Opportunities and pitfalls Pt:1

Basis for action

The ability of a country to follow a sustainable development path is determined to a large extent by the capacity of its people and its institutions to critically address the prerequisites, which guide social, political and economic achievement. It is in this light that our communities must at all times be seen as fundamental institutions in the development process.{{more}} In this regard, capacity building encompasses the country’s human, scientific, technological, organizational, and institutional resource capabilities. What then is our basis for action? The ultimate goal is to empower our communities, both rural and urban, to the extent that they can actively form a fundamental part of the apparatus for governance. Nothing less will suffice if we are to succeed. This will safely allow us to move past the stage where we hold only those sitting in Parliament at ransom for the future successes or failures in our country. We must begin to play our part, and particularly so, since the possibility of our nation succeeding must at all times be seen to rest on the shoulders of the entire citizenry; hence the need to build capacity at all levels in our nation.

A fundamental goal of capacity building is to enhance our ability to evaluate and address the crucial questions related to policy, choices and modes of implementation among development options, based on an understanding of the needs of the people. As a result, the need to strengthen national capacities must never be seen as a farfetched concept convenient only to discussions in passing.

It is clear that as communities are forced to change, be it because of successes of the education revolution, increases in population, inflictions of deadly diseases such as AIDS or declines in some local industries, that central planners, policy makers and local groups in the community must work in harmony with each other in order to manage the change, by adequately addressing the scope of the complex issues that affect the general way of life. This interaction at the community level is of first importance.

In order for us to make good decisions that are sustainable for both people and the natural environment, we must first have the relevant resources for our empowerment. It is for these reasons that the Social Investment Fund (SIF) is entrusted with a very important role pursuant to our needs for capacity building and the re-structuring of our communities. Once the initiative is clearly established, then fair processes and ways to evaluate progress towards clearly articulated and shared goals must be put in place. The common intention must always be to create the best set of policies for the advancement of our people. This enshrines making a positive difference to the capacity and skills of all members of the community in question. Empowerment is, therefore, our focus. In more specific terms, this empowerment is likely to involve equipping people with skills and competencies which they would not otherwise have; realising existing skills and developing potential; promoting people’s increased self-confidence; promoting people’s ability to take responsibility for identifying and meeting their own, and other people’s needs; and, in consequence, encouraging people to become involved in their community and wider society in a fuller way.

Nonetheless, to properly understand the problems faced by our communities as it pertains to the lack of capacity, the issue must be first studied in its historical context. What really was the creative wisdom of the architects who contructed the orginal platform upon which our communities are built? Is the community an institution? If the latter question is answered in the affirmative, then are our communities fullfilling their roles? Have the manifestoes of our time been able to strengthen the communities to the extent that they are now functional? A brief survey of the period from the early development of the peasantry to what may be considered modern communities may be insightful.

From peasantries to modern communities

The ‘Peasantry’ generally referred to persons variously described as peasant farmers, small farmers and peasant proprietors; in law it denoted ‘a small holder engaged in the cultivation of an area of land not exceeding ten acres in extent’: George Brizan – Grenada Island of Conflict.

William Green’s work: British Slave Emancipation – The Sugar Colonies and the Great Experiment 1830-1865, gave an adequate description of the genesis of today’s community structure in his chapter “Forming a Free Society”, when he wrote: “Upon the abolition of the apprenticeship system, West Indian Legislation dismantled their slave codes and drafted new legislation covering every aspect of colonial life. The main fact of life in the free West Indies was that black laborers were unwilling to remain ‘submissive’ and ‘disciplined’ cane workers. When the planters tried to coerce them into performing regular estate work, many of them withdrew from the estates. Even the remote portions of active estates offered sufficient seclusion for squatters to erect huts and plant provision. Thrifty freedmen could save enough from their wages to purchase freeholds, and planters threatened by the withdrawal of workers and desperately in need of working capital, sold back land portions of their properties in hope that peasant buyers would continue to afford some labour to the plantation.”

In the interest of having another view of the same picture, we can avail ourselves of the work of George Beckford, Persisent Poverty -Underdevelopment in Plantation economies of the Third World, where he noted in a similar description of the early development of the peasantry that “Imports to the British West Indies increased in response to the demands of freedmen whose wages gave them access to luxuries they had not savored during slavery. Internal commerce rose sharply, shops were shot up in remote districts and hucksters relentlessly plied their trade in clothing, foodstuffs, liquors and tobacco.”

In my view, these are two excellent descriptions of the structure simpliciter of the genesis of our communities. What structured changes, if any, have we been able to bring about and consolidate for the betterment of our communities since then? Indeed we have come a long way. There is, however, a great need for more work to be done to bolster our community structures. We must, therefore, seek to become better organized with a strong sense of social cohesion. The path for development remains clear ahead. We must now search our inner selves carefully, so that we can bring out the best in us.