CDRA Homepage

Transformation and Development: A South African Perspective By James Taylor  Community Development Resource Association 1998

1. BACKGROUND

The Community Development Resource Association (CDRA) is a South Africa NGO which provides Organisation Development consultancy and training services to other non-government service and community based organisations involved in development. Over the past 10 turbulent and triumphant years of struggle in South Africa, the CDRA has been lending assistance to a large number and wide range of development organisations striving, against all odds, to remain effective in their complex, changing and often contradictory tasks.

For many years these organisations have been actively engaged in struggling for the transformation of the total society at a broad political level, while simultaneously attempting to deliver much needed resources and services to many of those communities intentionally overlooked and excluded from state provision under the apartheid regime. The culmination of the efforts of all the forces struggling against apartheid resulted in the first democratic elections in South Africa in April 1994. This was an event which so many were striving for, yet few, if any, would have predicted how the moment of dramatic change would come about - or that it would happen so soon. Furthermore, and despite being amongst those at the forefront of the forces striving for change, there is nothing that could have prepared the development sector for the challenges it would face in remaining a significant contributor to South Africa’s ongoing process of transition and transformation.

For many years the CDRA has recognised the unique range of opportunity it has had of sharing so intimately in the practical challenges faced by the sector, and has consciously attempted to draw as much learning as possible from the experience. Along with learning enormous amounts from the intentions, activities and achievements of others, the CDRA has also been pursuing its own focused exploration into the theory and practice of development. Development is an obvious theme for the CDRA to attempt to deepen its understanding of as it is central to all that it does. It is not only involved in interventions into the development processes of its client organisations, but these organisations are themselves involved in community development.

This article will attempt to use elements of our understanding of development as a process over time to explore, at a fairly macro level, the fundamental challenges facing the development sector in South Africa. It concludes by arguing that the South African development sector is challenged to avoid succumbing to either wholesale collaboration with, or opposition to the government. Rather, it should focus on developing the capacity of local communities to exert ownership and authority over their lives and the governance thereof, through developing true independence.

2. THE "DEVELOPMENT SECTOR" IN SOUTH AFRICA

The struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa was taken up by a very wide range of progressive organisations, and individuals both within the country and beyond. Organisations engaged in greatly divergent core activities found common ground in their commitment to challenging and ultimately overthrowing a government viewed as completely without legitimacy. Broad and loosely integrated political movements within the country such as the Mass Democratic Movement and the United Democratic Front reflected the coming together of progressive forces providing them with the means of contributing to the strategies of the political organisations at the forefront of the liberation struggle. The power, omnipotence and increasing desperation of the common enemy moulded this diverse group together in their shared objective.

Within this movement were a large grouping of organisations which incorporated within their objectives the meeting of the political as well as the practical and physical needs of the people they served. In many organisations the need to remove an oppressive and racist regime, and the need to provide services and resources to communities came together. The political struggle and the struggle for improved quality of life and access to resources became one. The essential nature of the strategies employed in this two pronged struggle differed fundamentally. On the one hand it was essentially destructive in its objective to undermine and overthrow the system. On the other, it was essentially creative in its attempts to overcome the effects of enforced marginalisation through generation and mobilisation of resources both within and outside of communities.

These organisations collectively form what is referred to in this article as the "development sector" in South Africa. The unique history of this country has resulted in there not being a sector which defines itself specifically as the "community development" sector. There are, however, many CBOs and NGOs which identify themselves as being directly involved in development. The exact numbers are greatly contested but there are thousands of development organisations - those which, for instance, would find it completely natural to combine the provision of early childhood education, housing, water, primary health care or services for the disabled with subversive political activity. Not only did the development sector contribute to mobilising and organising people in the struggle for political liberation, but against enormous odds, it developed vast experience and expertise in delivering high quality services to those who need them most.

There is no doubt that the sector has contributed significantly to the change process in South Africa, but four years on from 1994 the reality that we are still struggling with transition cannot be escaped. Just as we realise that the struggle as we knew it really is over - that all we knew so well and had become so expert at is now no longer required - so has a new struggle already commenced. For this struggle we need to take stock of what expertise the sector has in relation to what it requires.

3. DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION

In an attempt to better understand the future challenges facing the sector I will attempt to share some rudimentary elements of CDRA’s understanding of development, particularly in relation to social transformation.

