Archibald MacLeish in Hypocrite Auteur mentions that a “world ends when its metaphor has died,” signifying the death of shared meaning. The decline of global governance, augmented and triggered by the rise of imperialism, is challenging the world order and pushing humanity to the threshold of an existential crisis. When the cultural, spiritual, artistic, and humanistic values that structure our reality cease to be believed, the world falls away, creating a “rupture” that demands new meaning.
As humanity is pushed into unnecessary crises by a few insecure and powerful actors amid a worsening planetary emergency with irreversible consequences, the endangerment of humanity appears not only inevitable but also accelerated by them. While the rich are making mega mistakes on mega scales, it is poor and vulnerable communities that are most affected and deprived of their daily needs and basic human rights. Gross violations of human rights remain among the greatest crimes against humanity, carried out by power-hungry economic giants through raging wars, resource capture, trafficking of women and children, digital intrusion, medical impositions such as COVID-related coercion, and more.
Global governance through the United Nations has perhaps never been challenged as intensely as it is today. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are also under strain, particularly SDG 17, which seeks to “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development,” yet appears to be among the least invested goals. For that matter, none of the SDG targets are expected to be met by 2030. This raises the question: what sustainability are we discussing within and between nation states? The impact of the triple planetary crises — climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss — is already profound. Yet these crises are being further aggravated by wars between nation states that showcase power and test military capabilities, thereby accelerating the collapse of humanity and biodiversity alike.
At a time when global ties are weakening and partnerships are shifting from negotiation to coercive implementation, sustainability at the national level has lost much of its meaning. The global corporate-digital power play involving politics, the military, and business may well be an outcome of globalization itself, pushing societies back toward regionalization, where autocracies are rising by using the rhetoric of nationalism and patriotism in the name of saving the nation.
In today’s circumstances, can countries and communities realistically transition toward the recovery of humanity? Can countries become self-reliant when nearly everything is controlled by a handful of economic powers, both internally and externally, while politics increasingly compromises itself in favour of these powers to tighten control over citizens? Is it wise to remain optimistic in a time of such rupture? Yet do we really have any option other than optimism? There remains hope that a new space may emerge in place of the shattered status quo. When illusions about the old order disappear, they may create room for what has long been incubating beneath the surface. A rupture demands choices about the foundations of the future, as argued by Nathan Gardels and Kathleen Miles.
Given this situation, it is important to begin by asking what sustainability actually means for countries and communities. Equally pertinent is the question of scale: at what level can citizens genuinely experience and exercise self-reliance, which they gradually surrendered through forms of occupation and lifestyles shaped by urbanization and globalization?
We know of Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Swaraj and the governance framework of Panchayati Raj. How far are these ideas still worth discussing? We believe they are, because in a time when citizens have lost substantial control over their resources and lifestyles, there is little to lose and much to gain from experimenting with self-empowerment. However, self-empowerment requires self-realization and self-organization. These, indeed, may represent the transition humanity seeks in difficult times. And there is no meaningful way to look into the future without also looking into the past. We therefore present one case study to argue for an alternative pathway for transition from the current world order — self-organization in the context of development.
Revisiting Development Practice
We need to revisit the world of community development in view of the imminent collapse of the architecture of Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the Global North to the Global South. The Global North’s understanding of ODA can be grasped through an interesting passage in British parliamentary papers outlining the British vision for development in the former Indian subcontinent, now South Asia. The passage suggested that development in India would not emerge from the lower ranks of society, as in America, Canada, and Australia, but rather from the upper ranks. This vision shaped development strategy for decades, beginning with the establishment of canal colonies in Punjab in 1885 and continuing through Mahbub ul Haq’s strategy for donor-assisted economic development in Pakistan.
It was Akhter Hameed Khan (AHK) who not only challenged the dominant ODA framework but also initiated a rethinking of development itself. The Pakistani social scientist and one of the most influential Gandhian thinkers in the post-Independence Indian subcontinent developed unique insights and tools to reverse prevailing patterns of development. His critique was directed at the way development had become an elite enterprise. He sought to correct distorted perceptions about the poor and their capacity to shape communities, cities, and countries. While many educated elites still regard poor communities as helpless and dependent on constant support, AHK argued that economic poverty alone does not keep the poor disadvantaged; rather, it is political poverty and sustained disempowerment that do so.
A wealthy minority, through its economic influence, gains access to political power and franchise, thereby controlling the majority of citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of the state to ensure fair distribution of resources, equitable rights to development, and empowerment of citizens in accordance with constitutional guarantees and universal human rights.
