under the banner of development- majid rahnema

7/28/2019 Under the Banner of Development- Majid Rahnema

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/under-the-banner-of-development-majid-rahnema 1/10

U n d e r t h e B a n n e r o f D e v e l o p m e n t

Majid Rahnema

Development is one of those corru pted o r "amaeba" words— as Ivan Illich calls them — that have come to blur ourperception of present realities. It means different things todifferent peop le. The innocent and the well-wisher w ho stillbelieve in it, and fight for it, want it to be what the WebsterDictionary says about it. To develop, says Webster, is "tounfold gradually like a flower from a bud". A beautiful andinspiring definition indeed w hich inv ites all generou s peopleto participa te in the process. Sim ilarly, for the majority of'field workers' involved in various development activities,development is identified with a host of programmes aimedat alleviating maln utritio n, disease, ignorance , indigence,socio-economic inequa lities, etc.

The concept of development, as it has now emerged as a

social construct, corresponds however to something quitedifferent. It has a history. It represents an ideology. Themyth, the metaphor and the assum ptions under lying i t havealready colonized the minds to such an extent that we canno longer wish it to be what it really is not. Many o thermodern words have gone throu gh sim ilar processes. To takean example, it is no longer possible to talk about national-socialism as if it were a wished for marriage of Utopiannationalism and humanistic socialism. To go on trying togive development a meaning that it no longer has, is tosustain an illusion that is both misleading and dangerous.

. The illusion has persisted b ecause, in the last forty y ears,development has appeared in public under many differentseductive appearances and masks. As these are dropping,

development in its nudity is showing up for what it hasalways been: the last offspring of the old colonial family,trained and called on to save its interests und er the d ram aticconditions of a world where much subterfuge and changes

vrf attitude were required to succeed.

I Before addressing the particular subject of developmentand the United Nations, I shall try, first, to submit a fewhistorical facts on the conception of the offspring; second,to indicate, how d espite certain qua litativ e differences in

approach, 'development ' represents the modern, and hopefully, the last stage of colonialism.

T h e o r i g i n s o f t h e c o n c e p t a n d i t s

p r e s e n t m e a n i n g

Historically, the word development in its present contextis of a very recent origin. To my knowledge, when it wasused, first, in the Covenant of the League of Nations, andeven much later, when it received its full titres de noblesseby the Charter of the United Nations, the word was stillabsent from many languages of its future "target populat ions". In my own m other tongue, Farsi, writers and scholarshad to work hard to find a suitable equivalent for it, andno consensus ever emerged on the one finally adopted by'development ' planners.

Being an illiterate in Western his tory, it is difficult forme to sta te precise ly when, how, and by whom, the wordwas first used in Europe in its present meaning. It appears,however, that the notion of development "asserts itself inthe framework of reflections on the deployment of thecapitalist civilization in the XlXth Centu ry" (1). To take onillustrious example, Karl Marx has this to say in the Prefaceto the first German Edition of The Capital:

"The most industrially developed capitalist country showsto those which will follow it the image of their own future." (2).

The proposition well indicates how the belief in a linearprogress, leading to the goal of a universal civilization, wasthen shared even amongst the harshest cr i t ics of thecapita l is t c ivil iza tion. There is no doubt, anyho w, that therulers of colonial Europe and their ideologists had come tothe conviction that they were the bearers of a superiormodel of civilization, a model which they were now in aposition to offer to the rest of the world, particularly totheir "backward" or "pr imitive" peoples.

Development: Seeds of Change 1986: 1/2 37



Hence, as a rule, the colonized are contained and sys-I tematically dissuaded in their attempts to become like thecolonizers. In that sense, colonialism paradoxically recognizes, upho lds, and so metim es even respects, the differencein its own way. For the development ideologists, however,following their missionary forefathers, that difference is

| itself the very scourge to eradicate. The underdevelopedhave therefore to submit themselves to a fundamental

| change, a mutation, if they are to be saved.

Both colonia lism and development assume that the models they stand for are unquestionably superior to those ofthe peoples under their responsibility; they both believethat such peoples' difference is also undesirable. But development seeks system atically to wipe it ou t. The differencebetween the under-developed and that model, because i taffects the very nature and objectives of the developmentprocess, is thu s perceived both as a threa t and an obs tacle.

To sum up, the spirit of colonialism, as one approach tothe difference, is to be found in the concepts of apartheid,of segregation , oiBantustans or other forms of'reservations'.For development, pockets of "under-development", life support systems that may question the validity of the predefined set of economic and socio-cultural goals proposed

by the development ideologists, are unconceivable. Its message to the underdevelop ed is simp le and clear: die in ord er

be reborn in the promised land of development. The bestyou can do is to become like the developed; and the lateryou start, the mo re you have to suffer from the ever increasing distance th at will sepa rate you from the promis ed land!

For both colonia lism and development, there is indeed auniversal model of life that represents the ultimate anysocie ty can hope to a t ta in to. No twithstand ing i ts v ar iants ,the model remains the civilization of the white man. Development defines it more specifically in term s of econom ic

| and socio-cultural advancement: a systematic increase in\ GNP's, in the production and the consumption of goods and| services, in the overall capacity of a country to organizei itself for producing the necessary resources to meet the

needs of the economy; and mo re and m ore of everything (5).' The essential is to reach those objectives, either through' liberal or centrally planned economies.