What makes the exploration of the concept ‘development’ so difficult is that the word has long been one of these "spray-on aerosol words" applied to an increasingly wide range of situations with a diverse array of meanings. It is a word used extensively outside of the development sector, and even within the sector it is often applied with little thought as to what is actually meant by it. As the word is so central to what the CDRA does we have tried to find meaning in it that helps us focus and develop our own practice.

At the core of our understanding is the recognition that development is an innate and natural process found in all living things. It is important for us to understand that as development workers we do not "bring" or deliver development, but intervene into development processes that already exist. Whether the intervention is into the life of an individual, organisation or community it is critical to realise that the process of development is already well established and needs to be treated with respect. The most fundamental challenge facing the development practitioner is to understand the development process into which she or he is intervening. To know where the individual, the organisation or the community is located on its own path of development. To understand where it has come from, how it has changed along the way and what the next development challenge is likely to be.

Equipped with this knowledge and understanding the practitioner can begin to assess how the resources that they bring will impact on the development process. Some of the most common examples of the consequences of the inappropriate introduction of resources are the increase of dysfunctional dependency on the provider of the resource, and the inappropriate use or abuse of the resources to the detriment of the recipient. Equally it is at times almost miraculous to experience the difference that the provision of appropriate resources delivered in a sensitive and developmental way can make to the genuine empowerment of the recipient.

To locate the recipient of ones services on their own particular path of development, and understand the implications of the point it has reached, is obviously not a simple process of quantitative measurement. One of the most basic models that we use in trying to understand more of the process of development identifies three discernable phases of ideal unimpeded development which we apply to understand humans as well as the social systems they create. The first phase characterised by dependence is a period of great learning and skills acquisition in which others play a major role in providing the environment and resources required for growth. The second phase of independence entails a fundamental change in relationship and a period of testing and personalising skills and competencies, using them to act and impact on the environment in ways that help establish the actor as unique and self-reliant. The third phase involves another fundamental change in relationships towards increasing inter-dependence- the actor now understands that the full realisation of own potential is achieved only through effective collaboration with others.

Many examples can be found to illustrate the application of this model in trying to better understand development in different situations. In the human individual the three phases would correspond with childhood, adolescence through early adulthood, and mature adulthood. The "pioneer", "differentiated" and "integrated" phases of development often referred to in organisation development theory can also be better understood when the phases are explored from the perspective of dependence, independence and interdependence. Even when looking at the development of the fundamental relationship between humankind and nature (or the environment) over the ages the application of the model adds insight. From dependence on nature, to the rational scientific phase characterised by attempts to gain control over nature and become independent of it, leading to the conscious rediscovery of environmental sustainability possibly heralding a developmental shift from independence towards inter-dependence.

It is critical that these phases are all recognised as developmental and one is not judged as being superior to any other. The full and positive experience of each phase provides learning and capabilities which are vital to the ability to engage in the next phase. Each phase is essential to the next and each subsequent phase carries within it the experiences of the phases which preceded it - it is not possible to skip phases. Although skilled and sensitive interventions can help avoid and even remove hinderences and blockages to the process, thereby minimising unnecessary developmental delays, development does have a pace of its own. There is an absolute limit to the extent to which it can be speeded up through the application of increased resources and developmental interventions.

Another defining characteristic of the development process, one which sets it apart from quantitative growth, is its non linear nature. Development does not constantly progress along a smooth incremental line, at critical points in the process there are periods of significant crisis and turmoil, periods when everything that has previously provided stability and meaning are questioned and challenged, periods where conflict is often symptomatic. These developmental crises serve a critical function in providing the impetus for letting go of the old in order to take on the new. Often the crises need to be of such gravity that those involved know that there is no option other than to break the old forms in order to build the new.

The change that occurs at these points in the developmental process is beyond amending the old, it is about shifting paradigms, it is real transformation. Transformation is one of those words which is becoming increasingly common in every-day use to denote change of varying magnitude. Transformation, as the word is used today, can be achieved by an organisation after a three day workshop, a person can be transformed by purchasing a new outfit or by sporting a new hairstyle. When applied to the model of development we are discussing, transformation refers to a much more profound and fundamental change of form which requires the breaking of the old in order to adopt a new form in response to a radical change in function. The seeds of crises are sown in each phase of development and grow at their own pace as the process unfolds, the passing from one phase to another is prompted by their germination. Transformation, in this sense, then becomes an integral part of the development process.

