ABSTRACT
The conventional historical analysis of community participation described earlier has resulted in a tendency to categorize and label those involved in both the participation process itself and in the wider development process. This has affected all actors to some degree, but nowhere more so than with the NGO sector. The duality of community versus state which is the outcome of the empowerment approach to community participation divides all actors into one of the two camps. Most actors, be they funding agencies, private sector groups or development professionals, are aligned with the state. This leaves the community alone with the sole exception of NGOs. This view is clearly illustrated by Cernea, writing for the World Bank, when he argues that
‘The two fundamental actors in local development processes are the local governments and the local communities. But “community and bureaucracy are two evidently antithetical styles of social organization”. . . which serve to distinguish the two major protagonists in planned development, the people and the state. In the interaction between these two actors, NGOs insert themselves not as a third and different/independent actor but as an emanation and representation of the community (or of a community sub-group). Beyond their various differences, they [NGOs] appear as an organizational response, most often instrumental and sometimes political, of the community or its sub-groups, in pursuit of alternative strategies ... for local social development. 1
The result is the perception that there is some form of symbiotic relationship between the NGO and the community which creates an ideal partnership for sustainable development. This romantic view of NGOs is a myth which, in the long term, can only be damaging to both communities and NGOs.