While the 'economic' model represents for both ideologies• the ultimate and the good, colonialism, as a rule, leaves itsi victims alone so far as they are p repa red to live their differ-' ence in peace. Development has a much wider, more "pro

fessional" and m ore agressive view of its mission. It assu mes,firstly, that there is indeed one major highway open to allthe underdeveloped in their efforts to reach their goals.Secondly, it sets for itself the task of spotting all over the

: world the various pockets of underdevelopment with a viewto dr iving their popula tions into the main highw ay. Thirdly,after classifying them in terms of their "degree of develop

ment", it prepares for each group a highly 'professional'programme of ac tion and assistance . I t sees to i t that a l lthe conditions are met, outwardly; it seeks to convince the"target populations", at eVery stage of their 'progress', thatthey are on the right track. But finally and with no lessvehemence it wishes to enlist the "participation of the actors" in all its process: from 'conscientization', to 'take off

| and final integration in the whirlwind of full economicdevelopment.

Neither colonia lism nor development accept the idea thatother , in par t icular non-economic roads tradit ionally followed by different cultures with different histories, couldpossibly lead to more relevant and humane forms of socio-cultura l organization. They are both convinced that suchroads are neither ra t ional and realis t ic , nor possible anddesirable. Hence, populations who tend to refuse to be ledto the main track of "progress" provide further evidence oftheir backwardness or underdevelopment, ignorance andmindlessness in regard to their self-interest; they are remnants of a prehistoric chaos. They are a threat not only totheir own future, but also to all those working for theestablishment of a universal , planetary c ivil iza tion. In recent decades, underdevelop ment has been brand ed by manya United Nations document as a threat against peace andsecurity!

Colonia lism was so contemptuous of the un-civilizedbackward people, and so sure of its "sacred mission ofcivilization" that it would not hesitate to smash by forceany resistance offered by the natives to the colonial enterpr ise . Development chose to substi tu te violence by persuasion, autocra tic and arbitrary action by "cooperation", direct intervention by foreign elements by planning throughnational au thor it ies . Yet, both colonia l and developmen tal

operations are designed a long mili tary patterns. Goals,"targets" and strategies are set from above by professionalsa t "hea dquarters". They have to be performed according torules, blueprints, operations and logistics defined by recognized experts and specialists. People's activities that aredirected sometimes towards targets of the same nature arenot considered as serious, if they are not done according tothose rules.

"For both colonialism and development, there

is indeed a universal model of life that

represents the ultimate any society can hope to

attain ."

Development, l ike colonia lism, assumes that the underdeveloped and ' the backward' , a re not capable of leading adecent l ife witho ut outside help and guidance. As such, evenwhen it advocates that development is to promote self-rel iance , i t assumes th at a id and assistance are the prerequisites to all processes leading to that end.

As colonia lism an d developm ent are both p roducts ofeconomically or iented and industr ia l ized socie ties, the models of c ivil ization they uphold are based on the assum ptionof scarc ity. Both presum e that h um an beings, wherever theylive and to whatever culture they belong, have unlimitedneeds; that only economically oriented goods and servicescan meet their growing needs. As the goods in question areindeed scarce, they finally assume that it is through thecreation of economically effective and technologically ad-




vanced m achin eries th at the resources required to this effectcan be produced.

This basic assumption of scarcity leaves little room forgrasping the reality of the world in which pre-economiccultures have lived to this date: a world where resourceshave never been imagined independent of the people'scapacity to meet their needs, a world where the imposit ionof unlim ited "m aterial " goals is conside red as an offense (6)as well as a provocation. Societies belonging to this worldhave outlived the harshest times because of their traditionaloutlook of equ atin g hum an n eeds to capacities, of the necessi ty of organiz ing one 's l ivelihood through a permanentprocess of adjustment of needs to existing resources. Sucha wisdom, proper to pre-economic societies, precludes themodern obsession with permanent and inevitable scarc ity.It is only now th at dev elopm ent is driving these societiesinto the endless rat race between artificially induced needsand resources produced by the modernist outlook. For thedevelopment ideology, the wisdom of a "culturally imposedlimita t ion of economic ends has been constantly disqualified: it was seen as apathy, conformism and, especially, asa ser ious obstacle towards development, character ist ic of a'pre-mod ern ' mentali ty." (7) .

II

The role of the United Nations in "development" ma tterscould not have been properly addressed without first defining what is meant by development. In the first part of thispresentation we have seen it to be the adaptation of theformer "sacred trust of civilization" to the changing conditions of the post-war, post-colonial period, correspondingto the massive emergence of new "independent" nation-states in the Third World! We are a far cry from 'developme nt ' in the Webster ian sense . To this mutation of mean ingthe United Nations has been a major contr ibutor . . . Let ussee how and why?

