ABSTRACT
Those who have read that seminal book published by BRAC (the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee) in Bangladesh, The Net, 1 will be aware of the research it contains which shows almost no political space in the villages in Bangladesh for the poor to improve their lives vis-À-vis the controlling powers. I think this is an extreme case; if it were the usual pattern, it would seem a recipe for revolution as that would be the only way to change things. In 1989, the poor in Negros in the Philippines, or in Bihar in India, may well feel this way. It is salutary for us to look back at BRAC’s analysis, however, before we can look forward more positively to a world in which NGOs and government can work together to assist the poor and powerless. The Net gives us a unique insight into the context in which government policies are implemented:
Asia is a region where the economic and political exploitation of the lower classes is both historical and sanctified by tradition. To a large extent, it is accepted by both sides and internalized through the culture. For “development” to provide an opportunity for further extension of this situation is therefore unremarkable. The gains from the harvest for the share-croppers, the interest rate for the money-lenders, the attitudes towards women, and the respect for those who have power, all are old and accepted customs. It is accepted that society is stratified, that there are village Élites and the “natural” tendency of those Élites is to seek to exploit others. There is of course an implicit limit to such exploitation – when such limits are exceeded or when exploitative behaviour is reinforced by personally insulting behaviour, the whole nexus may be challenged, and the oppressed may feel that what was tolerable becomes untolerable. The outbursts that follow such crises are usually put down decisively by the forces of the state enlisted by the existing Élites.
At a local level, government authority may well be delegated to the village Élites and this further sanctions traditionally exploitative behaviour. In most countries in Asia, the village head is a member of the village Élite almost by definition. In order to implement development activities, the government will work through the existing structure and reaffirm it. The result will be loyalty from village Élites to a government that continues to benefit from them.
The system is further reinforced by local government functionaries when they work at the village level. Such officials are nearly always co-opted by the traditional power structure with whom they work to mutual advantage, since they are the conduit through which funds for development reach the rural areas.
The reality, therefore, of government development activities is that they are aimed at middle-level rural peasants because they have resources and because they are traditional leaders. Moreover, such target-ting will attract the loyalty of such people to the government. These development strategies are also often claimed to have a spill-over or a trickle-down effect to the poorer people. The people who implement such programmes, however, are the village authorities and the government officials who have mutual interests. Such people are by definition members of the relatively well-off village Élites and, not surprisingly, put their own interests before those of the poor peasants. It is too optimistic to believe that they will have an altruistic desire to help the people from whom they extract money to become independent from them.
