|
Editorial, volume 8, number 4
For governments to be publicly accountable, and for the societies they govern to be even minimally 'participatory', all women and men need to have equal opportunities to make their voices heard in ways that really count - in the public as well as in the private sphere. That this is generally so far from the case has long concerned policy-makers, scholars, practitioners, and activists - all those who seek to influence the ways in which societies function. There is no shortage of documentation of the many ways - overt or subtle, deliberate or unintended - in which women are excluded from decision-making processes and social institutions that are vital to their interests. No reputable welfare or development agency would today seriously argue that poverty and oppression can be eliminated without tackling issues of gender equity. Where differences of strategy arise is between those who believe that gender equity is a necessary precondition for defining and achieving social justice, and those who regard egalitarianism as a desirable outcome of efforts to eradicate poverty.
But wherever one stands on the question of strategy, it is clear that the last 20 years have seen more advances in how to diagnose the problems caused by social and economic exclusion than in how to remedy them. Perhaps this is not altogether surprising: western medical science developed the capacity to dissect bodies and diagnose the causes of death some centuries before it could effectively prevent avoidable disease and mortality. Today, in spite of our better understanding of the gendered dynamics of poverty and marginalization, and numerous efforts to incorporate such insights into development efforts, many studies suggest both that measurable gender divisions are deepening and that instances of male violence against women may even increase in response to such efforts. This is reported to be the case in the micro-credit programmes that are geared to promote greater female autonomy.(1) Certainly, as with all social relations, the overall balance of power between the sexes is affected by financial and other forms of insecurity and deprivation and my efforts to address these.
Whether the prevailing model of development can actually be reformed from the bottom-up is, as Jeanette Lekskes argues, a moot point. But in practice, trying to do this is also a necessary point of departure. Papers in this issue of Development in Practice focus on two major dimensions - equity and participation - of how development may be (re-)shaped by virtue of a more participatory, more inclusive approach to formulating policy and generating practice. S. Chakravarty describes a bold and unusual attempt to mainstream a commitment to gender equity within a law-enforcement body, the Mararashtra Police Force in India. Regina Scheyvens draws on case-study material from the Solomon Islands to argue that concerns for the environment and for gender equity are mutually reinforcing. Luiba Kogan describes the well-known soup kitchen movement in Peru, though showing its limitations both as a politicising force and in the face of a worsening macro-economic environment. Even if the efforts described in these papers to redress gender imbalance, and to make commercial, non-governmental, and public institutions and their performance more gender-aware and gender-fair have not been altogether successful, the process and commitment underlying them offer some inspiration.
Meaningful democratic participation is clearly far more than a question of counting heads whether in formal elections or in the shape of social mobilisations or campaigns. And in the context of development interventions, as both Mariam Pal and Eliud Ngunjiri remind us, it is more than merely being enlisted to join in projects designed by outsiders to meet needs that have often been defined by them, rather than by the intended 'beneficiaries'. Significant to the quality of popular participation in public debate is the level of information to which people have access, the extent to which they can freely organise to press their concerns without fear of repression (whether this is state-sponsored or perpetrated at the domestic level), and the peaceful management of discord and potential conflict among competing groups. This depends not only on whether the relevant institutions are responsive to public concerns, but also on the capacity of citizens to articulate these. Tim Prentki describes some of the background to the Theatre in Education and Theatre for Development movements, which have typically worked with groups and communities on the margins of society. These forms of expression can allow people to confront and explore issues within a safe environment that is embedded in their own culture. Koenraad Van Brabant's analysis of the unprecedented public response to the now infamous child abuse cases in Belgium strikes a cautious note about the long-term impact of spontaneous popular action. Social mobilisation, however large-scale, is not the same as participation: civil rights movements continue to be crushed or neutralised in many countries and in every continent. Further, he suggests that the very institutions that are designed to ensure a reasonable level of social inclusion may themselves contribute to creating a society in which the ordinary citizen can exercise influence only by condoning power structures that are hollow or bankrupt, and sometimes even corrupt. The challenges facing social movements are further taken up by Michael Edwards in his report on the changing nature of dialogues among commercial enterprises, development policy-makers, and aid agencies. The forces of globalization cannot be altered by ignoring them. Instead, they should be harnessed to the cause of social action to ensure pro-poor policies through more accountable national and international governance and socially responsible business practices.
This issue concludes the current volume of Development in Practice, and a successful first year of our new publishing arrangements with Carfax Publishing Limited. As from 1999, we shall be increasing to five issues per year, continuing our existing schedule but including one double-issue in each volume. It is hoped that this will enable us both to maintain a good turnaround rate for the increasing number of excellent contributions that we receive; and also provide the opportunity to focus on a main theme in the double-issue with input from specialist guest-editors and commissioned papers. The first of these will be part-edited by Tom Hewitt and Hazel Johnson of The Open University, on the theme of Development Management. Ideas from our readers are most welcome both for possible themes and for guest-editors who would be willing to work with us in ensuring the success of this venture.
Deborah Eade
Oxfam
1 See, for example, the paper by Sidney Ruth Schuler et al in Development in Practice 8/2: 148-157 entitled 'Men's violence against women in rural Bangladesh: undermined or exacerbated by microcredit programmes?'.
 Previous
|
Next Abstract 
|