U n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t : a m y t h ,

a r e c o l o n i z i n g c o n c e p t

The accelerated processes of "liberation" in the colonizedworld, leading to the independence of a great number ofcountr ies then considered as "backward", shattered a m yththat had constituted for long a foundation of the colonialrule: the myth of the invincibility of the dominant order. Anew people's power was born that represented a threat tothe future of the existing economic and political interests.The way some of those "backward" popula tions begun toorganize themselves in par t icular in such tota l ly new areas

as military operations involving the use of highly sophisticated technologies was a surprise to everyone. It provedthat these popula tions, under cer ta in condit ions, could bemore "creative" than many of the planners and experts ofthe North in finding relevant solutions to their problems asthey perceived them. Some of them, in particular, like thepeoples of India, of China, of Indochina and of GuineaBissau, led by such giants of history as Gandhi, Mao ZeDong, Ho Chi Minh and Amilcar Cabral, showed to theworld at large that they could easily stand on their ownfeet to achieve their objectives.

A new myth had then to be created by the former colonialinterests to meet the threat posed by the emergence of thepeople's power in liberated countries. The notion of underdevelopment fully served the purpose. It allowed the heirsof the colonial system — including many governments ofthe emerging nation-states — the possibility of containingand co-opting the people's power by channeling it into anew goal: the dynamic transformation of pre-economic

societies into "modernity" through "development".

The myth of underdevelopment was thus much moresubtle than that of backwardness with its strong racist andcolonial flavor. It was introduced only as the expression ofa "reality" whose recognition was essential to initiate "development", a process now presented as not a substitutefor, but the new and ultimate response to colonialism. Itsprophets were in fact humbly recognizing the share of colonialism in the historical processes which had led their"target populations" to their actual state of underdevelopment. They were now submitt ing that the future belongedonly to those countries which could continue pursuing thestruggle against colonialism by extending its objectives toall the other man ifestations of underde velop men t. A new

"social con tract" was thu s needed, at the internationa l level,that could ensure the full success of the operation. The"developed" countries were now ready to extend the handsof thei r friendship in order to wage, togeth er with the underdeveloped, the world war against underdevelopment. Newforms of "cooperation" had to be imagined that would pavethe way for a planetary civilization; forever freed from thestigma of the colonial age.

U N ' s r o l e i n p r o p a g a t i n g t h e m y t h

The United Nations had a substantial role in shaping and,later, in "selling" to th e first generation of leaders of emerging nation-states, both the underlying myth of underde

velopment and the forms of "cooperation". These leaders inturn took up the responsibility of selling the idea to theirown people. The message was gradually made clearer: underdevelopment had to be accepted as a fact of history anda direct result of colonialism; total liberation and full independence were now possible only if underdevelopmentwould be totally eradicated; what was therefore needed wasdevelopment, that is a break with the past and a full commitment to the idea of 'catching up' with the most developed; hence, the necessity of "cooperating" with all those ]wh o were ready to provide the required forms of assistance.

It was not difficult for the United Nations to sell thepackage to the leaders of new emerging nation-states. Forwith a few exceptions, many of these were themselves al

ready convinced that progress and economic developmentwere a sine qua non condition to their full independence;and underdevelopment, the major obstacle . The "highereducation" many of them had received in metropoli tanschools, as well as the technolog ical, scientific an d intellectual achievemen ts they had witnessed in Europe, had hypnotised them to such an extent that, deep in their mindsand hearts, they, too, had come to accept the "universal"nature of the new models of society proposed to them bythe economically advanced countries. They were convincedthat their own cultures and life support systems were, on

40 Development: Seeds of Change 1986: 1/2



the whole, not only outdate d, but inferior to "modern" models of civilization based on economic development, mass

I production, industrialization etc.

Thus, the governments of the newly emerging countriesI soon found themselves with no option other than to joinI the bandwagon of development. If means and resourcesI remained beyond their capacity, if i t was creating newI problems needing further assistance from outside, i t wasI also creating the il lusion that progress lay around the corn er

I which they would reach any day. It became a trap in morethan one way. Their societies became more th an ever dependent on the metropolis, and the governments dependent on

t the outside for maintenance of their polit ical power. In aflash of historical moment they had become dependentstates, repressive states, all legitimized in the name of development. These states moved away from their peoplestoward "privileged partnership" with metropolitan states.Development programmes became a label for the channelsof negotiations and transactions of funds and equipment,

\ never wholly free of corruption, seldom free of diversion' into the repressive appa ratu s. "Development" made it all

credible and respectable. The history of these societies isthe graveyard of many a state, government and leader whoexperimented w ith this concept — and som etimes w ith the

best of intentions.

N e w c o m p l i c i t i e s a t t h e s e r v i c e o f

r e - c o l o n i z a t i o n

S Thus, new processes of re-colonization ar e now fostered,thanks to a growing complicity between colonizers andsub-colonizers of a new breed. Their "cooperation" at theinternational level, becomes more than ever essential forthe sub-colonisers to perform their task at the "national"level, and in the name of the people legitimizing their"sovereign" rule over their lands.

