Narayanan.P (2003),"Empowerment through Participation. How effective is this Approach?", Economic and Political Weekly , June 21, 2003, Vol.38, no.25
Empowerment through Participation
How Effective Is This Approach?
Most approaches aimed at increasing the participation of people in development assume that this will uniformly lead to the empowerment of the marginalised. This essay explores the deficiencies of the participatory approach.
Pradeep Narayanan
The conventional growth-oriented top-down development strategy has not accomplished the desired trickling-down of the benefits of development to the marginalised sections. The programmes, administered by the ‘outsiders’ (who include government) view people as ‘object’ of development and the agencies make provisions of things and services of ‘what they can’ rather than ‘what people need’. The disillusionment with failures of plans and programmes sensitised policy-makers, administrators and donor agencies to the need for understanding the local realities. The need for the understanding the local realities saw the gradual emergence of the concepts of participation and empowerment in development literature.1 In recent years these twin concepts have been positioned at the centre of both the radical and the mainstream perspectives on development. On the one hand participation is presented as the rightful claim of excluded sections, on the other hand it is also used to perpetuate and disguise continued top-down approaches. The spaces for participation created from above through actions of government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or those the people create for themselves through movements alone may not guarantee voice, unless the participation prevents the existing patterns of power from being reproduced. Therefore, there is a need for delineating authentic participation from among the various notions of participation prevalent in development literature. This essay examines the concept of participation and describes how issues of power can be a constraint for achieving authentic participation. Analysing a few cases, this essay suggests that participation and empowerment are means and ends to each other and promoting participation requires the dismantlement of existing power relations.
The term participation, which ‘seems never to be used unfavourably’ [Williams 1976; 76] can be attached to very different sets of practice and objectives. For example, participatory strategies were used by colonial governments as safety valve to silent colonial subjects demanding space. The post-colonial developmental state in its search for legitimacy and accumulation sought the participation of people through contributions in the form of labour, cash or kind. Development institutions like World Bank, International Monetary Fund and international donors are advocating the beneficiary participation in the service delivery, which, mainly, validates many of the ‘imposed’ programmes. The proponents of structural adjustment programme also promote participatory approaches, as it corresponds with the minimal role of the state and enhanced role of non-state actors like NGOs in the development process. Even the post-development writers like Escobar favour community-participation for it leads to self-sufficiency and independence of the community from the state. Lastly, there are innumerable social and voluntary organisations that have been mobilising the participation of marginalised people to rise, voice their grievances and demand the accomplishment of their wants from the governing sections.
Which one of the above is the ‘authentic’ participation? Who decides the authenticity? Participation is not a physical ingredient, which when added to a project frame will ensure that the excluded sections will participate, get empowered, voice their views and alter the programmes according to their needs. Participation can be valued relative to its process and goals. Culturally, participation of people implies their sense of belonging to the community and fraternity rather than the state, while politically it denotes the involvement of all stakeholders and creation and sustenance of accountability of the state towards the people [Tandon 2002:62]. Similarly paths to participation may be instrumental to achieve wider economic goal, or be strategic with the aim of transforming the ruler of game in longer run or is an outright resistance to overpower the ruling elites. From an analysis of Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, it appears that that the highest level, i e, ‘partnership and citizen control’ is the real participation because here the people can influence decision-making. However, against this it could also be argued that, often, inequities in power and resources would also allow a powerful minority to claim their rights more forcefully at the expense of the rest of the people. Therefore, authenticity is subjective in the sense that the different types of participation are appropriate for different kinds of situations, tasks and goals. However from the outcome of participatory approach, one can easily identify authentic participation. The aim of the participatory approach is to give voice to excluded sections whose voices are ignored or not heard. If in the long run, participation achieves this aim and promotes a profound change in socio- economic-political institutions beneficial to the marginalised people, it can safely be termed as authentic. However, if participation leads to reproduction of power relationship, identical or similar, or perpetuates the dependency relationship between haves and have-nots, it cannot be construed as real participation.
