Dear Editor,
After World War II, the model of community development which prevailed depended largely on outside experts and resources. When the model was exported to third world counties – mainly Africa and Asia in the late 1950s, its failures were very pronounced. So obvious were the failures that its architects had to concede and embrace a new strategy.
The new approach to community development emphasized efforts by residents of communities as its main ingredient. It became the duty of communities to identify their needs, prioritize them, identify the skills needed to complete the projects and create a register of the skills that could be found in the community. With this new model it is only after absence of resources in the community are identified that attention turns to recruiting and acquiring skills and other resources from outside the community. Communities taking responsibility for their own development brings with it substantial benefits to individuals, communities and the nation at large. It enhances individuals’ self-esteem, demonstrates to communities their capacity to do for themselves and ensures residents protect and care for what they have achieved. Communities taking responsibility for their own development reduces reliance on government. This allows government to direct its energy and scarce resources to other areas in need of attention, for example, providing nutritious meals for schools, the maintenance of sea defences, the building and repairing of public roads, providing reliable electricity, etc.
For communities to take responsibility for their own development it is the duty of government to ensure they are given the skills to undertake the assignment. Governments can do this by providing community leaders with training in areas such as (a) methods in community assessment and organizing, (b) project design and management. These are essential if we are to release community resources in a big way for their development.
Recently I read my brother Ras Blackman’s complaint about Bachelor’s Adventure’s need for a recreational facility, and my friend Malcolm Defreitas’ desire “to do” for Albouystown. Then I noted government ministers meeting with a community to hear what trouble the people faced so that they can ‘do’ for the people – for a poor country this is crazy stuff. Outside of the occasional clean-up campaign I hear nothing about an emphasis on giving communities the ability to do for themselves. Rich countries are emphasizing this approach to community development, why then is poor Guyana not doing so? I suspect there are two primary reasons for this.
First politicians in third world countries tend to love having citizens dependent on them. Dependency gives rise to a feeling of being eternally grateful to those who ‘do for you’ when you are made to feel incapable of doing for yourself. Dependent people are unlikely to heed the urging of those who encourage protest even when their (dependent persons’) anger is justified. This reluctance to act in one’s self-interest against those one feels indebted to is human, and politicians take full advantage of this tendency. It is captured in the late President Burnham’s famous observation “He who feeds you controls you,” and Martin’s Carter’s “A mouth is muzzled by the food it eats.” It is this understanding that encourages politicians to bring gifts instead of giving skills.
The second reason is the problem of implementing policy. I am confident that within the government there are those who intellectually recognize the need for the community’s involvement in its own developmental process. However, there is no clear identification of a government agency or organization (whether central or regional) responsible for coordinating implementation. A similar situation existed in the USA when the early poor response to hurricane Katrina led to a man-made crisis which led to the death of over 1300 Americans. This happened because roles were unclear, thus federal, state and local governments struggled to coordinate a response to Katrina. As Guyanese we must learn from such experiences. We need to agree on which ministry or agency will bear primary responsibility for managing the process of community involvement in its development. When we look at the structures in place at present it would seem that this responsibility should be with the Ministry of Communities, or Ministry of Social Cohesion, Ministry of the Presidency or the Regional administrations. Based upon what it is presently doing it seems the government has decided on a somewhat different role for the Ministry of Communities, so let’s rule out this ministry.
The Ministry of the Presidency, at which I understand there is a Community Development Unit should also be ruled out for bearing this responsibility. I get the impression this unit is made up of persons more schooled in politics because I am confused when I hear about some of the work the unit undertakes. I read recently of a member of this unit visiting a community in Georgetown and the disagreements between the community representatives and the official were such that it made the news. The issue of contention was what to do with an existing building. The Ministry representative wanted the building to remain while the community leaders wanted it removed. This kind of challenge is so common in the community development process that it would be referred to as a ‘text book problem.’ Trained community development specialists would find this easy to address without threatening the relationship between the Ministry of the Presidency and the community. But the Ministry sent a politician, not a community development specialist, to deal with what was essentially a community development issue; this move immensely increased the likelihood of things going wrong and relationships being damaged.
There is a role for the Ministry of the Presidency in community development, however it is not the one being pursued. This is likely the most high profile ministry. It has the most clout, it is respected and in the international community it demands the attention of governments. Thus it must organize itself for taking full advantage of its status. The focus of the community development unit at the Ministry of the Presidency should be to seek assistance for local communities that is available from governments and international agencies ‒ agencies that are designed and governments that are inclined to support community development efforts in poor countries.
The Ministry of the Presidency must be in constant contact with the United Nations, the Organization of American States and European nations, etc. For example, there are both international private organizations and governments that set aside resources for helping indigenous communities (we should stop referring to such communities as Amerindian communities. I understand it gives rise to unnecessary questions when attempting to access resources at the international level). Accessing these should be where the community development unit at the Ministry focuses its efforts. Incidentally this would also be my advice for the Youth Unit at the same Ministry. I was disappointed when reading that this unit ran a “youth leadership course.” Youth leadership training has been organized and run by clubs in Guyana for over 100 years, and in the case of the Department of Youth for over 35 years. Why today is there a need for the Ministry of the Presidency to be involved in providing this training?
It is the Department of Social Cohesion that should be responsible for ensuring the community participates in its development (of course with assistance and cooperation from the regional administrations). While space will not allow me to expand on this choice, let me say the following: Social cohesion suggests the presence of the ministry in the community; it suggests a focus on people working together and it suggests pursuing activities with emphasis on mutual dependency. All these are essential ingredients of the community participatory process. What work needs to be done in Buxton? Is there a need for a day-care centre? Which will free working parents of the expense and challenges encountered every working day when having to access such a facility in Georgetown? Are there persons with the skills to manage such a facility in Buxton?
If no, are there skilled persons living in neighbouring Annandale who can provide the service? When working together provides people with a solution to a felt need, respect and appreciation for each other is the logical outcome.
Finally UG will have to do its part in support of community development. It will have to develop a course in community development with emphasis on community participation and ownership of the process. This course can be at the level of a certificate or diploma (in fact classes in community members’ participation in its development should be a part of the curriculum of all secondary schools). About 19 years ago the American government recognized the need for its volunteers, working at the community level in Guyana, to be skilled at community analysis and organizing. I was fortunate to be the person chosen and given training in the subject area and was subsequently responsible for training the volunteers.
On the insistence of people like Terrence Simmons and Jimmy Bhojedat, the American government conceded and Guyanese identified to be counterparts of the Americans were invited to be a part of the class.
Transportation (including by air), hotels, meals and out of pocket for the Guyanese were provided courtesy of the American government. Over a period of 9 years I trained hundreds of Americans in the area of community assessment and organizing while training only a handful of my fellow Guyanese. Remember those few Guyanese only got the training courtesy of the American government’s kindness and understanding. Clearly one government is convinced of the importance of preparing communities to bear responsibility for their development, while the other at least based upon its lack of action, is unconvinced.
Until we begin to behave in a manner that suggests a determination to make communities responsible for their own development, the nation will continue to experience shattered dreams and failed programmes.
An example is President Jagdeo’s Youth Project Initiative which resulted in the presence of a number of unused or underused buildings and the Wakenaan air strip which we are told residents describe as a “colossal joke.”
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