The United Nations popularity with most of i ts MembersStates can be largely explained by the political andlegitimizing framework it offers all the "parties concerned"

(for this kind of complicity. It provides beyond all suspicionthe dominant "establishment", both at the internationaland the national levels, with a series of legal, polit ical,sema ntic and other fictions, essential to their fruitful "cooperation". So long as the front actors a re the internationa llyrecognised "representatives" of their "independent","sovereign" countries, and so long as the assistance theyrequire is in conformity with principles and modalities ofaction duly endorsed by an Assembly of such augus t embo diments of their peoples, it ill befits anyone to insinuate that"multi-lateral cooperation" could eventually represent amore subtle instrument of re-colonization.

The United Nations System has also served as a most• effective instrument of "North-South cooperation" for the

constant readjustment of formal policies, "strategies", concepts and slogans to the changing realities of the "developing" world. The first "developm ent decades" sta rted by setting such purely economic and quantitative objectives asthe 5% minimum annual increase in GNP's, 2300 caloriesand 10 gram s of protein per day, 10 copies of daily new spapers, 5 radio receivers and two seats in the cinemas per 100

inhabitants (8)! They are now coopting more general andpeople-oriented principles l ike participatory, endogenousand grass-roots development, introducing into the U.N. jargon catching words such as self-reliance, self-help, newdimensions, basic needs, bottom-up planning, etc. Totallydiscredited practices have been gradually replaced by moreprogressive-looking ones as "country programming", appropriate technology, recourse to "national" and local experts and programme officers.

Yet, these various make-ups and face lift ing have so far,all, served mainly to save and to foster the basic goals of adevelopment which suits the "developed", both at the national and interna tional levels. These goals remain the sam eas they were before: the export and universalization of thedominant models of economic societies; the systematictransformation of the world's different modes of life andlife support systems with a view to integrating them into aglobal mark et economy ru led by the "developed"; the acceleration of the processes leading to the structu ral depend enceof the "underdeveloped" countries on the economy, thetechnology, the knowledge and the institutionalized assistance of the rich ones.

Forty years of "development" assistance by international

institutions, including the United Nations System, haveshown that , despi te at tem pts to adapt development theoriesand pra ctices to the real needs of the popula tions co ncerned,these institutions seem organic ally unable — and oftenunwilling — to change their basically ethnocentric approac h. Problem s are seldom perceived or addres sed acc ording to the way the people themselves view their needs andaspirations. "Priorities" and "strategies" are set independently by planners with their own pre-defined objectives.In reality, they have li t t le to do with the way the peoplehave lived, are living, wish to live. Neither do they take intoaccount all the accumulated experience and the wisdomunderlying a people's own culture and life suppo rt system s.

"1 he governments of the newly emerging

countries soon found themselves with no

option other than to join the bandw agon of

development".

Thus, people in need of learning are perceived only as agiven number of consumers for a projected network of

"schools" meeting the requirements of an internationallydefined mode l. Once il l i teracy is perceived as a scourge a ndan obvious expression of underdevelopment, huge fundsand resources are allocated to compulsory li teracy campaigns; the question seems irrelevant whether the peopleconcerned view them as an imme diate need, or even wh etherany meaningful result is ever achieved. Programmes ofhealth are similarly designed only to see that millions ofnew people would some day take care of their health theway "developed" countries do; i t matters l i t t le whether the




II !

designs work or whether they result only in upsetting thepopulation's own ways of caring for themselves. On a moregeneral plane, astronomic sums of money are allocated toeconomic and agricultural development in order to raisepeople's "standard of l iving", to increase their earnings, tofeed the hungry and the poor and to ensure their foodself-sufficiency, all according to professionally establishedblueprints that have proved their worth in developed countries. The net result is often the contrary: these blueprintsend up by destroying people's subsistence economy, theirtraditional l ife support systems as well as the immunedefense systems they had acquired for meeting theirhardships. Not only the proposed objectives are never met,but the same populations are transformed into a conditionof permanently assisted persons, forever dependent, victimsof chronic famine and other disasters.

The role played by the U.N. system in upsetting people'straditional l ife support system and in leading them to conditions of irreversible dependency, has not been dramatizedenough, as the discrete "success stories" attributed to themhave been. Yet, such a role has indeed not been negligible.

The case of the World Bank, an organization connectedwith the international financial capital, is perhaps worthmentioning. It is ha rd to imagine tha t a Bank of that prestigehas been so active in driving so many countries of the ThirdWorld to apply for loans so obviously exceeding theircapac ities. It is har der to conceive that, for some forty years,i t has actually agreed to grant them loans to such an extentthat most of them are now at the brink of bankrupcy (9).The Bank's world renowned experts, who usually keep veryaccurate "country profiles" of all their prospective clients,could have fully assessed, at all moments, the impact ofsuch loans on the future of these countries. Most of the loansare, in fact, formulated by the same experts with a view to"modernizing" their economies and increas ing their t raderevenues. To take an exam ple, The Bank greatly encouraged

some Western African countries to spend huge sums on themodernization of their ground nuts production. The disastrous consequences of this operation, especially after thefall of the ground nuts price on the world market, haveabunda nt ly been analysed by respected economists , including those of The Bank itself. They have proved that, notonly the first people to suffer from it were the local populations most directly concerned by the destruction of theirsubsistence economy, but also that the policies pursuedwere econo mically a total failure, at the nationa l level. Amore responsible atti tude could have perhaps led The Bankto foresee, at least, that the "developm ent" course followedby the recipients of the loan would m ake it almos t im possible for them to honour their obligations in time. Yet, TheBank seems to have cynically played the game and sup

ported them , in order to make them more dependent on theconditions it wishes to impose on the course of theireconomy. The recent imposition by the Intern ationa l Monetary Fund of the new "adjustment policies" constitutes asecond stage of the process, a stage that will probably leadmany of the targetted countries to further polit ical andsocial disasters. Solutions will , no doubt, be found in orderto continue the game. Both The Bank and IMF are now ina much more dominant position to "adjust" their clients totheir conditions. They will consequently see to it that theirdevelopment strategies are implemented without the socio-

cultura l "obstacle" that may arise from different pa rts. There-colonization processes will be followed, perhaps on amore professional b asis. The perpetual victims of the gameremain the "target populations".

HI

Fortunately for the hundreds of millions of people livingat the grass-roots level, neither colonialism nor development have been able to destroy their will to l ive and toimprove the life support system to which they belong. Bylife support system, I mean a set of culturally consistentways and means and atti tudes that the members of a givenhum an group, with their partic ular history, have developed,after long and elaborate processes of trials and errors, inorder to cope with their l ife problems and move ahead tothe best of their abilities.

"1 ime has come not to seek development

alternatives, but alternatives to the whole

concept of development".

Rulers, socio-political and economic systems of oppression and dom ination, ins titutions of all kinds have appearedand disappeared, often trying to submit their victims totheir own history. But while the impact of this history takesa very long time to trickle down, the "ordinary" peoplesubjected to it , continue m aking their own histories. The lifesupport system of a community, gradually shaped out and

improved throughout ages, is an authentic product of thisother, often not written history. It expresses its culture, itsethos, and the different histories of those who have participated in its making. It represents the sum total of theirknowledge, their traditions, their experiences, their aspirations as well as the perception w hich all of them , as a group,hav e of the best ways of preservin g and fructifying theircommon heritage. It defines all the learning experiencesand the "educational" processes which have created anddeveloped the complex immune defense systems proper tothose particular groups and necessary to their survivalunder the specific socio-cultural and natural conditions oftheir milieu. It reflects their collective identity, their common will to l ive and to assume their own uniqueness.

For these very reasons, people are attached to their lifesup port system s, as thousan ds of years of togetherness havemoulded them. What they want is to preserve and to improve them, never to trade them off. What they need is,first , to be protected against those who plan to destroythem; second, to find new ways of sharing their problemswith those who care for them as they are.

To respond to this need, in a convivial and humane way,is the challenge now facing other human beings.

The so-called "developm ent" and "aid-providing" institutions neither recognize nor believe in these elementary facts. |




They are "developed" technocratic machines programmedby politicians and planners, with a view to scanning the"underdeveloped" areas of the world, to processing theirpopula tions according to standardized models of individuals called "developed", and to serving them for ever asaddicted, defenseless customers of further economic goodsand com mo dities to come out of their "develop men t" processes. It is a pretentiou s, deceitful, m anip ulativ e, m odernform of colonialism.

A l t e r n a t iv e s T O d e v e l o p m e n t r a t h e r t h a n

d e v e l o p m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s

"Another development" can no longer be the right response to the challenge. In the last two decades, some ofthe most com mitted hum anists have sincere ly tr ied to seekand to promote new alternatives within the f ramework ofthe concept of development. They believed that other processes could be inititated with a view to stripping off de

velopment from its colonial and man ipula tive a spects.Many of them are now realizing the fragile nature of theirefforts. The development establishment has already co-opted a host of their ideas, only to provide t he old ap proa chwith a more liberal, participatory veneer. Many govern-1

ments have learned from them how to force "participation"on their "underdeveloped" populations, only to try to integrate them faster into their own, pre-defined economic development schemes.

Time has therefore come not to seek develo pm ent altern atives, but alternatives to the whole concept of development,both in its theory and practice . Alternatives propo sed w ithinthe framework of the concept, have often only improved itschances of survival.

As such, it is, first, necessary t o do away with the wholedevelopment ideology, and to denounce it, together with allthe assump tions und er lying the concept. In par t icular ,underdevelopment, as the cornerstone of the developmentconcept, should be denounced itself as the major obstacleto any possibility of convivial intera ction aimed at resp onding to people's needs. This could, then, pave the way for asearch of a new kind: how to help facilitate such an interaction, with a view to sustainin g different life sup por t sy stemsand the grass-roots people's organizations representingthem, in their efforts to realize and to increase, amongstthemselves and othe r sources of interest to them , a free flowof knowledge, know-how, experience and cooperation, responding to their own needs and aspirations?

The problem raises a series of questions: in the world asit is, could such a task be under taken, and how ? How wo uldor could such efforts relate with the existing d evelopm entinstitutions and the governments concerned? Finally, wouldit be realist ic to hope that the mom entum gathered by suchefforts as well as the failure witnessed by conventionaldevelopment programmes, might lead an insti tut ion l ikethe United Nations to change course? How could such anorganization re-structure itself with a view to effectivelyrespond to the needs of the grass-roots populations?