4. CHALLENGES FACING THE DEVELOPMENT SECTOR IN SOUTH AFRICA

Returning now to the development sector in South Africa let us apply the model discussed above in an attempt to understand better the challenges that it faces. The liberation struggle had everything to do with a shift from dependence to independence in the relationship between "the people" and the state. Obviously this was not simply a natural, ideal, unimpeded developmental process but a planned and calculated opposition to a well planned and oppressively anti-developmental regime. Even though apartheid was designed to undermine, dehumanise and victimise the majority of the population the development process continued. In keeping with the above model, it can be said that this period of enforced dependency could not suppress the learning and acquisition of skills that inevitably leads towards the crises that preempt the second phase of independence. Initially the political and labour organisations, joined latterly by development organisations laboured towards this end of independence. In its own time the crises "germinated" ultimately forcing the historic handing over of power to a democratically elected government in 1994.

However, a nationally elected, democratic government did not result in "independence" in the sense in which I have used it. In fact, elements of the crisis of transition endure to the present. These are found in the constant danger of anarchy and lawlessness as attempts are made to dismantle the old without having the benefit of any experience of the new, what exactly it should look like or how to bring it into being. This is a period in which there are enormous temptations to grab hold of, or cling on to, old ways that are tried and tested.

Within the varied and complex impact that the crisis of transformation has had on all organisations, there are a few clear and common challenges that face the development of the sector as a whole. The first challenge lies at the level of the core identity of the sector - its very purpose in society, particularly in relationship to the state. The resulting challenge is often described as "moving from protest to development", it implies a paradigm shift from the destructive focus of toppling a regime, to a creative role of participating in building something in its place which is unique and capable of addressing some of society’s most intractable problems. It demands a shift from a relationship with the state which was unambiguous in its opposition to an untried and much more complex combination of cooperation and containment.

Whereas the ever presence of an omnipotent enemy provided clarity of focus and purpose in the past, there is now the need for experienced and visionary leadership as never before. But in its greatest hour of need the sector has lost many of its most experienced leaders and managers to both the the public and private sectors. While attesting to the effectiveness of the sector in attracting and training skilled people in the past, this mass exodus has contributed substantially to the deepening of the crisis in which it finds itself.

Another challenge facing the sector is the fundamental shift in the accessibility of financial resources on which it has depended. Many international donors which actively sought opportunities to support the sector in the past have either "changed, or are changing, their strategic focus" (or in other words have either moved on or are planning to do so), or have become involved in bilateral funding agreements with the new government. Those that continue to fund are, at short notice, setting new and stringent criteria for proving impact and efficiency in their chosen areas of interest which places an additional burden on organisations to change. The new government in its turn has still not managed to put into place the mechanisms to effectively and efficiently disburse development funds to the non-governmental sector.

Finally the demand for the delivery of development resources and services has increased dramatically along with the intentions and policies of the new government and the expectations of its constituency. As the frustration of unmet expectations grows the government is increasingly turning to the NGO sector in the hope that it can deliver on a scale which is completely beyond its capacity and resources.

Individual organisations have responded differently to these challenges. Almost inevitably many have already simply ceased to exist as a result of some combination of the above shifts in the environment in which they operate. Almost without exception organisations have had to review quite fundamentally their core purpose and key relationships particularly with regard to the new state. This process is made extremely difficult and is protracted to the point of being ongoing as so much in the society is in transition and formation. In many ways the sector is undergoing a process of normalisation in its relationships with the state. A more natural range of types of relationships are starting to emerge with some organisations moving closer to the state and becoming increasingly dependent upon it for their survival and others adopting more oppositional roles including advocacy, lobbying and "watchdogging". As funding sources reposition themselves most organisations are having to consider seriously issues of financial sustainability with some being forced to "downsize" and others closing their doors altogether.

But relating the continuing crisis and accompanying challenges back to the development model these must be seen as representing a critically important moment in the life of the sector. The very gravity of the crisis brings with it the power to force those in the sector to let go of that which has become a dysfunctional tie with the past in order to search for the new. Before finding its new form the sector must understand its new core function - as form always follows function. The previous dual functions of providing services and resources to communities and toppling the discredited regime are clearly of the past. Those communities previously excluded from state provision are now the very ones that have voted the new government into power and as such are the target beneficiaries of the more equitable redistribution of state controlled resources.

It is my view that resolution of the future relationship between the government and the non-government sector lies at the heart of the search for new identity, purpose, and form of the development sector. It is significant to note in the model of development that shifts in phases of development are characterised by changes in the nature of relationship - from dependence, through independence to increasing interdependence - without skipping phases. The remainder of this article will explore this view further, and suggest that South Africa’s development sector will emerge out of its present crisis once it has resolved an "independent" relationship to the state.

