Participation: Reality or the Promised Land? A View from South Sudan

In response to an earlier post on, “Sorry but it’s not YOUR project,” a reader offered the following guest post. Andebo Pax Pascal shares his experience as an aid worker in Africa’s newest country.


My friend Tom is working for “Aid Agency X”, which has prided itself in working ‘with’ and not ‘for’ the people, a sign that it is ready to involve the community in its development projects. However, recent decisions about one of its projects became a true test for its policy of participation.

Agency X requested only a few community leaders, as representatives of the community, to sign a contract for the work to start. The few signatories did, however, offer suggestions to make some adjustments on the building to cater for a possible increase in the numbers of patients in the future. These suggestions were rejected.

In constructing the community health unit, Agency X refused to use the local inputs that the community could provide. The justification? It would be difficult in accounting to the donors.

During the handover ceremony of the health unit, Agency X’s managing director expounded on the various projects and activities the organization has implemented. He went on to emphasize the need for the community to learn to be self-reliant. The community was asked to sustain all the activities the organization had been conducting in the area since the agency would be closing its activities in the space of a year.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a typical case of a ‘poor’ community’s experience in doing development with the support of aid and development agencies. Upon hearing this story, I reflected on the concept of participation in community development as one of the pillars of implementing development projects. These are a few of my thoughts.

“Community Members Listen to Red Cross Volunteers,” Sumba Lorie, South Sudan, 4 July 2011.

Photo courtesy of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (Flickr account).

Peoples’ participation in development initiatives agreeably carries with it positive connotations and concern for the real beneficiaries of development—the ‘poor.’ The concept of participation varies widely in application and definition, but the inference to ‘having a share in’ or ‘taking part in’ means participation is a practice, as well as an end in itself. It influences decisions that affect people’s lives and is an avenue of empowering the people. Participation implies two broad issues very important in development projects: (1) ownership and (2) who benefits from the project.

Participation is a development anthem whose lyrics are not patriotically respected by the professionals of development. Even though the concept has been popularized, we continue to see development practitioners telling people what has happened or is going to happen; asking questions without sharing findings; consulting people without necessarily taking their views on board; providing material incentives; and/or mobilizing people only for implementation purposes. Most projects still manipulate beneficiaries to accept outsiders’ wishes. Information is shared through one-way communication and consultations are made without serious commitment to local views.

Development practitioners must consider if a project is a development tool for the professional implementers, or for the beneficiaries. Projects should be identified, designed or formulated, and implemented in a participatory approach. This addresses the question of the sustainability of project gains. Beneficiaries should be engaged in the project right from the start in a spirit of partnership so that projects can deal with the ‘felt needs’ of the community.

Development practitioners should also consider whether they are ‘bringing development’ to a place where it has been nonexistent or whether they are supporting a desirable situation in which local efforts are already being made. Development projects can be initiated by professionals and community members acting together in partnership. However, the local people are not part of the problem, that is, poor and needy. Instead development practitioners must acknowledge that local people have a vision to change an existing undesirable situation for the better, but only lack some of the means to achieve that vision. Development practitioners can contribute to attaining that vision but in order to transform the policy of participation into real practice, a change in ideas, attitudes and practices of development practitioners is required. Meaningful participation will also require change in the methods, procedures and institutional structures of development aid agencies.

More interactive levels of participation: people doing joint analysis leading to plans; formation and utilization of local institutions and strengthening them to make and control local decisions; and generating ideas on how to maintain structures and practices, can all do a lot of good in development projects. Participation should involve self-mobilization in the community: community-initiated and shared decisions; agency-initiated activities with full community involvement at every stage; and consultation and transparent information-sharing. Local people should retain control over how resources are generated and used, and how results and successes can be sustained.

Local people may or may not have the capacity for strategic planning. However, judging from the accumulated knowledge they have and their resilience in living in their environment, people know a lot. Development professionals must tap into that knowledge to succeed in development efforts.

Will this not erode the power of the ‘expert’ professionals? This question seems to be the main obstacle in practicing genuine participation.

Are we there yet? Full participation in development practice still remains the Promised Land. And in my opinion, we have many more steps to get there.


