Most developing countries host a complex mix of actors trying to assist the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society. Central and local government, international and national NGOs, community members and outsiders are all involved in attempts to help these vulnerable populations, or, in the now more common language of international development, to “help people help themselves”. But what do people actually want? How can communities represent themselves and express what they want to others? And how can communities then engage with these other groups, work together and ‘help themselves’ to achieve their ambitions?
In Kyrgyzstan, a quick glance at the views expressed by different aid agencies demonstrates the complexity of this issue. Some project proposals ascribe current difficulties and an apparent lack of community engagement to the “entrenched mentality of dependence inherited from the Soviet system… expecting government structures to solve social problems at the local level”. Others think that the rural Kyrgyz in fact have a history of proactive citizenship but the “harsh economic climate and exodus of young people to cities” has now damaged this “ashar tradition of self-help”.
Officially, the lowest level of local governance in Kyrgyzstan is the Ayyl Okmotu (AO), a district-level elected body typically representing five to ten villages, up to about 15,000 people in total. But NGOs here try to set up further local governance units at a more decentralised village level, to empower local people with a stronger voice in the development of their own communities. Each organisation has a different name for these bodies - those created by my employers are known as Social Community Councils (SCCs), committees of around ten people elected by each community.
The chief role of the SCCs seems to be as an interface between the communities that they represent and the international NGOs intervening in the region, but it is intended that the councils act independently to address problems by liaising at community and AO levels as well. It is also hoped that the SCCs function as a focal point of coordination for all the other local self-help groups initiated by different NGOs. Depending on the community, this might include Project Steering Committees, Water Users Associations or Groups, Parent Teacher Associations, and (for those at even greater risk) Disaster Preparedness Committees and Village Rescue Teams, among others.
So does this effort by international organisations to create effective local democracy in Kyrgyz communities work? Published case studies from one collaboration between a UK and Kyrgyz NGO describe a series of success stories where enhanced local community structures gained the ability to effect some of the changes they desired in their villages, by lobbying local government, working with other NGOs, and realising practical collective action among their populations. Another more in-depth study by an American NGO working in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan concluded that three years after mobilization programmes through ‘Community Action Groups’, communities were confident they had increased their abilities to find solutions themselves and work with government and other organisations to do this.
Working in the field, reading project evaluations and discussing these topics with my colleagues can sometimes give a more sceptical impression. One post-project assessment highlights the dangers when there is more concern with statistics for the donors than the reality for the people involved: “Reports from all communities were filed as required, but Project Steering Committees in certain villages exist only on paper and villagers had not heard of the idea”. In another example, we visited a community where an NGO-created Water Users Association had proved ineffectual in resolving disputes over the shared allocation of irrigation water because it was still too easy for people upstream to divert most of the water from the main community channel onto their own land. The next NGO intervention planned is physical as well as social: the installation of lockable metal water gates at the entrance to each farmer’s own irrigation channel, and the appointment of someone (with a key for the gates) paid to control the distribution fairly.
As well as promoting better use of shared resources, the other key purpose of the committees is to help give villagers a voice to visiting NGOs. But this may not be useful if the NGOs are sometimes unable or unwilling to listen. For example, the involvement of the SCC is usually considered important during the now common NGO-led PRA process (Participatory Rural Appraisal - a method through which the community “defines its problems… and designs solutions” for itself). But it is not uncommon for a community to define and rank up to ten of its priorities (such as the construction of a medical centre, a clean water supply, bathing facilities etc) but then be told by the NGO that due to budgetary constraints or a differing strategy the villagers will have to make do with some new pit latrines for the school instead. Also, the PRA process itself often involves less than 1% of the community population, so can be susceptible to ‘hijacking’ by particular interest groups who do not represent a wider view.
One interesting comparison with these NGO-created committees is my experiences of rural communities in El Salvador. While working in one village, I had the opportunity to speak to members of the local women’s group about how and why they formed. They explained that they had joined together to address two key issues they saw in their community: violence against women, and a lack of sex education for younger girls. They then sought assistance from an NGO in the capital city, who agreed to provide training for members of the committee so they could run workshops themselves for other women in the village. This demonstrates a different situation to that described so far in Kyrgyzstan: local people initiating self-help groups themselves and then petitioning NGOs for the specific assistance they want.
It is not possible to make generalisations about any ‘typical’ attitudes or approaches among people in Kyrgyzstan and El Salvador from these situations. They are only instances from my extremely limited experiences that demonstrate some of the different processes evident in different communities. And even when there is effective community-led local action, it may not always receive the endorsement of outsiders. In my most recent field trip, our host described how the villagers had been concerned about the lack of a qualified Russian teacher in the local school. Then they heard about a girl in the neighbouring community who had just graduated in Russian and returned from university. The first village held a community meeting to select a suitable young man who was then nominated to go to the next village, kidnap the girl as his bride and bring her back as the school’s new Russian teacher. This tradition of bride-kidnapping is now illegal in Kyrgyzstan but still continues to be practised in many parts of the country, particularly in rural areas. It is another illustration of the complexity of every individual situation - perhaps a reminder to any well-intentioned interveners of the difficulties of creating village democracy that can achieve both the wishes of the local community and the international donors that pay for it.
In Kyrgyzstan, a quick glance at the views expressed by different aid agencies demonstrates the complexity of this issue. Some project proposals ascribe current difficulties and an apparent lack of community engagement to the “entrenched mentality of dependence inherited from the Soviet system… expecting government structures to solve social problems at the local level”. Others think that the rural Kyrgyz in fact have a history of proactive citizenship but the “harsh economic climate and exodus of young people to cities” has now damaged this “ashar tradition of self-help”.
Officially, the lowest level of local governance in Kyrgyzstan is the Ayyl Okmotu (AO), a district-level elected body typically representing five to ten villages, up to about 15,000 people in total. But NGOs here try to set up further local governance units at a more decentralised village level, to empower local people with a stronger voice in the development of their own communities. Each organisation has a different name for these bodies - those created by my employers are known as Social Community Councils (SCCs), committees of around ten people elected by each community.
The chief role of the SCCs seems to be as an interface between the communities that they represent and the international NGOs intervening in the region, but it is intended that the councils act independently to address problems by liaising at community and AO levels as well. It is also hoped that the SCCs function as a focal point of coordination for all the other local self-help groups initiated by different NGOs. Depending on the community, this might include Project Steering Committees, Water Users Associations or Groups, Parent Teacher Associations, and (for those at even greater risk) Disaster Preparedness Committees and Village Rescue Teams, among others.
So does this effort by international organisations to create effective local democracy in Kyrgyz communities work? Published case studies from one collaboration between a UK and Kyrgyz NGO describe a series of success stories where enhanced local community structures gained the ability to effect some of the changes they desired in their villages, by lobbying local government, working with other NGOs, and realising practical collective action among their populations. Another more in-depth study by an American NGO working in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan concluded that three years after mobilization programmes through ‘Community Action Groups’, communities were confident they had increased their abilities to find solutions themselves and work with government and other organisations to do this.
Working in the field, reading project evaluations and discussing these topics with my colleagues can sometimes give a more sceptical impression. One post-project assessment highlights the dangers when there is more concern with statistics for the donors than the reality for the people involved: “Reports from all communities were filed as required, but Project Steering Committees in certain villages exist only on paper and villagers had not heard of the idea”. In another example, we visited a community where an NGO-created Water Users Association had proved ineffectual in resolving disputes over the shared allocation of irrigation water because it was still too easy for people upstream to divert most of the water from the main community channel onto their own land. The next NGO intervention planned is physical as well as social: the installation of lockable metal water gates at the entrance to each farmer’s own irrigation channel, and the appointment of someone (with a key for the gates) paid to control the distribution fairly.
As well as promoting better use of shared resources, the other key purpose of the committees is to help give villagers a voice to visiting NGOs. But this may not be useful if the NGOs are sometimes unable or unwilling to listen. For example, the involvement of the SCC is usually considered important during the now common NGO-led PRA process (Participatory Rural Appraisal - a method through which the community “defines its problems… and designs solutions” for itself). But it is not uncommon for a community to define and rank up to ten of its priorities (such as the construction of a medical centre, a clean water supply, bathing facilities etc) but then be told by the NGO that due to budgetary constraints or a differing strategy the villagers will have to make do with some new pit latrines for the school instead. Also, the PRA process itself often involves less than 1% of the community population, so can be susceptible to ‘hijacking’ by particular interest groups who do not represent a wider view.
One interesting comparison with these NGO-created committees is my experiences of rural communities in El Salvador. While working in one village, I had the opportunity to speak to members of the local women’s group about how and why they formed. They explained that they had joined together to address two key issues they saw in their community: violence against women, and a lack of sex education for younger girls. They then sought assistance from an NGO in the capital city, who agreed to provide training for members of the committee so they could run workshops themselves for other women in the village. This demonstrates a different situation to that described so far in Kyrgyzstan: local people initiating self-help groups themselves and then petitioning NGOs for the specific assistance they want.
It is not possible to make generalisations about any ‘typical’ attitudes or approaches among people in Kyrgyzstan and El Salvador from these situations. They are only instances from my extremely limited experiences that demonstrate some of the different processes evident in different communities. And even when there is effective community-led local action, it may not always receive the endorsement of outsiders. In my most recent field trip, our host described how the villagers had been concerned about the lack of a qualified Russian teacher in the local school. Then they heard about a girl in the neighbouring community who had just graduated in Russian and returned from university. The first village held a community meeting to select a suitable young man who was then nominated to go to the next village, kidnap the girl as his bride and bring her back as the school’s new Russian teacher. This tradition of bride-kidnapping is now illegal in Kyrgyzstan but still continues to be practised in many parts of the country, particularly in rural areas. It is another illustration of the complexity of every individual situation - perhaps a reminder to any well-intentioned interveners of the difficulties of creating village democracy that can achieve both the wishes of the local community and the international donors that pay for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment