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

261
while at the same time they had already expressed some thoughts by their
body language, eye contact and movements. (Sri Lankans are fond of nodding
their heads in different ways, vertically up and down or sideways. It
was fun when my foreign friends tried to figure out which was which for
yes or no!) This perhaps is the best form of direct dialogue so far developed
in aid programmes. It is very interesting to recall a number of instances
when such heads of mission accompanied me to meetings with political
dignitaries. The local political head, without knowing how much more than
the heads of mission knew from first hand knowledge, tried to explain to
them how the poor people suffer and how more aid to perhaps a pet project
(maybe a road to help his political supporters) was explained as benefiting
the poor!
Recalling my Sida experience at the local mission the dialogue can also
run into either voyages of discovery if the wavelengths coincide with those
of the boss or it can really run riot. This is not something particular to an
Embassy. I left government service when the dialogue hindered my expectations
but found a place of acceptance in Sida where the dialogue was free
and welcome. The weekly planning meeting of the Head of Mission and the
Programme Officers was a rich new experience of a dialogue technique for
me. Earlier it was something confined to the Swedish staff and we locals
had not been included as I had heard from my colleagues. But the Head of
Mission at the time with a fair bit of Asian exposure thought otherwise and
it opened many a pleasant vista for enriched dialogue experience. We felt at
ease in the crowd and could contribute and were given an appreciative hearing.
But as time went on after two rounds of changes at the top I felt the
depth in the dialogue content was being replaced by mere form.
I recall that agreed minutes written after an annual review – the basis of
the next year’s programme of work – was a lengthy document discussing
the past experiences and going deeply into the work progamme based on
these experiences and giving directions. It was followed seriously and monitored.
I recall how suddenly my superior came into my room while I was
engaged in work with the Sida Stockholm representative on drafting the
document. The person directed us to put it into two pages only and even
gave us a structure of how to do it… “It is agreed 1..2..3.. etc” and just annex
a time schedule for the follow-up events. My resistance about throwing the
baby away with the bath water and explanations as to why we did it the way
we did, and later even an explanation to the Head of Mission did not change
the matter. The number of pages to make it easy for the management to
read was more important and sacrosanct! No dialogue, no discussion, a ‘do
what we say’ type of direction came and being a local employee I simply
obeyed to avoid future complications to my employment. Dialogue between
two unequal partners can be costly. By the time the individuals in
question left Sri Lanka, some things were irreparable both for me and the
programme. Maybe by that time the policy emerging was to leave the project