Defining participation: A case study of Nepal

• Background
• A case study of Nepal
• People's participation: Development authorities' perspective
• People's participation: The villagers' perspective
• Conclusion
• References

The notion of people's participation in their development has been gaining momentum in the process of human empowerment and development. Contemporary development scholars have been advocating the inclusion of people's participation in development projects as they believe that unless people participate in a development project, it is not likely to achieve anything of benefit to them. In line with this view, Stone (1989:212) argues that people's participation in development projects may help bring effective social change rather than impose an external culture on a society. Similarly, Shrimpton (1989: 635), referring to the experience of rural development programs, states that community participation in the design and management of a program 'greatly enhances the likelihood of program success due to improved [goodness of fit] and increased sustainability'.

The main theory behind people's participation in their development is that real development must be people-centred (Finsterbusch, and Wicklin, 1989). In this vein, Korten and Carner (1984: 201) argue forcefully that the development process should not ignore the 'creative initiatives of people' as they are 'the primary development resource'. Finsterbusch and Wicklin (1989:591) claim that participation can lead to initiatives on the people's part and allow them to assume 'ownership' of the development process. Both Aubel (1991) and Stone (1989) stress that people's participation helps individuals resolve their problems by themselves. Korten (1984:301) criticises the conventional method of expert-dominated decision making processes in people's development and further argues that there should be no more 'nonconsultative modes of central decision-making' and 'decision making must truly be returned to the people'. In referring to past developmental efforts, Jazairy (1989) notes that 'projects conceived and implemented by outside organisations have failed because adequate consideration was not given to the importance of local participation'.

In a general term, many argue that participation is a means of the empowerment of people (cf. Gran, 1983; Oakley, 1987; Oakley and Marsden, 1984 in Ghai,1988:3) that involves, among other things, 'transformation of attitude and values' (Uddin, 1990:61), 'possibility that people can more actively control their own lives' (Rappaport, 1981, Barimah, and Nelson, 1994:174) and people help themselves make 'decisions that are right for them' (Merzel, 1991: 5) and speak up themselves for 'each person's perspective and voice' (Stuart and Bery, 1996:199).

Although the overall definition of 'participation' in many ways seems to be strongly related to empowerment involving people in the process of their own development, this definition, however, is nebulous in the sense that it can be easily directed and manipulated to one's convenience and thinking. A case study of nutrition projects in Nepal has clearly indicated such nebulosity suggesting a need for a comprehensive and shared definition as it has highlighted conflicting notions between development authorities (development planners, policy makers and implements) and villagers (development beneficiaries) about people's participation in development.

A CASE STUDY OF NEPAL

With the overall objective of investigating the appropriate modes of communication for people's participation in nutrition projects, and also conditioning the understanding of the meaning of people's participation in development, this author carried out survey interviews with some government and non-government officials in Nepal in 1994. At the same time, the author also held focus group discussions with the local villagers of three survey districts of Nepal.

A total of twenty government and non-government officials, who were directly or indirectly involved in the nutrition projects, were involved in the interview. These officials comprised of project planners, policy-makers, and implements. Of these, twelve officials represented various government ministries and departments dealing with agriculture, health, education and local development, while a further two officials responsible for nutrition planning and development represented the National Planning Commission. The remaining six represented various non-governmental and international organisations. Focus group discussions were based on each individual three districts located in various ecological regions of Nepal, such as mountain (high hill), hill, and terai (low flat land areas or plain areas). In mountain, 51 people participated in the focus group discussions, while in hill 31 and 21 in terai. It should be noted that the focus group in all three ecological regions included local village men and women of different social status, such as political leaders, school teachers, local development volunteers, social workers, farmers and labourers.

PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION: DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES' PERSPECTIVE

Based on the survey interviews with the government and non-government officials, 70% of the interviewees strongly favoured participatory approach to nutrition projects and their communication processes. The remaining 30%, who also did not discount the importance of participatory approach to nutrition projects, affirmed that simple and clear strategies of nutrition information dissemination can help villagers (project beneficiaries) alleviate nutrition problems. For most interviewees, however, the participatory approach to nutrition projects was generally meant to involve local people in their needs and problems assessment in order to tailor appropriate messages for alleviating village nutrition problems. The view which follows was one which was commonly expressed:

Most of the interviewees believed in two-way dialogues as a means of securing people's participation in nutrition. They also believed such dialogues could unveil people's needs, feelings and social realities. However, it should be noted that such dialogues, for many interviewees, appeared to be linked more towards villagers' participation in implementation phase of the project, such as the project's final delivery of goods and services: 'Before flowing information we should understand what exactly their needs are. Villagers can provide their participation wholeheartedly only when the result of our discussions identify their exact needs'.

Two of the interviewees from media organisations (national radio and television) highlighted the importance of people's participation in development communication projects. However, their views also did not significantly differ form the views expressed by many other interviewees as discussed above, as one sample quote suggests:

The above views clearly suggests the need for people's participation in multiplying messages, but do not at all indicate anything about people's participation in any phase of communication processes, including the design, development, and evaluation of messages.

