fashion have been undermined by these larger, well meaning imperatives of conventional development. Which statement keeps your seat at the table in a high profile intervention? “Congressman, we’ve spent $3 million to augment local communities’ own coping mechanisms which are quite effective and ultimately sustainable…” or “In the past six months we’ve air dropped emergency food assistance and delivered hygiene and emergency shelter packages valued at $33 million.” All too often it’s the latter even if that approach contributes to the violation of human rights, an overall decline in the quality of life for victims and the decay of stability in a region.
Advocacy and bearing witness are also responsibilities of participatory professionals that are suspect in conventional development. Designing programs around the cares, concerns and coping mechanisms indigenous to the location of a cataclysm often entails raising the decibel level of local voices. This sometimes upsets the political equilibrium of a country or otherwise contributes to the discomfort of diplomats. This is hardly embraced by mainstream humanitarianism and development institutions. Nonetheless, to advocate, bear witness and give voice to local partners is the bone marrow of humanitarianism – or it used to be – and it is integral to encouraging and working on the behalf of residents who are bringing themselves back to life.
Overall, the two paradigms coexist, often uneasily, with participatory approaches playing the role of the impoverished little brother to conventional traditions. Participatory programs often cost more up front. Their results may seem too small and scattered and they may appear too miserly with their resources as intervention programs shore up existing capacities. They may even advocate a hasty exit, against national interests, if it is determined that assistance is not really needed or that aid can not be delivered without worsening the crisis. By conventional measures, this relegates participatory methodologies to the shelf where the cod liver oil sits. It may work but even a small dose tastes bad.
Consequently, under pressure from dominant conventional development institutions the use of participatory methods is not widespread. Much of what has been done in the name of participation has been tactical, tentative and often ancillary to the bread and butter work of most organizations. Many participatory forays take the shape of halfway measures that ride the fence between traditional imperatives and “experimental” approaches.[6] It makes for a netherworld of misfit programs.
Case studies provide some rules of thumb for programs straddling the fence and for those more fully committing to the participatory paradigm.[7]
- For those straddling the fence, don’t. Engaging victims and communities in emergency response and development activities is to begin a process of awakening and healing. It sets in motion the expectation that quality of life improvements will be dependent on local initiative, advice and arrangements. Follow-through, continuous collaboration and consistent delivery with a coherent exit strategy are essential. To stall, mix command and participatory methods, unexpectedly disengage or interject “outside expert” decisions midstream may create profound distrust among local partners, frustration and confusion in already traumatized residents and quite possibly do more damage than if local involvement never featured in the program. Commit to participation, then follow though.
4
