything less than "turning point": a water-shed in their life.
Between these two extremes, there is the usual horse-trading of "give and take", the more digni-fied term for which is consensus. Such consen-sus, at least in formal terms, is now available for rural development and people's participation.
Hence, to avoid another round of debate about their definitions, this paper adopts the rural devel-opment concept of the Moshi Conference (1969) 10. WCARRD's definition of "people's par-ticipation" has been quoted at the beginning of the paper. WCARRD was attended by 48 out of 50 member States of Africa. They, along with others, adopted its report. It has thus their endorsement, just as the Lagos Plan of Action for the economic development of Africa (1980-2000), United Na-tions Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development(1986-19901 African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programme for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation (AAF-SAP) (1989) and African Charter for Popular Participation in Development (1 9901 have.
In the words of the participants of the Moshi Conference, rural development" ... is the outcome of a series of quantitative and qualitative changes occurring among a given rural population and whose converging effects indifate in time a rise in the standard of their living".1 It does not mean isolated sectoral projects. The concept rather needs a comprehensive development of the rural sector. It implies: (i) sustained economic growth at least at a rate reasonably above the population growth rate and (ii) a drastic change in the existing socio-economic order and power structure in fa-vour of the rural poor for their conscientization and eventual re-empowerment.
Elaborating the concept, the Report of the Con-ference explicitly states the main objectives of rural development are " ... belief in democracy or socialism, universal education, increased produc-tivity, consolidation of national independence, bet-ter living conditions and the benefits of science and technology. More specific shorter-run instru-mental objectives are validated by the primary objectives to which they relate: increased per capita output in income; modernization of agricul-ture and industrialization; health and nutrition;
education and welfare; more equitable distribution of national wealth; .. ." 12
The Moshi report, in its spirit, is clearly vision-ary. A vision may be shared or admired but would not necessarily be concretised in a policy-package without subtle resistance or time lag specially if it involves institutional reforms. And there cannot be any more equitable distribution of national wealth without simultaneous participation of the
rural people, particularly the hitherto "excluded majority" in the entire development process.
Given these definitions of rural development and people's participation, let us briefly review African experience of people's participation in rural development so far. Africa is a vast conti-nent, with great diversity in factor endowments, ideology and institutions between her national states. Some are market economies (such as Kenya, Nigeria and Liberia), others have mixed economies (viz. Tanzania) and yet others were centrally planned economies (for example, Ethio-pia and Benin) until recently. Some states have federal structure (such as Nigeria) and others had unitary form of government (Ethiopia) with either monarchy, or military or single or multi-partvlies) as the base. Each state has its own path to follow.
The diversity of path followed to presumably facilitate people's participation is illustrated below by some selected country examples.
SECTION II
Tanzania
The Arusha Declaration of1967is a watershed in the recent history of Tanzania. In sharp depar-ture from the past it:
(i) opted for socialism and self-reliance;
(ii) decided to settle the scattered population in designated villages to benefit from the econo-mies of scale and to provide basic services;
(iii) designated agriculture as the leading sec-tor;
(iv)urged the settled villagers for communal farming and living;
(v) established party structure right down to the village level;
(vi) set up the village Government composed of (a) the Village Assembly, (b) Village Council and (c) five technical committees;
Ivii) designated the Prime Minister's office to assume the over-all responsibility for co-ordinating the rural development programme.
"Tanzania's policy of socialism arises out a strong belief in both the equality of all men and the centrality of man as a target for all develop-ment efforts by society... The concept of self-re-liance is an attempt in defining a st5ategy for domestic mobilization of resources... "1 The dic-tionary meaning of socialism is "political and eco-nomic theory of social organization which advocates that community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution
and exchange; policy and practice based on this theory ... ".1 Similarly, self-reliance, simply put, means either one cuts his coat according to his cloth or having decided on the size of the coat, buys or produces the required length pf cloth with own resources. The resources could be generated by cutting back current consumption (more sav- . ings and less expenditure out of given stream of income) or sharply eliminating unproductive heads of expenditure like armed forces or improving indigenous productivity.
The evidence so far is that:
The productivity of l%mmunal farms is less than that of private farms, an experience which is witnessed elsewhere 16 and recorded as well in FAO's successive Production Year Books. The outlook is of continuing fall in agriculture output, declining eXPfrts and increasing food import re-quirements. If the expectation were that social-ized agriculture in Tanzania will be more efficient than, say, of neighbouring Kenya then the case has not been proved. In fact, Tanzania has already abandoned its socialized agriculture. It was obliged to launch a programme for economic sur-vival since1977despite massive dose of external assistance. The country was one of the greatest beneficiaries of foreign aid flow, which raises a questton-rnark regarding its seriousness regarding self-reliance and efficacy of aid.
Her villagization programme, strictly on grounds of economics, is unexceptionable. However, nei-ther the process of decision-making nor the imple-mentation of the policy of villagization, after a stage, was participatory. The decision was handed down from Dar-es-Salaam. "The 1974 operation of (planned) villages was not to be a matter of persuasion but of coercion. As Nverere, argued, the move had to be compulsory because Tanzania could not sit back seeing the majority of the people leading a 'life of death'. The state, had, therefore, to take the role of the "father' in ensur-ing that its people chose a better and more pros-perous life for themselves."18 By 1980, almost 86 per cent of the rural population found them-selves living in designated villages 19 although a very few of them Qualified to be known as Iijamaa20 (the Qualification being: ·substantial portion of its economic activities are being under-taken on a communal basis").