E m e r g i n g n e t w o r k s

My response to the first que stion is clear: in Asia, in L atinAmerica, and lately in Africa, many grass-roots movementshave star ted to move ahead, indifferent to the developmenta l designs of national and in ternatio nal organ izations seeking to "develop" them on their own. They are successfullyorganizing themselves and reaching out in search of newfr iends. Informal networks are being consti tuted, a imed not

only a t l inking together the grass-roots movements of theSouth but also establishing new forms of co-action betweenthese and tho se of the North. Many of these netwo rks in cludeuniversity students, researchers, de-professionalizedspecia lis ts , sc ientists and scholars who join the networksto learn f rom the people and to br ing them their own knowledge and experience in fields of common interest. Thepositive results they have thus far achieved well indicatesthat such interactive processes have become a reali ty, anda ser ious a l ternative to development designs. They workand they already play a significant role in helping differentgroups to learn from each other, to find new solutions totheir problems by comparing their exper iences with eachother, to develop new forms of knowledge and praxis, without becoming passive and manipula ted objects of other

people 's developmental objectives.

New approaches and forms of interaction are required tosusta in such movements and their f ree ly consti tuted networks. This precludes the need for any centra lized, bureau c-ra tica lly administered insti tut ion. Individuals and groupswill ing to par t ic ipate in such networks should not be "developers" or missionar ies, but people par t icular ly sensit iveto listening, able to dialogue and also to "match" all thoseconcerned who like and need each other. They should beconvinced that in matters of self-help, participation for thepopulations concerned, is a matter of daily life. To want to"import" i t is an insult to those who ar e working hard tomeet their needs. Only, each human group has a differentway of doing it. The difference is a reflection of the gr oup 's

culture and history. I t is vi ta l both to the preservation ofthe group as an enti ty, and to the r ight assessment of thenature and the viability of all elements of "change" to beintroduced into people's life. The particular difference ofeach group is thus to be respected, not only for ethicalreasons, but also for practical purposes: no changes of anylasting character can be introduced in a given life supportsystem without respecting that difference.

The new app roach is thus the opposite of any obsessional"mission" for "developing" others, for re-moulding themaccording to ethno-technocentrically pre-def ined standardsor "universal" models. I t even excludes the assignment of"goals" and "objectives" to people's activities, other thanthose people naturally tend to fix for themselves for giving

greater coherence to their ac tion.

To sum up, new ways and means are to be imagined,mainly to allow each different group to be informed, tolearn about other human groups and cultures, in terms oftheir respective life support systems; in other words to beopened to differences a nd le arn from th em . As such, only ahighly de-centra lized, non-bureaucratic , inter-culturalr a the r than inter-national network of persons and groups,could respond to such needs. These could be comp lemented




by internationa l pools and networks of information, a imedat connecting var ious grass-roots movements with otherssharing their preoccupations, as well as assisting them inobtaining the knowledge, the technical advice, and possibly,the resources of their need.

G r a s s r o o t s m o v e m e n t s v e r s u s d e v e l o p m e n t

i n s t i t u t i o n s

Regarding the second question, that is, the relations ofsuch networks with exist ing development inst i tut ions, diesare not always cast. These institutions are all engaged inthe type of development amply described above. Their activities are mostly related to large, often city-based, programmes of technical assistance and typical "development"projects, involving important funds, costly experts andequipment. The grassroots popula tions se ldom interestthem. Their only interest in them is when they realize thatthe people's reactions might have either a negative or positive impact on their projects. This explains, in fact, theincreasing im portance recently a t tr ibu ted to "p ar t ic ipatoryapproaches" by development agencies. Development planners are now fully realizing that many important technocratic projects (such as the exploration of underground waters, forestation, d am building s, etc.) face seriours difficultieswhen peo ple's partic ipatio n in them is lacking or weak. Asa result, there is no reason to imagine, off hand, that theexisting development institutions would necessarily feelthreatened by a prolifera tion of people 's movements assuch. In many cases, they would more likely be tempted tocoopt them for their own purposes.

It is quite probable, however, that if these movementsgrow in such a way as to interfere with officially establis heddevelopment strategies, they would be closely watched and,

most likely, perceived as a threat. This is particularly trueof governm ents, whose bureaucracies resent any phenomenon which escapes their control. Within such a context,their reaction might generally be to suppress them, if coop-tation fails.

Cooptation and suppression are , thus, two dangers thatpersistently loom ahead of grass-roots movements. Yet, exper ience has shown that imag inative and non-sectar ian approaches have helped many leaders of these movements totake advantage of the complexities of each particular situ-ta t ion so as to avoid both dan gers. The same a tt i tudes havealso allowed such movements to use even the resources ofsome "donor" organizations without ever losing their integr i ty.

C a n t h e U N c h a n g e c o u r s e ? T h e f i c t i o n s a n d

t h e r e a l i t i e s

This br ings me to th e last question: is i t rea lis t ic to hopethat the momentum gathered by grass-roots movements, aswell as the failures witnessed by conventional developmentprogrammes, might lead an institution like the United Nations to change course? In which case, how could such and

Organization re-structure itself in order to respond effectively to their needs?