For further reflection, the following ideas from Feuerstein (1986) can help you assess the practice of participation in your organization:

1.       When you only listen to the local opinions and then take the information away to analyze yourself – you are ‘studying the specimen’.

2.       When you are sharing only part of the analyzed information with some of the stakeholders – you are ‘refusing to share results openly’.

3.       When you hire an external facilitator to guide a participatory process –you are ‘locking up the expertise’.

4.       When the project team sits down with the target group (to discuss plans, activities and the intended results) – they are talking about ‘partnership in development’.


Andebo Pax Pascal is from Arua, northwestern Uganda and is currently working with the Jesuit Refugee Service in Nimule, South Sudan, where they are implementing education programmes. He can be reached at:


This post originally appeared at:


Related Posts

I lied…

Confessions of a Recovering Neocolonialist

A New Discipline for Development Practitioners

Aid Worker: First, Know Thyself

Rethinking Trust, by Ben Ramalingam

Views: 368

Tags: Jesuit, NGOs, Refugee, Service, South, Sudan, Uganda, agencies, aid, assistance, More…community, community-based, development, donors, effectiveness, foreign, grassroots, international, organizations, participation, partnerships, practitioners, workers


You need to be a member of Peace and Collaborative Development Network to add comments!

Join Peace and Collaborative Development Network

Comment by Boniface Mbundungu on August 15, 2011 at 9:23am

In brief new projects from outside need to build on the existing strengths to avoid creating a monster or white elephant

So lets use the local potentials as they will have to manage this infrastructures anyway.  Donation is donation and can be bigger or smaller than needed so locals have to take part to complement and develop the more

Comment by Francis Okeny Silvio on August 14, 2011 at 5:26pm

Often times, project implementer’s come with their mind fixed about the people they have never met before, believing they are experts of implementing their ideas. They take for granted that their ideas are the best and should be final, ignoring local inputs in the decision making as mentioned.

The author mentioned the word participation repeatedly, and described participation as an anthem whose lyrics are not patriotically respected by the professionals of development. In my view keeping the beneficiary from knowing what is happening in the project, reveals that the manager is intentionally using dependency theory to keep beneficiaries from taking over the project in future, for any sustainability and continuity purposes. I agree with such insight and I have seen and experience it in person. I know some project managers who were quoted as saying “we are here to make money and not to teach people or train locals for long term sustainability…” Such view explains why the author suggested that Local people may or may not have the capacity for strategic planning, but judging from the accumulated knowledge they have and their resilience in living in their environment, people know a lot, and therefore, professionals must tap into that knowledge to succeed in development efforts. There are no “good will” in most developmental projects across the world. Self-interests or may be greed are what makes all developmental efforts unsuccessful.

Thanks Jennifer for sharing with us your personal view!


Comment by Dr. Samuel Appiah-Marfo on August 12, 2011 at 10:41pm

Pascal, keep up the good work! How's the migration situation playing?... I understand individuals originally from the South, took residence in the north, because of economic, political or religio-social reasons are tricking in gradually... I guess my question is how's that coming? settlement wise, competing for jobs etc 

Comment by Lucia Quachey on August 12, 2011 at 9:09pm

This is a very sad story. Some donors never consider the input of the recipients into consideration in the design  and implementation of projects meant to benefit the community in which they operate. A situation like the one in this poor community, who willingly wanting to contribute to expansion of a health center they realized will become too small too soon but was rejected by the donors.The beggar has no choice attitude practiced by some donors must give way to collaboration and respect for the views of the community were the development is taking place.

Sponsored Link

Please Pay What You Can to Support PCDN

Please consider Paying What You Can to help PCDN grow. We encourage you to consider any amount from $1 and up. Read the SUPPORT page prior to making a payment to see PCDN's impact and how your payment will help.

Sponsored Link

Translate This Page


PCDN Guidelines and Share Pages

By using this site you're agreeing to the terms of use as outlined in the community guidelines (in particular PCDN is an open network indexed by Google and users should review the privacy options). Please note individual requests for funding or jobs are NOT permitted on the network.

Click BELOW to share site resources Bookmark and Share
or Share on LINKEDIN




© 2016   Created by Craig Zelizer.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service