The primary challenge for the development professionals is to develop methods, which can enable professionals to adopt behaviours and attitudes that are truly participatory, non-dominating and empowering. To an extent, the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) addressed this challenge. Here, the project leader aim to facilitate local peoples’ empowerment so that people can analyse and solve their own development problems. This approach assumes that the knowledge and analytical skills of the poor can be brought to light and strengthened through participatory methods. PRA comprises a cluster of techniques of group activities like ‘do it yourself’, ‘they do it’ ‘participatory mapping and modelling’, ‘transect walks’ and ‘wealth rankings’. These and other techniques aim at involving the most marginalised in project design and implementation and, through this inclusiveness, can empower the powerless. Chamber also opines that PRA experts should take the time “to find the poorest, to learn from them, and to empower them”. PRA projects, according to Chambers, empower the local people, as they not only provides a means to analyse their problems but also a voice in policy-making [Chambers 1994].
However, what kind of empowerment does this participatory approach bring? The use of PRA tools like mapping; graphics, etc, do empower local people to an extent. However, the most important question is, as highlighted by Henkal and Stirrat (2001:180), not ‘how much’ are people empowered but rather ‘for what’ are they empowered. The initial project objective is still set by the outsider, who, has the influence of ‘modernity’ (or more appropriate term may be ‘non-indigenous’ knowledge) and regrettably, with a pinch of superiority. The power is given to the local people by the project leaders to achieve the ‘targeted’ objective, with the methodology left at the choice of the poor. Due to participation, unknowingly but willingly, local people are ‘empowered’ to take part in the process of modernisation. Therefore even the best of the PRA practitioners, functioning within a project framed with pre-conceived objective, may find it difficult to give up their authority over the poor as the terms of transfer of power to people are still not set by poor but the project leader.
What do these participatory approaches achieve then? Does not the change in methodology from ‘holding the stick’ to ‘handing over the stick’ – symbolise transfer of power of knowledge and voice from development experts to marginalised people? PRA tools do help in the voices of people being heard. For example, farmers in Bangladesh have challenged and negotiated with bureaucrats in altering the behaviours of the latter in service delivery [Nelson and Wright 1995:12]. The power was transferred from bureaucrats to the clients. However, PRA tools, being promoted as asocial, ahistorical, universal and neutral technology, underestimate the complexity and tenacity of local power structures. The relationship between the policy-makers/administrators/implementers and the community is not the only power relationships which influence participation. There also exist power relations within the community owing to the prevalence of social and economic inequalities. These inequalities manifest in the form of caste hierarchy, gender discrimination, social exclusion and class structure. Can persuasion, discussion, inclusion and negotiation transcend these inequalities? The exclusion is so webbed with the social roles that the excluded sections are not even aware that they are being exploited. Social norms and customs make women and excluded sections disinterested in participation. For example, rural women in Nepal saw no benefit in participating in the irrigation association, as they could get water through their male family members [Cleaver 2001:51]. In the case of participatory model of indigenous irrigation system in Marakwet, Kenya, the water allocation is based on each household’s degree of participation in the maintenance of the system. However, culturally evolved taboos results in women not being able to play a part in communal repair work on the furrow. This reinforces the dependency relationship of women with male family members [Adams et al 1997:727]. Therefore creating spaces for community participation may not necessarily mean the participation of marginal people.
The approaches to participation of women, poor and disadvantaged sections in planning and management, therefore, require the understanding of exclusions prevalent within the community. Exclusions in the rural community are often on such a large scale that community participation is actually the participation of a minuscule few. The dominant elites, within the community, derive authority due to their socio-religious and economic superiority. They use this superiority to grasp political power and get their interests reflected in the state policies and actions. What is needed is a dismantling of this power structure, which necessitates mobilisation and empowerment of oppressed sections within a community. These sections have to be amalgamated into the decision-making apparatus by various means, only then can participatory approaches deliver the intended outcomes. This unjust and exploitative social order cannot be corrected by minuscule efforts of voluntary organisations using participatory tools. As these tasks cannot be accomplished without positive action by state, therefore the support and participation of the state becomes essential. The state and its agents remain primary actors in the development process at the national and local level. Further, even if civil society mobilises and even if it empowers the hitherto excluded using participatory approaches, the sustenance of empowerment requires the participation of the state.
