ABSTRACT
This chapter looks at the relationship between heritage, development and communities in Africa with a view to interrogating roles, benefits and ownership. In theorising ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ binary discourse/constructs in heritage development issues, one sees an interplay of paternalistic (Them); imposition of heritage research, development projects on recipient communities and a new resistance discourse being advanced by (Us) recipient communities and agents as a way of addressing full involvement rather than partial handouts. Such ‘Them’ agents/agencies are often funding agencies, development partners, foreign scholars in indigenous African societies or even local scholars implementing research and development projects in various communities in Africa. The ‘Us’ agents/communities can be considered as traditional leaders, elders and members of communities that host research scientists and projects being implemented by possible funding agencies, development partners, foreign and local scholars. For years in the African continent, a relationship of ‘Them’ and ‘Us’ have developed and in many cases morphed into the normal. The recipient are often left out of any discussions on developments that concern them as the saying ‘beggars are not choosers’ is effected to the letter. It is always assumed that because of lack of resources and means to plan and implement their own projects their roles are limited to thank the givers at the end of what is planned and delivered to them. Resistance has, however, emerged to this arrangement as participatory ‘rights’ are now commonly cited. The recent and on-going trend in heritage governance have also seen what can only be referred to as an upsurge of ‘local community’ claims and rights to access and use their heritage. This of course and by all means is in line with the developmental agenda of most post-colonial African states that now advocate for public participation and benefit sharing. The question, however, is to what extent are the recipient communities able to resist the top down approach? Are they able to negotiate better terms of engagement? Is the environment conducive to enhance the inclusion of subaltern voices and expertise in redesigning heritage projects? Above all, are the communities in a position to foster the writing of their own local community heritage projects proposals void of foreign adulteration for implementation? These issues are already being discussed in a number of projects in the continent among them the slave museum projects in the three-town communities of southern Volta Regions of Ghana developed by one of the authors of this chapter.
