Chapter 2 Church engagement in development
2.8 The church voices its own concerns and critiques to development
More than just engaging in development practice, the church needs to get involved in the development debate to raise some questions about both development practice and theory.
Basically there are three questions around development practice and six about theory that the church needs to raise.
2.8.1 Have the practical results of development been acceptable?
In many ways the outcomes of development practice have not been good as the world is in a worse situation than before.
2.8.2 Are human beings affirmed in and through development practice?
The importance of affirming human dignity as one of the core values of Christianity has already been discussed on the section on spirituality. Whilst Christianity treats people as unique individuals development practice seems to relate to people as ‘an undifferentiated mass’ (Ferguson, 1997:227). Development practice does not seem to have an idea of how people feel when an individual researcher is sent to come and analyze community needs;
consult a few elite, write reports and make recommendations about people who have never been consulted and development action is planned outside the community. Outsiders would implement their plans on people as if they do not really exist.
The researcher’s own observation in working with poor communities that live around projects is that an extension of this mentality would be that people begin to behave like small children who constantly need to be fed. To this end the poor end up trying to impress developers by any means at their disposal so as to get more benefits. They compete about telling extremely creative stories about the successes of own projects so that they can get more funding. This results in unending conflict within communities. More often than not their crisis is overstated. This in turn undermines the integrity of the poor.
2.8.3 Is the earth, our mother cared for through development?
Development practice has treated the earth as if it would never end. A situation in the rural towns of Ntabankulu and Mount Ayliff comes to mind. This was an area that was rich in both indigenous trees and plantations and children used to call it ‘Tarzan’s place’ because of the density of the forests. From personal experience when I lived in Ntabankulu, developers came to provide employment for locals and destroyed the earth by cutting down huge trees, prepared them into logs of wood, packed them in huge trucks from around dawn to late afternoon to unknown destinations in the centres for sale. No new trees were planted. After
this destruction, developers left with the suddenness with which they had come, leaving mounds of sawdust behind, a lot of dust that pollutes the air and no jobs. This is an illustration of degradation of the environment in the name of development. Gnanadason (1998:134) speaks of overcrowding of cities, denuding of forestlands, as well as rapid depletion of water resources which all means that ‘our link with mother earth is completely broken’.
These concerns lead the church to ask further questions about development theory, as to whether the idea of being developed has any basis in real life? It baffles one how the West that has committed so many atrocities in human life, including attacks on ‘the terrorists’ and countries that habour them can regard themselves as developed countries and the rest undeveloped. The same countries that had turned people into objects of colonialism are the same that have convinced the world that they do what they do with progress as their goal. It is this immense arrogance that Shanin (1997:68) urges the church to challenge.
The very language of development created a world of its own making. The notions of
‘developed’ and ‘under- developed’ are constructs that are meant to legitimate development.
Who decides who needs to develop who here become an important question. It is the same type of mentality that has been used to create words like ‘third world’ and ‘first world’. The powerful always define what the rest must be called. Hodge et al (1981:8) speak of development as having normative overtones that would lead people into believing that it always is, by implication a good thing and as such worth striving towards. The church is called to challenge the type of theory that controls rather than be at the service of humanity.
The use of the term development itself seems to be an ideological tool. Given the failure of development policies Miguez Bonino (1975:16 & 25) questions the use of this word and asks
if it legitimates and glosses over an otherwise dirty business, namely neocolonialism at a global level. The strengthening of patronage at the level of local beneficiary communities does not make it sound any better according to Ferguson (1997:227, 232). The South African government frequently requests silence from the Congress of South African Trade Unions when they go on strike for worker grievances so as not to disturb development that is in progress. What would be amusing if it was not so cruel is when the church knowingly or unknowingly uses the word development to control communities even in situations where analysis of the problems involved has not been deep enough.
What the goal of development is pertinent. The church wishes to say that developers should not be talking about being in the likeness of the West when talking about development but should be addressing on- going development in the form of sustainable livelihoods and community.