The villagization programme of Tanzania has received great attention. The economies and con-veniences to be derived from it are obvious. How-ever, the fact remains it was clearly an imposition.
The affected people did not decide. It was decided for them by others, with impatient vision to trans-form Tanzania as agriculture-based socialist na-tion. The people were left with no choice. They just had to conform and carry out the orders, whether they understood or not that the pro-gramme was for their own good. The evidence now shows that:
la) the programme was undertaken too hast-ily;
(b) the process of imposing it on the villagers in some cases was not quite non-violent;
Icl unsuitable sites were selected in several cases for obliging villagers to settle down and
Id) the whole process of villagization was top-down and under the direction of the Govern-ment officials.
Is this participation?Z1 Does not the concept of 'participation', by definition, mean the rightDIJ1 to participate, if a person so chooses? Does not the freedom of association carry the samefreedom to dissociate? Similarly, is it a right or obligation to consent if there is no corresponding right to dissent? Depending on how one reacts to these queries there is another- and more basic- question to raise: Are not the principle of a monolithic system anywhere, however well-intentioned, and authentic people's participation mutually exclu-sive? The recent break-up of one of the super-powers into several states possibly re-enforces the validity of this query. Similarly, the decision of Tanzania to opt for multi-party system, following the current trend, reflects its recognition of the mutual exclusiveness noted in this paragraph.
The villi!ge branches of TANU (the ruling partvl are channels of communication from the grass-roots to the Dar-es-Salaam Head-quvters and the other way round. Subject to the queries raised above, Tanzania had a network of consultative machinery. The felt needs of the villages could be articulated. The bottom-up and top-down process of information flow regarding the resource base and priority consistency would possibly be more educated. However, enthusiasm to join the party amongst the rural Tanzanians, does not seem to be as much as one would have expected. Only
"half of the ~~ults in the village are members of the Party... " indicating they do not agree with the 'party-line'? If so. why?
The membership of the village Government is automatic for all residents of the village aged 18 years and above. The Party Branch and the Village Government are expected to provide the base for the higher tier of: (il District Development Council;
(iiI Party Executive Committee and (iii) Manage-ment Team. The other chain or organization is the out-posted bureaucracy. i.e.• the planning machin-ery at regional and district levels. In theory, they should inter-act. The "will" or the" shopping list"
of felt needs of the Village Government should provide the frame or perspective for the out-posted planning experts to work out the details.
prepare plans consistent with national objectives.
priorities and resource mobilization. There is.
IJliInB
~a 'two way traffic' or scope for rural development dialogue.The dialogue, if not to degenerate into disguised monologue, however, pre-supposes:
(a) the villagers have an institutionalised voice in setting up macro level objectives and priorities since the micro ones are logically derived from them; or
Ibl the micro-objectives, as gathered by the consultative process, dictate the macro ones, de-spite supposed conflict between considerations of economic efficiency and people's participation;
(c) the lack of technical back-up or inadequacy of skill or sophistication in articulation of the perceived needs and their order of priority by the rural people would not be used as an excuse for technocrats' weakness to "take-over". This means an enlightened willingness to 'abdicate' or ditch technocrats' self-arrogated "authority" in a situation of near complete formal illiteracy of the 'constituents" ;
(dl devolution of authority in favour of con-cerned officials and party office bearers at grass-roots levels as against mere out-posting from Dar-es-Salaam;
(e) reversal of the policy to centralize collec-tion of revenue and its allocacollec-tion. The rural people should have the authority restored to them to collect their revenue/tax and spend most of it in implementing their planned activities;
If1 there is specified criteria for resource allo-cation either on grounds of equity lin favour of poor areas) or development lof a potentially rich area) so that scope for arbitrary allocation of 'patronage' is minimized.
A study of the relevant literature suggests that none {If these facilitating factors has been realized so far. In fact. the evidence so far is that:
(i) the concept of self-reliance at the grass-root level has virtually been substituted by dependency of the villagers on the Government (in Dar-es-Sa-laam) and the nation on external aid. including.
food;
(ii) the administrative structures put in place have resulted in greater 'remote control' than perhaps was originally anticipated in the absence of devolution of authority;
(iii) the party hierarchy has become an extra-constitutional machinery to which the Govern-ment from village to the centre (Dar-es-Salaam) is subservient. In so far as the party membership barely cover 50 per cent of the adult population, it. by implication. imposes its will on the other half.
thus negating' participation';
II !
(iv) the village level planning has become 'academic' or a shopping list far in excess of resources. Indeed sinv per cent of these requests had to be dropped. Clearly. planning without obligation or authority to mobilize resources is 'play-acting'. Moreover. it generates irresponsible expectation of getting funds from the Centre and by the same token creates frustration when ex-pectation does not match the resources allocated;
(v) the more serious negative assessment of the Tanzania approach is that the rural people are not expected to take initiative. which may run counter to or be seen to be 'subversive'. A recent study alleges, "the idea that rural development might beliiitiated by the rural population itself does not enter the conception of rural develop-ment. Indeed, where the rural population takes an organized initiative of its own accord, its activities are distrusted by external agencies to such a degree that they are suppressed, diverted or pre-emptied. The Ruvuma Development Association in Tanzania, a strikingly successful initiative from the rural population and one of the original models for what later'becamethe official policy of Ujamaa came to be regarded as athr~llt to Government and was eventually banned... "
(vi) the decision to assign the responsibility of rura' development to the Prime Minister's office was indeed a correct one provided (a) rural
(vi) the decision to assign the responsibility of rura' development to the Prime Minister's office was indeed a correct one provided (a) rural