*Topicality/Definitions Democracy Promotion Includes Military Intervention

“Partnership” Discourse Flawed

Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 9-10

When referring to the parties in development cooperation I use the terms “donor” and “partner”. I chose not to adopt the partnership terminology fully (and refer to both parties as “partners”) since this terminology underplays the power inequalities inherent in the aid relationship and gives no hint of the chasm between the partnership policy and day-to-day practices. (In addition to this, the “partner” terminology also tends to be rather confusing since it can be quite unclear which partner is being referred to.) I rejected the earlier conceptual pair “donor” and “receiver” since in this relation the latter term denotes inactivity and passivity. Instead I chose to combine earlier and contemporary terminology. The chosen conceptual pair of “donor” and “partner” is not ideal, and as such should be read as reflecting the shortcomings of partnership. It reflects a change, but one that is still incomplete.
“PARTNERSHIP” IS STILL DESIGNED BY AND WORKS TO PRESERVE AN UNEQUAL POWER RELATIONSHIP

Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 21-2

However, if the operation of power and discourse is acknowledged “the local” cannot be seen as an undisturbed basis for alternatives. Unprivileged power positions do not imply a position outside the workings of power and discourse. Development discourses are produced in different contexts, which thereby come to be implicated in the power of development and contribute to its authority. Development discourses are produced in local settings in both the North and the South, where people and organizations define and identify themselves, their work, and others in relation to the overarching principle of development. While it is through the workings of power that people come to internalize dominant imagery, this internalization – making it one’s own – whether it takes the form of a celebration or feelings of inferiority also includes these very people as part of the power processes supporting dominant imagery and practice. This is why standpoint assertions and the infatuation with the “local” or indigenous tend to be problematic. This is not to say that experiences and ideas articulating unprivileged power positions are unimportant. On the contrary. What it means is that an account of these voices must be accomplished by an analysis of the discourses that have constituted and shaped these identities and experiences. These voices must be situated within – not outside – the workings of discourse and power.

Yet, even if the partner cannot be included as a basis for an undisturbed truth, the single focus on the donor is problematic, in particular since it risks creating a one-sided picture of the partners as merely products, or passive “recipients,” or “donor” images and interventions. It is problematic since it tends to attribute passivity and powerlessness to those excluded from the analysis. Nevertheless, when I conducted some initial “test interviews” with partner organizations, it became clear to me that including the partners (just as excluding them) could also contribute to an image of them as passive recipients of donor discourses and interventions. This would be a reflection not of partner passivity but of methodological problems arising from the character of the aid relationship itself, in combination with my position as a mzungu. As I will elaborate in Chapter 3, development cooperation is characterized not only by an unequal power relationship where the donor sets up the rules of the game, but also by conflicting and competing interests. The power inequality means that partners’ goals and interests that do not fit the rules of the game set up by the donor must be downplayed and kept hidden. My interpretation of the initial partner interviews – which mostly repeated the partnership agreements with the donors—was that they largely reflected the power relations inherent in the aid relationship and the risks involved in articulating opposing views.

Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 75

Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 75-6

Hence, the recurrent image of a passive Other must partly be understood in relation to the development aid context and the aid relationship. When the partner does not follow the ideas of the development workers, this tends to be interpreted and presented in terms of passivity.

Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 77-8

The example above also shows how the adviser role itself – as outlined in the discourses of partnership – paradoxically tends to feed into the imagery of passivity. The development worker had also worked with development aid during the time when the development worker role was formulated in terms of management and gap filling. The frustrations (“fussing around,” “blah, blah, blah”) of being a development worker in that particular organization can be seen as a reflection of these previous experiences. While there was certainly “resistance” also in the age of “management and gap filling,” it could be argued that it was not as visible to the development workers since they took the decisions and often carried out the tasks themselves. Hence the partners or receivers did not occupy a central role in confirming the development workers’ images of Self. Desired feelings of achievement could be satisfied by other means. The development workers could find security and confirm their role as “the much-needed helper” by themselves – by doing the work and talking the decisions. Now that the development worker is not supposed to act as a gap filler or take decisions but only give advice and wait for the partners to respond to the advice, resistance, is more apparent.
WHOLE BASIS OF PARTNERSHIP DISCOURSE IS TO ASSIGN BLAME FOR AID FAILURES ON RECIPIENTS

Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 124

As Gudun Dahl (2001: 21) concludes in an article dealing with the Swedish partnership policy in relation to Africa, “aid dependence is…a key concept in the Partnership discourse.” In the idea of aid dependence, the failures of development are attributed to recipients’ lack of self-sufficiency and responsibility. Development has not been conceived in such a way that the partners and target groups are made responsible for the projects. Or, to use another favored concept in development aid rhetoric, the problem has been deficient “ownership” on the side of the partner. Development aid is assumed to have created a culture of dependence and passivity in the recipient countries, in particular in Africa (Dahl 2001: 21). And it is, among other tings, this assumed passivity and dependence that should be combated through partnership. Partnership policies consequently often emphasize the need to activate partners’ agency – to create ownership and make the partners responsible for their own development. As stated in the DAC partnership policy quoted in Chapter 1, “local actors should progressively take the lead, while external partners back their efforts to assume greater responsibility for their own development.”
“PARTNERSHIP” DISCOURSE INCONSISTENT WITH DONOR ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES

Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 166-7

One conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that there exists a contradiction between the message of partnership and the images of Self and partner maintained and propagated by donors and development workers. Donor and development worker identification involves a positioning of the Self as developed and superior in contrast to a backward and inferior Other. In this discourse, underdevelopment entails not only poverty and the absence of a certain type of technology or poor communications but also a general backwardness, manifested in lack of knowledge, detrimental cultural practices and degenerate morals. This book has shown this discourse to be manifest in the meanings that construct the development worker role. Contrary to the idea of “specialization,” the European development worker in African transforms into an “omniscient” who provides advice in a number of areas outside her or his professional knowledge. Thus there is a contradiction between the discourse of partnership, which denotes and emphasizes equality and disavows paternalism, and the discourse of “evolutionary” development according to which the “partners” are not equal, but instead are situated at a different stage of development and enlightenment.