5. THE CHALLENGE OF DEVELOPMENT: INCREASING INDEPENDENCE

The application of the model to the relationship between the development sector and the state raises some interesting questions. The first is whether the sector is emerging from a phase of dependency, or did the process of struggle bring those who participated in it through the first crisis to the independent phase. If the latter were the case the present crisis could be heralding the onset of the ultimate inter-dependent phase in the relationship with the state. In many ways this question highlights a fundamental dilemma facing the sector as it strives to define its role and purpose in the emerging society and is the subject of much heated debate. At the centre of the debate is the question of whether development organisations should be moving closer to the state as a partner cooperating in the delivery of services, or should it take a more adversarial role (in which it is very skilled) putting pressure on, and making demands of the state. This latter role being promoted by many international donor agencies in their support for lobbying and advocacy functions in organisations.

However, I believe we are being faced by the challenge of moving from dependence to independence. The indicators that inform this opinion are to be found at community level where many have transferred the hopelessness of their oppressed dependency on the previous regime, to a hopeful dependency on the new government to rectify and recompense for the injustices of the past. As those who have perhaps achieved independence through the struggle move into government, there are increasing numbers of individuals and organisations who are already moving back towards their old oppositional stances and accusing the government of being the "new elite" with little interest in the real needs of those who put them in power.

By contrast, and in other communities there are new expressions of independence emerging - a response which is not that of the dependant, or the victim, but is borne out of a willingness and eagerness at community level for people to take control and do things for themselves. There are increasing instances where communities are using their skills to mobilise and organise very effectively around the new challenges that face them. They are dealing with crime at community level, no longer waiting for the state to take the initiative but taking responsibility for ridding their area of crime, and demanding support for their initiatives from the authorities. There are those challenging the education authorities and taking direct responsibility for the quality of education and teaching in schools at a community level; groups of women undertaking to build their own houses; rural communities not waiting for expensive government water schemes based on technology that they can’t afford or maintain, but implementing creative and appropriate solutions.

The future role of the development sector lies in retaining and strengthening its commitment to the development of the non-governmental structures at community level. The next challenge, therefore, is to consolidate on the gains being made by some communities and people, and for communities to develop sufficient independence to take genuine ownership of government at the local level. This ownership will have come about when communities ensure that their "real" leaders are representing their interests on the local government structures. Those who have proved themselves in the community organisations of being leaders who can be trusted to understand and represent the real needs and interests of the community must take the next step on the political ladder and go into local government. In this regard, the non governmental development sector has an immense challenge - a truly developmental challenge - of facilitating the shift from dependence to increased independence at community level.

This independence is not only achieved by communities being more vociferously demanding of those on which they depend, but in doing more for themselves, in learning to depend on their own knowledge of their needs and understanding of how best they can be met. In ultimately expecting to be served by government not out of a culture of entitlement, but out of an increasing sense of ownership and control. In order to achieve this transformation communities will require resources which are accessed in ways which do not foster dependence but promote development. This is the role of development organisations.

The temptation for the development sector to gravitate more towards assisting the government is great. The services they can provide, as limited as they are, are needed as they could contribute much to the government’s ability to deliver on its commitments. The state has much needed financial resources, and the development sector now has many "friends" in government, both from within its own ranks, and from the political links of the past. But if it is to assist the new government in achieving genuine transformation it must identify itself more with those at the periphery of society than those at the centre. There are still many challenges to institutionalising South Africa’s democracy - and the first challenge is to help build the capacity of communities such that they are able to interface with institutions of power from a position of strength. From a position of independence.

This period of crisis has to be used to ensure genuine transformation and avoid succumbing to the powerful forces that work, within all of us, against change. The process of transformation cannot be solely entrusted to those in national government, and until the ownership of government is a practical reality at local community level the transformation of the society will not be complete.

 

About the Community Development Resource Association (CDRA)

The Community Development Resource Association (CDRA) was  established in 1987 as a non-profit, non-governmental organisation (NGO) to build the capacity of organisations and individuals engaged in development and social transformation. We are based in Cape Town, South Africa and work mostly in Southern and East Africa.

Email: vernon@cdra.org.za Webpage: http://www.cdra.org.za
P.O. Box 221, Woodstock, 7915, South Africa
Telephone: -27 -21 462 3902
Fax: -27 -21 462 3918