In terms of participation and empowerment, we can see that those working within the development field are directly attempting to empower their beneficiaries in terms of the first two notions of power, both in terms of individuals and communities, and also to allow them greater say in the political arena that they are marginalised within. What these development facilitators fail to recognise are the limitations imposed by the third concept of power, the larger social, economic and political structures that they as development workers are incorporated into. Whilst attempting to ‘develop’ groups are they not actually incorporating them into distant centralised power structures of the West? Or if the facilitators of development are embedded in the system, and therefore inevitably have power over their beneficiaries, how can they be empowering them and not at the same time making them a part of another system?
This is the central argument set out by Cooke and Kothari. At some level this will always retain some weighting as, however hard they try, facilitators of participatory development will be coming from a greater position of power that includes preconceptions and attitudes that do not necessarily align with those they intend to help. The need to address this problem is fundamental, and it is necessary for a self-awareness of the position that fieldworkers operate in and the background that they have to attempt to overcome this. Escobar (1984) takes up the same themes as Cooke and Kothari, but in an opposite stance. Whilst they have argued that the systems of power which the West are so embedded in are too encompassing to be escaped, it seems that at the same time many others believe that methods of participatory development are exactly the right approaches which can allow, when practiced correctly, a break from imposed power structures and discourse and to allow empowerment of those who are marginalised. Foucault saw that society is controlled and organised through certain discourses and procedures, the power structures of which can only be challenged through historical understanding. Escobar draws out how the developing world has been conceptualised historically by the West and has become enveloped by the discourse of development for social control. As a counter to this he cites PAR (participatory action research) (Escobar p391) as a counter power that generates Southern popular power and is a direct challenge to the culturally hegemonic influence of the West. The method and approach of participation is on opposition to reproduction of Western control. Escobar is arguing that the nature of participatory methods allows the formulation of alternative power structures, not incorporation into new ones.
It seems that the argument is being fought with the same weapon being used on both sides. If this is the case then is it resolvable? The actual techniques used and the approaches taken by facilitators of empowerment are crucial to its effectiveness. We now turn from theory to method and the actual practice of participatory techniques, for if these are carefully used and monitored I argue that people can become empowered. Participation is widely accepted to have increased the effectiveness of development projects both in terms of quantitative measures and sustainability (Greene 2000, Chambers 1994). When correct methodology is used in techniques of participation then development objectives can be met. The challenge is to whether facilitators can engage with and maintain the correct attitude towards participation. There has been widespread critique, including self-criticism, of various projects within development and I shall deal with some of the most important issues.
Participation as an approach to development is about giving beneficiaries the ability to take part, plan and implement development projects. It also gives them increased awareness and knowledge so they can assess and analyse their lives and hopefully improve them. “Outsiders do not dominate... (and) do not impose their own reality;” (Chambers 1997 p103). By allowing local people to express their own view and maintain their autonomy and difference participation attempts to avoid the pitfalls of top-down impositionary approaches. The greatest challenge is for facilitators not to stray from the ideals of giving power, or ‘handing over the stick’ and refrain from taking control. Facilitators normally approach projects from a more dominant position than the beneficiaries and must monitor their behaviour accordingly. Techniques should be informal in the sense that they are flexible and open. The methods used should be as open and varied as possible to avoid limitations imposed by cultural constraints from the dominant facilitator that would conflict with empowerment. This involves listening carefully to beneficiaries, whilst bearing in mind that complex power structures exist within the communities they intend to help. There is a danger that project workers may have misconceptions about the people they are intending to help, labels of ‘traditional’ and ‘homogenous’ alongside preconceptions about limitations of ‘local knowledge’ can reduce the understanding about communities and seriously undermine work (Green 2000). An open-minded approach that takes into account that people live within complex communities that may involve hierarchy and struggle, alongside historical awareness, is necessary for effectiveness. It can be difficult to ensure that those who dominate, such as a male elite, are not empowered at the expensive of others, but the nature of participation and its careful use should enable the identification of such groups and avoid this trap.
Participation has burst quickly onto the scene of development and its rapid spread has brought dangers that may undermine its positive potential. The first of these is (mis)using participation as a label. Donors might instruct project managers to used participation but close inspection could reveal abuse of the technique. Unqualified personnel are placed to carry out methods with little skill and therefore poor effect. More than methodological techniques attitudes and behaviour by facilitators are imperative, particularly the avoidance of dominating those intended for assistance. (Chambers 1997 p212). Participation should be just that, not a process of teaching or lecturing. Both those who facilitate and those who train others to do so should always be aware that participatory approaches are learnt through experience more than anything, and that manuals and text books can often inadvertently be constraining creating routines and ruts, whereas work in the field should always be open to new methods and techniques.
Participation itself faces challenges from without that increase the need for those engaged in it to be on their guard. Whilst ideally participatory techniques would be slow and relaxed, pressure from donors can try to push and rush projects and threaten their quality. Donors can also put other pressures on projects that do not align with ideal practice in the field. If beneficiaries are to be highly involved in project planning then it can be hard to set out guidelines to those who would be potential project funders. Another problem might be that donors often require tangible quantitative results that can be very hard to draw out when attempting to empower people. One important way in which this might happen could be the development of local formal or informal social institutions that create alternative power structures to existing governmental bureaucracy or traditional hierarchy. This might involve negotiating tricky issues due to the challenging of existing structures but ultimately the formation of accountable non-government institutions, particularly if they engage with scaling up (linking between other regions), can provide a real opportunity for marginalised people to empower themselves in the way that Escobar referred to, and create counter-power sources (Scoones and Pretty cited in Nelson and Wright p13).
The tyranny of participation is a very real and dangerous threat to a method of development that is potentially highly effective. However, I do not think that it is inevitable. Whilst facilitators can never be free from their backgrounds, their social and cultural influences, it does not mean that they are unable to facilitate an empowerment of beneficiaries. Tyranny is the illegitimate use of power, yet those who engage with participation in the true sense of the word by ‘handing over the stick’ and letting beneficiaries set out projects themselves, allowing them to assess and analyse processes, are not abusing their position of power. Empowerment that occurs by locals increasing engagement with social, economic and political structures, or alternative creating new ones, can be seen as legitimately facilitating an increase in control over processes which affect them. Whilst the participation is potentially an effective technique those who use it must be vigilant and remain aware of the challenges and pitfalls that exist. Abuse of the methodology and incorrect practices endanger the positive potential of the field and it is not easy to be the perfect facilitator, but then the nature of the method is about learning through experience.
