When it comes to seeing true, sustainable development in a community, then the freedom and power to make choices by the people benefiting is key. Often, it is the outsider who "knows best" what the people need and how they should get it, and so they impose decisions on the community. Even if they are right—that those are the best ideas/decisions—it often does not turn out best for the people because when the outsider leaves, everything may fade away.
As outsiders, every time we make a decision for the community, we are, in effect, treating them as children, not adults. There is another word for this: paternalism. With paternalism the outsider is in charge. Unconsciously, perhaps, dependent attitudes in the community are reinforced. Another way to say it is: If we are doing things for others that they can do, or solving their problems our way, then we are being paternalistic.
Too often development agencies arrive in a community with a particular set of skills and materials with which they are going to see the community developed. They have a certain timeframe in which to accomplish their goals, and so they go about interesting the community in what they have to offer. Soon, if all goes well, they can point at the development they have accomplished with the community. It may be a well, water pump or clinic, etc. If they have used participatory methods in their training, they are confident that the people understand its importance, know how to care for it and will continue to do so. They move on to the next community, satisfied they have done a good development project.
But development is not about things. Wells, water pumps or clinics might very well be among the outward manifestations of development, but sustainable development is about the community taking responsibility for its own growth. This kind of development takes time and may occur faster in one community than in another. But it will not happen without the community having the possibility of making choices in their growth and development.
When we were created in God's image, this included being created with the ability to make decisions, to have preferences, and to make choices. In Genesis 2 we learn how God finished creation with the formation of Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden. He told them they could eat the fruit from any tree, except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If they ate from that tree, they would die. He gave them the ability to make choices and even told them the consequences if they disobeyed. We all know how that story ended. . . they ate from the fruit and were banished from the Garden and today we are still living in this cursed earth, dealing with sin, pain, sickness and all other kinds of evil.
Have you ever thought about what God risked? He had created a perfect world and entrusted it to mankind. Then He endangered everything by allowing them to make a choice! But He is also just and good, so when they chose disobedience, He followed through on the consequences. In the same way, God respects and loves us so much that He gives us the freedom to choose whether we will obey Him, or not.
Consider this:
- If giving Adam and Eve the freedom to make a choice was important enough for God to risk the entrance of sin into the whole world, then free choice must be vital.
- If it is still important enough for Him to risk us going to hell because we do not choose Him, then we should think about how important He considers our will and our ability to make choices.
- If it is that crucial to God, then we need to allow that same freedom for others.
- If God allows you and I to make our choices, who are we to take it away from someone else?
A few years ago I taught in Eastern Congo on development to a group of 40 church workers and then went back a year later to hear how they had implemented what they had learned. After hearing their fantastic success stories, I taught on the principle of giving people choices and not being paternalistic. One man stood and said in disgust, "I wish you'd told us this last year!"
He then proceeded to report that his group had decided to help 6 widows by loaning them money to start a small cassava bread business. Three of the widows readily took the money and started their businesses.
But 3 of the widows refused. They said, "Just give us the money and we'll decide what to do with it."
Initially, they left those widows, but later they went back and loaned them the money, only because they wanted to be able to report to their team leader that they had accomplished their "project."
The second set of 3 widows joined with a few other friends and together the 6 of them bought a plot of ground and tomato seeds. They reaped their tomatoes, bought a motorcycle which is now being used as a taxi between villages and had enough money left to re-plant their field. Today, their children are all in school, they are well-fed and clothed.
Meanwhile, the first 3 widows failed in their bread businesses and are no better off today than before the loans were made to them.
The man reporting this told us he was too ashamed to go back and hear the 2nd group of widows tell him "I told you so" so he had observed this from a distance, much to his consternation. Now he heard that what he had thought a failure was a success!
The man reporting this told us he was too ashamed to go back and hear the 2nd group of widows tell him "I told you so" so he had observed this from a distance, much to his consternation. Now he heard that what he had thought a failure was a success!
Once people are allowed to "own" their choices, they will then "own" their development, take responsibility for their growth and continue on even further than the development worker can go with them. That's real development.
Copyright © 2009 Renee Schudel
0 comments:
Post a Comment