Having followed the work of the United Nations ratherclosely, I have serious difficulty in answering the questio nin an affirmative way.

It would be a truism to say that the United Nations wascreated after the Second World War, mainly to provide theformer "allies" of the North together with the emergingnation -states of the South w ith a loose but rath er convenientinternational instrument and to meet their common needsfor co-existence. While its founders were eager to presentit as a tool for promoting the interest and aspirations of allth e peoples of the world, it developed in reality into aninstitution reflecting primarily all the contradictions bornout of the necessity for their governments to coexist in thepost-war period. Many fictions were created in order tooutlive these contradictions, amongst them: the very fictionof an Assembly of united nations; the fiction that everymember Sta te is ipso facto representative of all its populations; the fiction that all of them are "independent" and"equal" and, as such, have an equal part in decision-makingprocesses; the fiction that there is a universal consensus onhuman rights and that all Member States will respect itonce they pledge to do so; the fiction that the structure andthe operational mechanisms of the system are to preventall forms of agression and violations of peace and security;and many other fictions, including the "independence" ofthe secretariats of the United Nations system.

These fictions have helped, frequently, to find temp orarysolutions to contradictions, in a face-saving manner for the"parties con cerned". Yet, they could not prevent the realitiesto remain what they are. Forces confronting or interactingwith each other, either at the political or economic planes,were seldom substantially impressed by fictions they themselves ha d crea ted. The gov erning bod ies of the U.N. systemwere, for all of them, tribunes intended for their publicrelations. Their decisions and recommendations werebrushed aside, whenever they did not suit them.

On matters referred to as "development", that is, thewelfare of the hundreds of millions of people living at theperipheries of dominant powers, a whole cluster of specificfictions was created which served as a basis for the furtherance of the development ideology. It consisted of the following e lements: a) development is a vital and desirable goalto achieve; b) roughly, it represents "modernization",economic progress, continuous increase of GNPs, industrialization, education, health and other "public" services,etc. c) all the popu lation s of the world wa nt it and will spareno effort in having it; d) "underdeveloped populations" liveand think like sub-human beings and suffer from it; their

life sup port s ystems and th eir tradition s are the main sourceof their misery and the major obstacle to the realization oftheir own aspira t ions; e) development strategies, preparedby experts, adopted by Governments, and backed by theU.N. are the only answer to their long-term needs: they canwork, they will transform their lives and they will bringback to the future generations the dignity the previous oneshad lost as a result of their "underdevelopment"; f) th eofficially recognized governments of "under-developed" nations, although they are the true representatives of theirpeople, are themselves not to be assum ed "underdeveloped", j




As such, they are the best judges of their people's interests .They represent the sovereignty of their people; they are th eonly ones who can talk and negotiate on their behalf andhave to be trusted as such; g) direct contacts between theUnited Nations system and the populations to be "developed" are taboo: they are contrary to the principles ofthe Charter (although the document starts with We thepeoples of the United Nations), and they cons titute an inter-

l vention into the inte rnal affairs of a sovereign country . Theyl are also often counter-purposive; h) foreign assistance inI part icular m ult i lateral cooperat ion through the United Na-! tions is essential to the develop men t of all "developing"I countries. In most cases, it is a must for the "take-off"

processes, the realization of full economic independence,and to the ultimate goal of self-reliance.

This cluster of fictions has, in turn, led to a series of rules,! practices and rituals which consistute the official Bible for[ U.N. bureaucracies in their relations with Member States.I I say official because whenever high placed bureaucrats of[ the Organization agree with their nat ional co unterpa rts to

circumvent it , they know how to give a seal of legality toanything they agree upon . Thus, projects totally form ulatedby a U.N. departm ent or expert , becomes a "nat ional" proposal officially "reque sted" by the Go vernm ent of the coun tryconcerned. In major conferences and meetings not only theworking papers are always prepared by the secretariatsconcerned, but so are also the final texts to be appro ved bythe par ticip ants . Whenever critical issues are at stake, m ajor"donor" countries exert various kinds of pressures on governm ents and key secre tariat officials und er their influence.

The rules, the practices and the rituals are, however,respected as a principle. For they constitute the fragilefoundations necessary both to maintain the fictions and toserve as useful devices for finding temporary solutions tootherwise basic contradict ions. They are guarantees thatthe U.N. system re main s, after all, the club which differentMember States want it to be.

This reality brings me to the heart of the problem: inmatters related to "economic development" and to a possible substantial increase of grass-roots populations role infinding genuine alternatives to official developmentpolicies, the United Nations will not change, because itsMember States do not want it to change. We saw, in thefirst parts of this presentation, how present developmentpolicies are a result of a web of com plicities betw een all itsMember State s, the "developed" as well as the "deve loping"or the "underdeveloped". They all like to proclaim thatcolonial practices have to be wiped out from the annals ofhistory, yet the "development strategies" they propose incommon clearly indicate, as it was show n earlier, that theirapproach to "under-deve loped" pop ulations is basically col

onial. They only carefully avoid the use of the unpopularadjective. "Developing" and "developed" countries quarrelover the distribution of roles and their respective share inthe world economic pie; yet, they all agree the en largem entof the pie is essential both at the na tional a nd intern ationa llevels. That is what development is for. The governmentsof the Third World, even more militantly than the others,consider that such an objective justifies all the sacrificesrequired, namely the abandonment of their people's "traditional" ways of living and th eir subs titution by the universal model of economically advanced countries.