AHK believed that civil society could effectively promote development from the lower ranks of society, not as a revolutionary force but as a mediator engaging with the state apparatus. At the time, he viewed Pakistan as being in a state of anarchy. For him, anarchy meant that “anyone can make the difference.” Everyone possessed the agency to embark on a path of social change — whether through the political agency of the state, the social agency of the community, or the moral agency of the individual.
If an individual followed the right process, his or her success could create a snowball effect. Grandiose projects were unnecessary to bring about meaningful change. Community work, he argued, should begin “where you are” — by bringing development to the household, lane, or neighbourhood level. This approach carried several advantages, including lower overhead costs and the trust of the community. Mistakes could also be corrected with minimal losses and without being repeated on a larger scale. Success at a small scale, too, could generate a snowball effect.
AHK also offered important insights into working with communities, governments, and technical professionals. He argued that the British had created a law-and-order administration in the Indian subcontinent without establishing development administration below the district level. As a result, three key infrastructures required for delivering services to the poor were absent: administrative infrastructure (a truncated development administration), political infrastructure (the absence of local government), and social infrastructure (community institutions, civil society organizations, and endowments weakened during colonial rule). In the absence of these infrastructures, development assistance became a bottomless pit. Administrative infrastructure was necessary to provide technical guidance and resources; social infrastructure was needed to create economies of scale for skill-building at the household level and through local organizations; and political infrastructure was essential for accessing budgetary resources from higher tiers of government.
AHK’s approach was clear, carefully thought out, and effective. In the absence of administrative infrastructure, a Support Organization (SO) established by philanthropists or civil society groups could perform the same functions. Such organizations could also help create social infrastructure as part of their investment strategy. The SO had three primary functions: providing technical guidance, social guidance, and credit. AHK applied this approach from the civil service platform in Comilla, as an adviser to the professionally staffed philanthropic organization Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) in northern Pakistan, and with the support of volunteers in Orangi, the largest informal settlement in Karachi.
A two-tier model was proposed: one for the SO and another for the Community Organization (CO). In this framework, COs could function even without an SO if the right individuals adopted the right approach. Endowment development was proposed to finance the overhead expenses of SOs and maintain their autonomy, while user fees for services and credit for micro-businesses were designed to ensure sustainability.
The development assistance model contained three components — social, technical, and financial. These models were grounded in local realities and could function with or without donor or government support. They employed mechanisms such as diagnostic dialogue, infrastructure mapping, component-sharing, incremental development, and economies of scale for local development.
The success or failure of the development assistance model depended on understanding the community. AHK made five observations about working with people. First, people understand their problems and often have some idea of the solutions. Second, if people do not agree with a proposed solution, it does not necessarily imply rejection but rather a condition of anarchy. In such situations, one should identify early adopters, work with them, and demonstrate the value of the solution. Third, people tend to have two kinds of solutions — their aspirations and the solutions achievable within their means. Development practitioners should show pathways to achieve objectives within the existing system and available resources. Fourth, when an experiment succeeds, it creates a snowball effect. Fifth, effective partnership with people and government requires evidence-based engagement and the role of a solicitor.
AHK and his volunteers designed specific interventions for water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, community health, income generation, rural development, shelter, education, food systems, and micro-enterprises for low-income communities. They demonstrated achievable results by working within existing systems and available means.
Way Forward
AHK’s intellectual legacy needs to be passed on to the youth of the Global South to facilitate a meaningful transition from growing ruptures toward self-organization and self-reliance. For instance, youth, especially women, may organize themselves at the Union Council (UC) level — the lowest tier of local government in Pakistan, comparable in some ways to Resident Welfare Associations in India. Action research and community work at that level can generate community service jobs at a time when high youth unemployment, corruption, and disruption of development activities continue to affect society.
At present, development through destruction has become the dominant narrative. In response, we reflect on ways to retrofit developmental ruptures and rebuild fragmented communities. We also hope to continue writing on similar lines about self-organization in the context of peace and ecology — strengthening grassroots foundations to fill the void created by these ruptures. We are equally interested in gathering case studies that can help restore confidence among fractured communities that they possess the capacity to self-organize and transform a world order based on destruction into one designed around peace and ecology. In this regard, we wish to issue a call for essays for compilation and publication.
---
Fayyaz Baqir is a community development practitioner. Dr. Mansee Bal Bhargava is an entrepreneur, researcher, educator, speaker, and mentor
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor