英语论文网

on characteristics among the many and variant initiatives in participation include; more active and participatory forms of citizenship, with inclusion, involvement of multiple stakeholders, and broader forms of accountability (p151)
Participation, Power, and Politics
A major criticism of the participation discourse is that it is based on a naÃˉve
understanding of power and the power relations that exist both between central and
local actors and within local groups (Hailey, 2001). A participatory process may merely provide opportunities for the more powerful and serve to maintain exploitation and exclusion (Hildyard et al., 2001).Truly re-defining roles of actors, both in the community and with partner or external development agencies require addressing power structures and conventions to allow for authentic participation of communities in the change management, as in adoption of desired goals of development. (Lewis et al? internet). Poor people, especially women, may tend not to participate in the face of prevailing dominance by powerful and wealthy people, or their participation may merely reflect conformity with dominant norms that fail to appreciate their participation, or even consider them important.
Lewis et al,( ibid) and consistent with Kothari (2001) among others, argues that rather than all stakeholders working together and making decisions by consensus in pursuit of a common interest, most stakeholders tend to accept roles defined for them ,- for instance by donors to fit their programme requirements- and do not interrogate the prevailing discourse of participation. Whereas this may be true, especially where control of the process is in the hands of 'outsiders' and the community has inadequate information (as may often be the case), it may apply only in certain contexts, and participation is contextual both in terms of time and space. On the contrary, in situations where participants have sufficient information and motivation to pursue common interests, as is happening in pursuit of social justice, citizens' rights specifically and social movements in general, participation is a viable option for majority of those marginalized. This has been true in the 1990s in Africa and Latin America by citizens in pursuit of democracy and accountability from repressive regimes. The Zapatistas movement in Mexico is a live example of successful popular assertiveness and participation in governance, as a way of resisting the status quo. However, as Wakefield et al (2008) observes, 'future participatory processes face significant challenges if they are to help to shift power and knowledge to those who need it, rather than to those who have it'(p8). Reid et al (2009) warns of a lurking danger implicit in participation, and therefore, the need to always ask: Who benefits? Who loses? Who is empowered and who is not? (p27)
Kothari (2001) and Cleaver (1999) consider cooption of participation by governments and big donor projects as a compromise of the political thrust of participation as originally conceived and practised, and thus de-politisisation of its relationship to community development. The de-politization debate refers to the hijacking and the eventual mainstreaming of participation my national governments, donor community and big projects to serve narrow and nuanced purposes in the name of community involvement, sustainability and ownership of projects, and in this way 'sneaking' back developm