State, Participation and Power
Public administration is also not unaffected by the PRA tools. Many view the association of PRA tools with bureaucracy with suspicion, as this kind of participation has become “a means for top-down planning to be imposed from the bottom-up” [Hildyard et al 2001:59]. Karnataka adopted Joint Forest Management (JFM) responding to the pressures of local NGOs, and overseas development administration which funded the project. The villagers are encouraged to form village forest committees (VFCs) to decide about access to forest resources to promote the participation of excluded sections. However in reality, many of the VFCs comprised only the landed elites. The forest officers had contacts with elites only and they persuaded the locally dominant people to join VFCs. Not every household, despite their right, gain representation. Moreover, as each household had one representative, very few women participated. Furthermore the JFM replaces the informal relations with the new imposed institutional arrangements, due to which the traditional and vernacular form of power enjoyed by women, poor and marginal people are ‘dis-valued’2 [Martin and Lemon 2001:591]. Besides, the new institutions and the new resource use regimes that exacerbate vulnerabilities and force people particularly women to break rules. They become ‘criminals’ not only in the eyes of the law, but also in the eyes of their fellow community members, who are now ‘manning’ the institutions which replaced the authoritative state structure.
Another example is the constitutional sanction to the decentralised planning at grass roots level in India. Institutions like gram sabha promote the participation of village community in local level policy-making. The district and metropolitan planning committees reflect the government’s intention of ‘planning from below’. Knowing well that the dominant elites at the local level will seize these institutions, provisions for reservation of seats for women and other disadvantaged sections like socially and economically backward castes were made. The articulation of issues by elected representatives belonging to the excluded sections in panchayati raj institutions and their participation is bound to broaden the agenda of the PRIs by including women-oriented issues like reproductive health, drinking water, education, etc. In the long run such participation will create alternative discourses and power structures. However, in a hierarchical society, local government elections with reservations for women who have been suppressed and SC/STs who have been subjugated for centuries, is a new institutional mechanism to recast hierarchies. Poverty and economic dependence of excluded section on dominant section prevent them from enjoying autonomy even after being elected. There are a large number of cases where the male relatives of women panchas (head) become the real headmen. Similarly, there are cases where a person from the dominant caste ensures victory for a particular lower caste person in the local election and runs a puppet government at village level. These cases of proxy-rules, even after a decade of existence of these institutions, are not exceptions. This reflects the social and economic backwardness of the excluded people. They are not empowered to contribute with real participation in the local governance.
What most of the social movements and grass roots NGOs demand is the establishment of the participatory institutions. The above examples are the classic cases where the state has established the participatory structures and mechanisms to include the local community in the decision-making structures. The oppressed sections of people, however, are unable to participate because they are not politically capable of influencing the decision-making owing to their social and economic backwardness. Additionally, instead of providing a challenge to the existing power structure, the restricted participation actually paves the way for a legal and suitable medium for enhanced domination of the existing elites. The adjective ‘participatory’ in programmes and institutions legitimises the institutions and the rule. Further, community participation in state-created institutions also weakens the foundation and sustenance of self-evolving popular movements from below. Through these institutions, the state and the dominant groups co-opt the poor in their domination. Thus, unless the people are aware of the designs of these elitist sections, mere participation will not ensure their development. The success is possible only if empowerment precedes participation.
A number of NGOs are functioning in rural society to organise the disadvantaged sections and make them aware of the changing realities. They run training programmes on leadership development and capacity building. Some NGOs nurture and support the people in PRIs towards a people’s movement on larger issues. These NGOs in most cases try to alter power relations at the micro-level in favour of the disadvantaged sections. The anti-arrack movement in Andhra Pradesh3 and Right to Information movement in Rajasthan4 are the best examples where the excluded sections are not only empowered to participate but are also provided an opportunity to assert themselves in the power structure. However, the total transformation of power relations requires a sustained effort over a long period of time. The participation of disadvantaged section is in itself a long-term goal that can be achieved only if people are liberated from the influence of the unequal power relationships.
