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

262
detail management to the locals, “let them own it, we are only funders at a
distance and have no time to think of details”. Locals themselves need to
graduate and passing on the ownership is one way to do it. Yes that sounds
good, but it is how we do it that matters a lot. To be fair in my critical
assessment of the changes it should be mentioned that the Embassy office
was depleted to a minimum of expatriate staff and the local programme
officers had to do things beyond their responsibility to keep up with the
work and hold the fort for better times.
Lessons learnt
I have drawn extensively from my personal working experience at Sida in
Sri Lanka. My work in the Embassy added to my knowledge base. I believe
that if I had previously known some of the simple practices I learned working
for Sida, my earlier efforts on the recipient side, heading the IRDP
would have been greatly facilitated. It is very important that people have a
profile of each other to build a dialogue. I now know that no matter how
many thoughts one has put into documents, what really matters is the people
who work out the things in practice. Changes of personnel can easily
break down relationships and healthy procedures painfully built over many
years.
Playing on both sides of the divide, as I did, may have sounded like playing
a double game to some of my colleagues on the government side, mainly
because they thought that they would be exposed for any tricks which could
be played on gullible donor missions. But the more enlightened persons
know that it was a greatly beneficial role where we could be used to explain
the issue in the local language as well and be assured of a considerate hearing
and outcome. Individuals in a foreign environment always have to do a
great balancing act with sensitivity – prepared to be open and listening. I am
sure this kind of situation also arose for the Swedish expatriates working as
consultants in the ministry office, attending the donor mission reviews as a
part of local project management.
To help keep the dialogue going, the expatriate staff that comes to work
in developing societies should remind themselves that the recipient country
is the way it is because things do not work the same way as in the donor
society, and that is why they are there in the first instance. The social, cultural
and personal background of the dialogue partners debars a cordial and
rewarding understanding unless people are accommodative, constructive,
positive, and willing to compromise, and strive for consensus building and
have a conciliatory approach. I have found in the latest and the most difficult
areas for building a dialogue i.e. democracy, human rights, peace building
and humanitarian aid, that many donor workers do not seem to practise
what they have come to inculcate in others. Some seem to follow their
personal agenda, others are exposed to Asian culture for the first time and