It follows that, as long as the governments forming thepresent club of the United Nations have not changed theirbasic posi tions on development — a prospect w hich seem squite unlikely to hap pen — it is difficult to ima gine tha tthe U.N. system might change course, in this part iculararea. Consequently, it is difficult to imagine that it couldplay the role that the grass-roots populations of the worldwould perhap s want i t to play. Neither the sheer cooptat ion

by its policy-mak ing bodies, of concepts such as "partic ipatory", "endogenous", "grass-roots", or "alternative" development, nor a superficial re-structuring of the U.N.'s organsand their modus operandi, could enable it to utilize itsotherwise potent ial ly important resources to the best interest of grassroot populations and their life support systems .

One should however, recognize, that, particularly in thelast decades, isolated yet genuine efforts have been madeby some UN agencies, with a view to responding to theneeds of grassro ots popu lations in a different sp irit. Interesting ideas and concepts have emerged here and there. Evenlocalized successes have been achieved which the populations directly concerned have welcomed. Yet these efforts

remain the exceptions to the rule. In fact, they representat tempts at a posi t ive subversion from within the system,rather than a sign that the system is intending or ready tochange course. As such, they continue to rem ain marg inal .These efforts and their authors are phagocited by theirbureaucracies, and marginal ized by the very agencies thatshould be support ing them.

It has been suggested that time had perhaps come to starta w orld people's movem ent, with a view to dismantl ing thepresent U.N. development agencies and related inst i tut ions,and to replace them with som ething different.

The idea could, theoretically, be appealing. Yet, we allknow that, even if such a movement were initiated and gainenough momentum and support with the people of the

world, the objective could not be within arm's reach. To berealistic, the dream could come closer to reality only whenthe moral pressures generated by such a movement, together with the deepening effects of the structural crisisfacing present development policies, would produce a substant ial ch ange in the minds and conscience of i ts MemberStates, in particular those whose means and influence outweigh their single vote in the General Assembly.

In the meantime, what the people of the world need, insupport of their right to live as dignified human beings, isnot a United Nations trapped in the spider's web of itsMember S tates and their disabl ing nat ional or intern at ionalinstitutions. They do not want to see an organization whichderives its legitimacy from them, stand for a "development"

that seeks only to transform them ultimately into uniformand permanently dependent consumers of a prosperousworld economy. On the contrary, they expect that such anorganizat ion protect them against all disabling institutionsand ideologies which keep from improving autonomouslytheir own life support systems.

This could perh aps be facilitated by setting up, when tim ecomes, a world network of people's assemblies, where thegenuine representat ives of all grass-roots m oveme nts w ouldmeet and interact freely with each other. The network couldwell be supported by technical and other relevant teams




capable to assist those who seek advice from them; and alsoto mobil ize the human and other resources required by thepopulat ions concerned .

Such a de-central ized and merely support ive network wil lindeed be different from the present United Nations: an

orga nizatio n w hich not only suffers from he avily centralizedand bureaucrat ical ly administered structures for i ts operational activities, but is also, politically and ideologically,most un-representative of the reality of the world today; itsgrass-roots populations, its living cultures, and the new,emerging powers defining their future.

References

(1) Pierre de Senarclens, Progres el d&veloppement dans l'ideologic des Nations Unies, a mimeographed paper circulated under N. ODG/85/1Geneva, 1985. In this excellent paper, the author traces a short but most inspiring history of the development concept in its international context.

(2) Karl Marx & Frederich Engels, Oeuvres choisies, Moscow, p. 236.(3) Pierre de Senarclens, Ibid., p. 7.(4) Llyod George, British Prime Minister, attending the Council of Ten, preparing the draft of the Convenant of the League of Nations, did not hesitate to

propose a classification of mandates that would go from "populations who are civilised, but not yet organised" to "cannibal colonies where people were eatingeach other". David Hunter Miller, The Drafting of the Covenant, Vol. II, New York, 1928, p. 194.

(5) More details of this kind can be found in the various documents proposed by each U.N. agency for the preparation of the Secretary General's Report onthe first United Nations Development Decade: Report of the Secretary General, New York, 1962.

(6) Gustavo Esteva, Cease Aid and Stop Development, An Answer to Hunger, a mimeographed paper presented at a Unesco sponsored seminar in August 1985, p. 11.

(7) Gustavo Esteva, Ibid.(8) Gustavo Esteva, Development: Metaphor, Myth, Threat, in Development, Journal of the Society for International Development, Rome, 1985:3, p. 79.(9) United Nations, Report of the Secretary General, New York, 1962.

(10) In Guinea Bissau, a poor and tiny coutnry, which displayed astonishing examples of creativity and self-reliance during its war of liberation, the nationalforeign debt in 1982 (i.e., less than ten years after its independence) was 182 million Dollars, representing 104% of its GNP!


under the banner of development- majid rahnema

Documents