In this paper, I have limited my arguments to the application of participatory approaches in rural India though I was aware that empowerment and participation being politically valued concepts, their analysis with respect to India – a country that has a democratic structure in place and a near free press to criticise state actions – may not hold true in respect of other developing countries having non-democratic regimes. It may also be unmerited to generalise any conclusion on significance of approach through examples of success and sad stories, but I have used the cases to assess the general impact and deficiencies of participatory approaches. Throughout this paper I have emphasised two main issues. Firstly, the use of participatory tools in themselves falls short of bringing about real participation as it, instead of challenging the power relationship, may promote participation in the existing power structure. Of course, this does not mean that these tools have to be discarded, but they have to be modified and supplemented with mobilisation of people to instill awareness and confidence in them to take part in an autonomic manner. Secondly, the state led participatory approaches may provide institutions and mechanisms of participation, but their effectiveness depends on the proper understanding of local community-level power structures. Unless, the excluded sections within a community are empowered, their productive participation cannot be ensured and sustained. Therefore, there can be little participation without a degree of empowerment of the hitherto excluded sections.
Address for correspondence:
pradeepnarayanan@yahoo.co.uk Notes
1 The concepts of participation and empowerment, dominant in the disciplines of sociology, anthropology and history for decades have been clouded by the state and market model of governance where people are either objects or clients of development and not the agency of development.
2 In Thaligadde village, the men suffer from poverty-related alcoholism due to which women were the real users therefore managers of forest. By forming legitimate institutions the informal power enjoyed by women has now formally been transferred to men.
3 Arrack is a locally brewed liquor. The poverty of the households in rural areas is aggravated by the men’s squandering of their earnings on this liquor. Liquor consumption is associated with problems of wife-battering, drunken and disorderly behaviour, and increased crime. The women of the district of Nellore fought back through collective agitation [Lahiri and Mitra 2002].
4 The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghathan (MKSS, an NGO [Mishra 2001:1] gets hold of copies of vouchers and muster rolls of development projects. It then shares this information with the village public at a ‘jan sunwayi’ (public hearing), to present their points. Villagers were surprised and angered when they found the names of dead people as having drawn wages, non-existing schools and wells supposed to have been built. This way people became aware of misdeeds of the local bureaucrats, their own elected representative and their fellow community men.
References
Adams, W M, E E Watson and S K Mutiso (1997): ‘Water, Rules and Gender: Water Rights in an Indigenous Irrigation System, Marakwet, Kenya’, Development and Change, Vol 28, 707-30.
Chambers, R (1994): ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis and Experience’, World Development, Vol 22, No 10.
Cleaver, F (2001): ‘Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Development’ in B Cook and U Kothari (eds), Participation: The New Tyranny, Zed, London.
Henkel, H and R Stirrat (2001): ‘Participation as Spiritual Duty; Empowerment as Secular Subjection’ in B Cook and U Kothari (eds), Participation: The New Tyranny, Zed, London.
Hildyard, N, P Hegde, P Wolvekamp and S Reddy (2001): ‘Pluralism, Participation and Power: Joint Forest Management’ in B Cook and U Kothari (eds), Participation: The New Tyranny, Zed, London.
Lahiri, G and Mitra (2002): ‘Who will Empower the Better Half: Social Dynamics in Operation’ in Journal of International Women’s Studies, Vol 4 pp 44-68.
Martin, A and M Lemon (2001): ‘Challenges for Participatory Institutions: The Case of Village Forest Committees in Karnataka, South India’, Society and Natural Resources, 14:585-97.
Mishra, N (2000): ‘Rural Realities in Rajasthan’, Frontline, Vol 17, No 5.
Nelson, N and S Wright (1995): ‘Participation and Power’ in N Nelson and S Wright (eds), Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice, IT Publications, London.
Tandon, R (2002): ‘Linking Citizenship, Participation and Accountability: A Perspective from PRIA’, IDS Bulletin, Vol 33, No 2.
Williams, R (1976): Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Fontana, London.
Email::