Dear Srinivasan

t is difficult to resolve and this difficulty increases considerably in less developed or developing countries, where democracy is very fragile

The development of a community aims to provide minimal conditions of access to health, education, housing, sanitation, among others.

This is a political attitude (based on the real needs of a particular community) that enables financial investment and a socio-cultural attitude (groups local representatives). The priorities should prevail (not always possible) to the welfare of the community. This requires greater citizen awareness, at the time of voting to elect their political representatives should always act in favor of the people and not for himself

Hello Srinivasan, In my opinion this is one of the most difficult issues to solve in any development policy implementation process. I suspect this is why there have been so few responses so far (irrespective of Maria reference).

My own experience is that what happens depends on local context. Very much in the mix is how individual citizens in a particular community view the 'trustworthiness' of local and state politicians, as well as local commercial and 'civil society' bigwigs in their vicinity,

Sometimes local community leaders have both a history and reputation of reliability in the community interest, then many positive initiatives can move forward quickly. But, irrespective of life station, most people know when they are being taken for fools, then communities often go into a passive reistence mode. A key characteristic of this is disconnecting from so-called development initiatives. People discount any published benefits and try to remove themselves from bearing the costs.

Some interesting ethnographic references on how these issues can play out (in Mozambique) are:

Buur, L., & Kyed, H. M. (2006). Contested Sources of Authority: Re-claiming State Sovereignty by Formalizing Traditional Authority in Mozambique. Development and Change, 37(4), 847-869.

Kyed, H. M., & Buur, L. (2006). New Sites of Citizenship: Recognition of Traditional Authority and Group-based Citizenship in Mozambique. Journal of Southern African Studies, 32(3), 563 - 581.

Dear Elias, many thanks for the input.

Dear Lorinne, ' agree ' would be too short a way to respond to your comment. Actually this question lies at the heart of the research that I am currently on. The 'trust worthiness' of politicians that you mentioned, in my opinion, is a trade off. The people of a constituency and the politician constantly assess each other and they must because both have the possibility to remain in a win-win situation if 'trust worthiness' is demonstrated. However, there is a practical problem - the level of awareness among people - their own problems/needs, what government or politician can do about them, and the belief in the power of their vote - stand in the way of this 'trust worthiness'. Where large illiterate population (literally and politically illiterate) resides, the trade off is always in favour of politicians. NGOs and and other social interest groups working in the area have a humongous task of bringing about awareness and they too remain vulnerable to the machinations of the politicians.

In areas where the population is aware and active, the trade off is in favour of people. Aid agencies working in the previously mentioned context can also be hugely influenced by the political class or easily brow-beaten by corrupt administration. Billions of dollars are spent by governments directly and through aid agencies for developmental work. Except where the local population manages to gain its voice, the money invariably ends up lining the wrong pockets.

'Sovereignty' is an interesting dimension you have brought to the discussion. Thank you for the references. I have been debating about the following questions in this context:

Has the time come to read 'sovereignty' as empowering people more than power over people?

look forward to your comments. have a great day!

Hello Srinivasan, Yes I agree that 'sovereignty' is becoming much more questionable within the governance and development arena. E.g. the recent Russia/Ukraine debacle but, more broadly, civil conflict is often not only about where sovereignty lies but who has the right to exercise the powers implied under our current nation-state system.

In earlier research work, I questioned the capacity and credibility of various levels of the state (cases: Australia, Sweden and Mozambique) to deliver on commitments implicit in the 'social compact' and as published in various public transcripts, including constitutions, other legal instruments, political manifestos, development policy etc and equivalents at sub-state levels. This especially in conjunction with civil society and aid agency partners in Mozambique.

The big point about the idea of governance for me is that it leaves open (to negotiation) where, how and by whom public/community decisions are made, with the Good Gov assumption that subsidiarity rules. In older terminology the central/local question with the added ingredient of the NGO/civil society dimension. In some issues, large powerful NGO's or even well-known idnidviduals can drive the agenda as well as public support. But in local development, even in advanced economies, it can be very difficult to distinguish exactly who the community , civil society and ' the authorities' are.

With community development experience in several nations of varying 'developmental' situations, I can only say that citizen participation is wide open to interpretation in each specific situation. Furthermore, territorial boundaries, even in quite established nations, often cut across the spread of a relatively homogenous social group or clump together widely differing groups into an amorphous 'community' blob.

Good day to you also, L