'Organised hypocrisy functions as [a] safety valve by which conflicts can be mitigated'
Robert Egnell, 'The organised hypocrisy of international state-building', 2010
Egnell in this article writes about the disconnect in the international aid system between rhetoric, decisions and action. As he points out, in the international community the maintenance of order is more key to success than the success of an operation, and thus it is the appearance of competence rather than the actuality of it that is important.
We see this in things like the focus placed on 'local ownership' within the rhetoric of intervention, coupled with the nature of interventions which often focus on the same aims of democratisation and the introduction of free-market economics. Such changes tend to come with the blithe assumption that local ownership must in part stem first from proper education of the locals.
In suggesting that hypocrisy is not merely an accident of the international system but a tactic of it (whether a conscious or unconscious one) Egnell makes me more nervous about how I want to proceed than I already am. I fervently want to be involved in international development, yet at the same time, wholeheartedly believe in the idea of local ownership as not just an ideal but as a necessity for successful development. This leaves me wondering whether the process I engaged in as an intern in Hackney in 2011 (implemented properly) might be possible on a wider scale if only there was the acceptance from donor countries of a certain lack of control of the process.
Whilst in Hackney I was working for the Contextual Theology Centre as a Jellicoe Intern, engaged in community organising in the local community. The theory was that rather than going in with a specific project, we were to speak to as many local people as possible with the only intention of finding out what they wanted. Looking back now, the process was hijacked somewhat as the vicar of the church I was based in was very keen on pedestrianisation of an area, a highly devisive issue for the shopkeepers of the area who felt it would detract from their sales if buses no longer went past the shops. The key issue in fact was one which neither the church nor the local council really cared about, the problem of Christmas lights. The street had at one point had beautiful Christmas lights, but these went missing one year and the ones that replaced them, the shopkeepers felt, made them the laughing stock of the Borough.
What this process showed me ultimately, was the inherent difficultly of implementing local ownership, those with the power don't want the same things as their constituents. However, had the power-brokers of the area implemented the change the shopkeepers wanted, I cannot help but wonder what difference that would have made to their cooperation on other issues.
I went in without preconceptions as to what would help (or at least as far as possible without an agenda) and listened to what people wanted. This is a time consuming process, and doesn't necessarily lead where you want it to go (the local politicians wanted a smarter, more upmarket high street, not pretty Christmas lights for an area focused on pound shops and betting shops), but arguably, surely, could result in more change in the long term. After all, people are more likely to do what you want them to if you show them you care first.
No comments:
Post a Comment