One of the top officials involved in national communication policy formulation and decision making frankly contended that 'they (target beneficiaries) should not be fully involved in information design, dissemination, and evaluation as we all know that communication design and dissemination are skilled arts'. This view clearly indicates that people's full participation (participation in design, implementation, and evaluation of a project) is not possible in projects that are skill-oriented. But this view appears to have largely ignored the potentials of people's participation in facilitating learning processes necessary for insuring sustainable and effective development.

PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION: THE VILLAGERS' PERSPECTIVE

The entire participants of each focus group involved in the discussions reported that they never experienced 'full participation' in any local village development project. Most of them reported having had only 'partial' participation, especially in the implementation phase of the project, such as voluntary contribution of physical labour in local trails or school buildings construction or participation in immunisation, or health and nutrition education. They strongly held that they were never ever consulted for their 'full participation' in development project's processes designed for their village development. Most of them believed that a development project should be designed and brought into a village only after consultations with local villagers. One of the participants of the focus group in terai region, for example, strongly asserted: 'We need to be gathered for a group discussion to discuss the proposed project'. Here, a group discussion was meant more towards exchange of ideas among project authority and village beneficiaries to enhance villagers' participation for securing effective results of development projects. Similar view was expressed in the focus group discussions in the hill region, as one of the participants posited:

With the similar view as above, one of the focus group participants from the mountain region (high hill) cited an example of how a women's development project was almost in the verge of failure in carrying out their activities in her village:

On the basis of the focus group discussions, it would appear that villagers strongly prefer consultations and interactions with development authority not only in project implementation phase, but from the very start of its design and development. Most of the focus group participants believed that participation of villagers in development project could be initiated only through consultations and interactions with the development authority. In this vein, one sample quote from the focus group discussions in the terai region is highlighted as follows:

In essence, villagers want a two-way communication to become participants of development projects. This means that 'participation' for villagers is something that forms a basis of enhancing their contributions to their own development through 'reciprocal conversations as, primarily, dialogues' or the development of 'mutual understanding' throughout the life of a development project that includes project design and development, implementation and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The focus group participants, and government and non-government officials who were involved in the field survey have conflicting notions about participation. These conflicting notions appear to be linked to the perception of government and non-government officials that the villagers should be included in a project only in the process of needs assessment for the design and development of a project and in its implementation phase, whilst most of the focus group participants believed that villagers' participation should not be confined to any particular phase of a project; rather it should be effective from the very inception of a project to its evaluation phase through two-way dialogues or discussions between project authority and target beneficiaries that enhance mutual co-operation for the success of a project. In essence, it appears that 'participation' for villagers is not necessarily meant as something that enables them only to be involved in need assessment or in sharing benefits of the project, but it is something that enhances confidence and co-operation in resolving village problems through continuous dialogues and discussions between project authority and villagers in all phases of development projects such as design and development, implementation and evaluation.

REFERENCES

Aubel, J. (1991). Getting out the Message: A Review of Communications Strategies for Promoting Vitamin A Interventions, Arlington Virginia: VITAL.

Barimah, K. B. and Nelson, G. (1994). Empowerment in a supplementary food program in a rural community in Ghana, International Quarterly of Community Health Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 173-190

Finsterbusch, K. and Wicklin III, W.A.V. (1989). Beneficiary participation in development projects: empirical tests of popular theories, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Chicago: the University of Chicago.

Ghai, D. (1988). Participatory Development: Some Perspectives from Grass-roots Experiences, Geneva: UNRISD.

Gran, G. (1983). Development by People: Citizen Construction of a Just World, New York: Praeger.

Jazairy, I. (1989). Foreword, in P. Lineberry, (ed.) Assessing Participatory Development: Rhetoric versus Reality, Rome: Westivew Press.

Korten, D. C. (1984). People-centred development: toward a framework, in David C. Korten and Rudi Klauss (eds.), People Centred Development, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Korten, D. C. and Carner, G. (1984). Planning frameworks for people-centred development, in David C. Korten and Rudi Klauss (eds.), People Centred Development, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Merzel, C. (1991), Rethinking Empowerment, Health/PAC Bulletin, Winter, pp.5-6.

Oakley, P. (1987). State or process, means or end?: the concept of participation in rural development, Reading Rural Development Communications, Bulletin 21, Berkshire: Reading University.

Oakley, P. and D. Marsden (1984). Approaches to Participation in Rural Development, Geneva : ILO.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of a paradox: a social policy of empowerment over prevention, American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 9, pp.1-25.

Shrimpton, R. (1989). Community participation, growth monitoring, and malnutrition in the third world, Human Ecology Forum, vol. 17, pp. 21-23.

Stone, L. (1989). Cultural cross-roads of community participation in development: a case from Nepal, Human Organisation, vol.48. no.3, pp. 206-213.

Stuart, S. and Bery, R. (1996). Powerful grass roots women communicators: participatory video in Bangladesh, in Jan Servaes, Thomas L. Jacobson and Shirley A. White (eds.), Participatory Communication for Social change, New Delhi: Sage.

Uddin, M. (1990). The role of communication in agricultural development in Pakistan, Media Asia, vol. 17, no.2, pp. 59-69.