Message from Mali: Reflections on EU Development Policy

Development: different things to different people

When looking at the desert sky in Mali, packed with stars, I think of my holidays at home in the Romanian Carpathians. This thought of home, while far away in Africa intrigues me. I realize that this view of the sky is one of the very few images that link the two spaces. There is virtually no attention given to the African continent, cultures or realities in post-communist Romania.

The forms of aid and economic relations that communist Romania had with Africa were discontinued after 1989. This situation, I would say, is characteristic of most of the new Member States. It becomes evident that the presence of twelve new Member States so 'distant' from the African continent and who have strong external interests to the east, rather than the south, is definitely a big challenge, yet to be faced, for the EU’s Development Policy.

This challenge is considerably substantiated by the lack of cultural ties between Central and Eastern Europe and Africa both as regards the lay citizen and the highest-level politicians and policy-makers. There are only few universities in the whole region offering courses on Africa and several of the new Member States have problems in finding the necessary resources for maintaining even diplomatic relations with the African states.

I find myself in Africa and the first thing that struck me when visiting development projects in Mali and Senegal is an intense feeling of confusion - I could see what was being presented to me, but I could not understand a thing. I could not relate to the local meanings the development programs receive. I could not uncover local perceptions of the new school, the new water well, of the micro-credit scheme, of the new museum, etc. I could see the buildings there, I could talk to the people in charge of them and with some of the beneficiaries, but it all felt like an incomplete story.

Small aspects like an attitude towards gardening or the positioning of the school at the margin of the village constantly reminded me that I have in front of me a completely different reality. That what 'development' brings gets a life of its own through each local understanding it acquires. And this 'life of its own' escapes me.

At best, I can see that people know that some of the benefits development brings may make their life easier. However, whatever is being brought, even if appreciated, seems to be placed outside considerations of 'what is important in life' for the local community. At no location have I seen development as a conscious goal of the locals I interacted with (except maybe for some of the local staff of international NGOs). Each community I visited had a rich life of its own, and next to it, several development projects.

For me, this lack of connection between the development projects and the local culture reveals a fundamental problem, regarding the basis on which development policies are being constructed - the incapacity of ensuring the 'translation' of a societal practice into the culture of the developing community. Such a translation can only be based on a very good understanding of both/several cultural universes, knowledge which would render possible a meaningful re-construction of a certain practice into a new cultural environment.

The difficulty with enabling such translations comes with the necessity of a change of attitudes, practices and power structures, even more so if we discuss the capacity and development of institutions at a state level. The issues of borders, of lack of state capacity, of rent-seeking, corruption etc. are all well explored and they become immediately evident when on the ground. The problematic aspect is that both the Western and East-Asian models of development (I would say the only ones which have proved to be functional) are based on strong states. And having a strong state requires complying with and respecting an infinite number of norms, which in fact are not flexible  at all - especially so when discussing  decision-making and the use of power.

And once again, at this level as well, the reality on the ground is different. The state here ranges from existence to non-existence, i.e. from being present on the ground and holding power to having an almost complete lack of authority over certain areas. Even in areas where the state is at its strongest, its sovereignty is questionable, not only because of the attitude and involvement of third states/actors, but primarily because the lack of loyalty it receives from its own subjects/citizens.  This is to say that there are traditional forms of authority like tribes, religious groups, casts, etc. and citizens are many times more loyal towards these forms of authority than towards the state.

Where we are faltering? Carrying out our relations with these societies only through the official state structures and non-governmental organizations, as well as  supporting the development of a state in isolation from the traditional sources of power (i.e. the previous forms of societal organization) are in my view, two of the major drawbacks of current development policy.  What such an approach leads to is a constant struggle for power between those who manage to capture the state and those who hold traditional power.

This constant struggle cannot lead to development.  Structurally, it leads to a lot of confusion and to surcharging the state institutions with tasks that it cannot perform due to a lack of authority. Culturally, many times, it puts the state itself outside the local culture leading as well to the above mentioned gap between development projects and local realities.

It is important to mention that this struggle is not always apparent as there are strong links between the power-holders in the state structures and the traditional ones. When this is the case, the problematic aspect may rest in the fact that traditional sources of power are excluded from formal relations with the donors, and as a result, technical knowledge and expertise may be lacking to such an extent that there is no capacity for generating a fully engaged process of development.

To square it, I see that the state structures here may have the knowledge to create development but do not have the capacity to own it. While the traditional sources of power have the authority to own a process and trigger norm change but in general do not have the capacity to produce development. 

I am obviously arguing that there should be more engagement between the donors and the local, traditional sources of authority, and that a state construction which does not take these traditional holders of authority into consideration is less likely to be conducive to an effective process of development. Nevertheless, this entire process does not only rest on the shoulders of the donors. It rests primarily on the capacity of the locals to generate the needed leadership which could 'translate' the state and the development processes into the local cultures which only they master.

Within this context, I consider that the new Member States have the possibility and opportunity to contribute substantially to the development policy of the European Union as in many cases the communities these new Member States are part of are in a process of development themselves (a process which we usually choose to call transition).  For me, the potential rests not in teaching transition as a development lesson but in managing to link the processes of development in the new Member States and in partner countries, i.e. enabling communities to interact sufficiently and create synergies between their processes of development. Such an approach would enable a mutual learning experience and as well the creation of meaningful relationships between cultures.