Nuggets for Thought

1. We have talked about development in this blog several times – and I think it is emerging as a major theme here – but we have not clarified what we really mean by development and when, and under which circumstances, would we know that we have attained it.

What is supplied as development by majority of my fellow bloggers here is a more specific form of the Western model of societal transformation – i.e modernization. The premise of this thinking, which is I think is quite proper, is that at one point, all countries were backward but some countries, those that we now call “the West” or “the North”, managed to overcome this backwardness, and that all countries, including Tanzania, can move from this state only if they adopt appropriate interventions. The reigning paradigm, and the reason we remain hopeful about the future, is that the current state of uneven development between the West and the rest is transitory and that sooner or later we will catch up – through creating favourable [policy and political] conditions within our countries and by ensuring that appropriate interactions exist between us and the developed. Almost instinctively, most people points to ideal characteristics of the West as the ultimate destination of our social transformation. In essence, this says that the development of the backward parts of the world means having them become Western – in trappings and in social organisation. But, of course, different societies have different social structures and psyche that defines what progress is, and these have not always facilitated the success of interventions towards Western model of development. So, what did the leaders and “development partners” do to overcome this? They worked towards creating social structures and a new psyche identical to the Western ones.

I leave for the debate what development means, but the point I want to make is that development is a political process, going together with the development of the polity, not immune to political interests, and that it is not an autonomous process independent of culture and the way state and social institutions operate. Also, simple logic dictates that those who have “developed” before us would be experts on how to attain development and seeking their “advice” or “assistance” is only rational. But now we know that this logic is faulty.

2. Fine, let us say that the entire Third World eventually catches up, just as we hope, and all of us lead an affluent life. But, seriously, given that mother earth is currently under tremendous strain because of overconsumption by people in developed countries, can the entire world realistically and sustainably live in affluence? How will we manage when the entire global population is aspiring to a modern life – including possession of four-wheels drives, spacious cribs, etc – which necessarily produces unmanageable waste? In any case, do we have enough resources to sustain global affluence? Of course some would say that technology and innovation will provide solutions but I think there limits to that. This is something benign but very serious in my view and we need to think about it.

3. I alluded to a bit in my earlier point about the role of culture in advancing or impeding development. Normally, this is a sensitive subject with most people becoming politically correct in maintaining that culture has nothing to do with development. But I am told that, even in our underdeveloped countries, there are tribes that are “inherently progressive” than others. In Tanzania, people mention Wachagga, Wahaya, na Wakinga (there may be others). In Kenya, people mention the Kikuyu, in the Congo they say people from the Kasai province have these attributes, in Nigeria the Igbos are pointed out. It is said that these people work hard, are thrift, value education and tend to progress more than others despite difficult social and political circumstances faced by everyone in our countries. Is this true or is it simplistic way of looking at society and extrapolating larger conclusions on the basis of the vocations of choice or circumstances by these tribes?

4. Back to modernity, and what it means. I have noted the existence of activist groups, particularly in the West, to protect the lifestyles of the indigenous people in different countries (like the Hadzabe, the Masai, the Amazon forest people, etc). Certainly, as the society moves to modernity (as we see it through the reigning paradigm), the lifestyle of indigenous groups cannot be sustainable (Or can it?). It is not an accident or it is not by choice that the Masai now move into cities and towns in hordes – serving as porters in hotel entrances, security guards, pimps, or working in hair saloons – literally denigrating the notion of Morani/Masai pride and heroism. It is because modernity – schools, roads, farms, etc. – is encroaching on their pastures. It is because, in the type of the economy we are pursuing, you can no longer roam with your cows and graze communally wherever you want – people want to own land, fence it and make capital off it – and you certainly cannot keep cattle just for pride. So, what to do? Certainly we must not allow the Hadzabe to exist just for travel photography or for anthropology research?