Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

260
ment establishments those who are replacing the old guard are less capable
of going through the dialogue exercise successfully.
Poverty, the main reason why a foreign donor is there in the first place, is
often a contributing factor to the fact that things do not work the same way
as aid workers expect them to, i.e. proceeding neatly from one step to another
obeying the Log Frame Model. We deal foremost with people who
may not always be that rational, and who will understand things differently.
Dialogue needs to be alive and returned to over and over again, to get all
sides to understand each other. Having worked on both sides of the divide
I now realise the transmitting mechanism and receiving mechanism are conditioned
by cultures and attitudes and the personal background of the representatives
from both sides. For more than a decade and a half in my experience,
Sida was represented on most occasions by those who could realise
and respond to this sensitivity with a considered behaviour pattern. They
had a broad outlook and appreciated the differences in the cultures. They
brought in a sense of maturity from their wide travels and exposure. I have
seen a gradual erosion of that culture among the second and the third tier
personnel.
Sida, over a period of time, developed a routine of going down to the
field at least a day ahead of the quarterly meetings or annual reviews. They
were scheduled to include regular field visits and discussions with beneficiaries.
The dialogue was conducted in a mix of the local language and English.
My experience was that coming out of the meeting my expatriate colleagues
never felt that they were left out of the process because of language
difficulties. I often wonder how and why this cannot be the norm in the
day-to-day government practice in non-foreign funded government business
where a discord emerges due to language barriers. I had never before
experienced such participatory techniques in my long career in the government
department. Maybe that is due to the colonial mentality inculcated in
us, that we the government officers, should be seen to be above the ordinary
public in our dealings. This dialogue process made me think differently.
The field level interactions and the dialogue held at the houses of the poor,
seated on their benches or mats, enjoying a cup of tea with them was a very
rich and rewarding experience. It helped to form our views on the target
groups’ approach on poverty reduction and social mobilisation. When we
got back to our desks and read through the dry data and statistics, our experiences
gave life and understanding to the figures.
These field visits made prior to meetings contributed to a healthy dialogue
resulting from the time schedule of such events. There were times
early on in the poverty reduction and participatory programmes where the
Head of Mission visited the field direct, in the deep rural locations, sat with
the poor in their houses, discussed intimately things such as gender concerns,
interacting with the beneficiaries, personally listening to them, their
problems and aspirations. I used to translate such dialogue word for word,