Do I Dare
From Despair to Hope: A Bleak Journey for the Rural Poor
Poverty represents a way of life of majority of the developing world's population today. The crisis is concentrated in the countryside. Conventional methods of eliminating, or even alleviating, poverty have as yet been notably unsuccessful. The misery is there to see and that inspite of long-standing formidable forces of individuals, institutions and programes arranged against it.
No doubt, at all levels of society and in all walks of life individuals exist who have strived to bring the entire range of decent existence within reach of most of the poorest strata of society. However, one must be aware of the difficulties in attempting to translate such discrete contributions into a self-sustaining process. Designing a strategy and structuring activities that address the needs of the rural poor and are eventually owned by them present enormous difficulties.
The initial premise that I venture to submit is that the processes inherent in a poverty-oriented rural development strategy is to a great extent contrary to established political and bureaucratic instincts. Political and bureaucratic self-interest, even enlightened self-interest, dictate against the steps which such strategy and processes involve and dictate against them over time. A traditional underlying assumption, for example, has been that empowerment of the powerless requires the political commitment of the government and that commitment must be a continuing one. Yet, historically such miracle as has occurred has taken place inspite of the government. Indeed where the seeds for development of the rural poor and by them have been sown, the government, or in some cases a successor government frequently seems to have stamped them out rather than nurtured them.
The reason is obvious. Implementation of a poverty-oriented rural development strategy involves the giving up of power and resources by those now in control of them. Implicit in the process is an awareness and organisation on the part of the poor which might well represent a danger to the establishment. The process also creates a threat to the conventional bureaucracy since its multisectoral nature and concomitant decentralisation contravene traditional ministerial lines of authority.
Political Issues
Poverty-oriented rural development involves redistribution or the transfer of resources and power. In less polite terms, it involves giving up something one has, may otherwise have had, or wants to have. On the other hand, the core of such a self-sustaining process must be increased production and productivity resulting in a "trickle-up" phenomenon. The perception and the reality of how the increased output will be shared will largely determine how the middle and upper classes react to a proposed rural development effort.
Yet this 'how' is the dilemma of the large land-holder in a developing nation with sufficient land and other resources. Land and tenurial reforms could form the most important step towards alleviating the nations poverty problem. But it is rare to find a landlord who is willing to give up his land and supports a government which does anything more than simply talk about reforms.
The conflict is even greater in some of the poorest countries which are land and resources poor and where the small farmer does not lie at the bottom of the heap. It is quite unnatural to expect the land-based small farmer to support a poverty group programme that goes further down the income scale when he considers himself and his family living on the margin. True, Mr McNamara's Nairobi speech in the early seventies switched the limelight of development discourse to the plight of the small farmers. However further progress will require shifting attention to those who have only marginal and in most cases no direct access to land-based resources.
The middle sized farmer does not live any better. This is also true of service holders in the cities who are absentee land owners in the countryside. This comparatively richer stratum, to the extent that it exists, rationalises its position on the premise that redistribution of its assets would only represent a drop in the bucket. Strongly subscribing to the "trickle-down" theory, the rich and the not-so-rich argue that the incentives must be correct for them to be productive and, willing to make a commitment. In the third and the fourth world settings, as also in the second and first worlds, proponents of the "trickle-down" theory are typically important cogs in the government machinery. Logically, it would be against their self-interest to support a poverty approach, unless they expected that such a policy would result in increased output sufficient that everyone, not only the poor, would gain. It is no wonder, therefore, when one finds governments calculating how little they can get away with in sharing, if any, of the economic resources and power.
A rather crucial and related issues is how the poor organise themselves to make the government 'deliver'. The question of how the poor might organise to gain an effective, rather than just a verbal commitment from the government cannot be ignored. It involves some potentially subversive ratifications for the power holders and the establishment.
Another major complexity is that the process takes time and requires a dynamic and continuing approach rather than a static or a politically time-bound one. One must consider than when a certain percentage of the rural poor graduates from abject to tolerable poverty, they will fight the hardest to keep what they have and acquire more. On a country-specific basis this dynamics and continuity constitutes an enormous problem. The newly-created as well as the traditional political power-base are both threatened. It is, therefore, important to recognise that the poor of today are not a homogeneous mass and that they may well not be the poor of tomorrow.
The Bureaucratic Structure
Implementation of a poverty-oriented rural development policy and programme also threaten the authority of traditional and fragmented ministerial lines and their modes of operation. Poverty-oriented rural development, overtime, involves the entire spectrum of development activities, and thus most of the line ministries. True, a component of a project or programme can be designed which falls within the authority and responsibility of a sectoral ministry. However, such a component would require a coordinating mechanism with other components. To the extent that this coordinating mechanism intrudes upon individual ministries, it represents a threat to the established bureaucratic line of authority.
On the other hand, if a cross sectoral ministry/department is set up like the rural development ministry in many countries, it inevitably takes on some of the functions of another ministry. There is infringement, and thus conflict, with the established bureaucracy. A rural development ministry, for example, engaged in building feeder roads comes into conflict with the department of Roads and Highways, even if the department has eschewed feeder roads in the past. Or again, a rural development ministry which assists in organising water-user's groups to optimise available irrigation facilities quite often encounters the opposition of the water ministry.
The relatively extensive time horizon presents another bureaucratic problem even within individual ministries. Any new fangled initiative almost necessarily involves a diversion of resources rather than supplementary funds. Budgets are too tight to implement existing projects/programmes. Therefore, the apathetic or negative attudance of the entrenched bureaucracy to new or innovative initiatives is understandable. Political masters may come and go, so also fads and buzzwords, but the bureaucracy is forever.
Again, a development approach that aims at replicability involves typically a change in approach of the national professionals, technocrats and bureaucrats. Few professionals will entertain a compromise in established standards or technology, no matter what the rationale or the cost. A first-rate professional in the developing world may resent having to live in a second-best world. He/she is hardly in a mood to be involved in perpetuation of what seems to be a second best existence.
Bureaucratic resistance is further heightened when two fundamental tenets of human development, namely decentralisation and popular participation are introduced. As for bureaucratic decentralisation, there is the very simple inter-ministerial loss of power from the centre to the field. A more irreconcilable anathema to any bureaucracy is the concept of popular participation. Unfortunately, bureaucrats and technocrats alike, have a contempt for the unkempt people. It is a rare professional who enjoys substantive discussions with laymen particularly when the laymen have a say in the decision-making process. Yet successful rural development must build on local systems and traditions and resurrect local knowledge to create common wisdom. Infact, one could argue that if implicit in the process of poverty oriented rural development is the accountability of both the political establishment and the bureaucracy to the people, then it would represent an unwelcome change for both.
Summing Up
This bleak picture of the complexities must be confronted squarely if the people of good will, both nationally and internationally, are willing to make a difference. Assisting and empowering the rural poor over time may imply mutation, not just evolution. Their lives must change from a position of hopelessness, hunger, disease and despair to a condition and position which gives them opportunity to strive for a decent life for themselves and their off springs. To effect such a change might generally be viewed by the existing power structures within nations to be a challenge to their authority and hold on resources. Further tenure of a government that would dare engage in such a venture could well be in doubt. No matter what, the poor must continue their own battle against poverty or otherwise trek relentlessly towards premature graves. It is in their organisation and social movements from below that our hope lies.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments