A ripple in development? - Channel Research

Paradoxically micro-politics were most affected by changes in entitlements,
and greater alignment to need. Social rank disruption occurred
where the head of village was only entitled to the same size and types of
houses as other villagers. The interviews in Aceh indicate that in a society
where local values hold social ranking to be in accordance with
wealth, people tend to listen less to their head of gampong (village) since
he no longer displays this feature of power.
In the Maldives most social disruption occurred between 2006 and
2008 where island elites delayed the start of reconstruction for different
reasons in different islands, but mostly relating to a realisation that they
would lose their influence if reconstruction plans were to be followed 66 .
The various factors caused a split within the communities and in some
cases within individual families. After intense consultations between the
government, the communities and the aid agencies lasting two to three
years, a compromise has finally been reached in all of the cases except
one. These problems arose partially due to failure to contextualise aid
according to different community characteristics and social relations.
The social fabric, highly damaged by these conflicts, will take some time
to heal, according to people interviewed.
Culturally foreign initiatives also resulted in some cases with beneficiary
dissatisfaction culminating in certain cases, in unsustainable
results. Some houses do not meet the requirements of the community,
such as in Sigli, Pidie and the Maldives, where houses were built with
the bathroom inside the house, and in Sri Lanka, where houses were
built with both the bathroom and the kitchen inside the house. These
are seen as culturally inappropriate since according to local traditions,
the bathroom should be hidden and both kitchen and bathroom should
be outside the house 67 . In Sri Lanka and the Maldives houses were not
left empty for reasons of design but more to do with faulty beneficiary
targeting.
The stark distinctions made between the disaster and war affected
and between disaster affected and poverty stricken are also apparent
from the differentiated levels of aid assistance provided, which may
have potentially sown the seeds of future conflict and resentment
between communities and households. Just to take an example, UNDP
66
Gaafu Alifu: elites ‘hijacked’ the reconstruction assessments by putting forward beneficiary lists
heavily favouring themselves and their friends, leading to a halt in the plans and the aid agency
pulling out; Laamu Mundhoo: elites did not want to lose influence through relocation of a major
part of the island’s population to Gan; Meemu Kolufushi: communities belonged under two island
chiefs in the same part of the island, one of which was due to lose his influence by the merging of
the two communities under the initial relocation policy. H.A. Filladhoo: island elites originally had
better houses which, because of their sturdier construction, were not destroyed. They resented
the prospect of the poor (ie. non-elites) receiving compensation for a reconstructed house that
would end up being superior to their own.
67
Agencies point to early beneficiary aspirations to a modern house, with kitchen and bathroom
inside, only belatedly preferring these to remain outside, as per tradition. Some beneficiaries are
satisfied with the model, others not.
81