THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

8.3 Re-visiting and re-conceptualizing institutionalism and participation in Kakamega
Lessons to learn from institutionalism and participation in Kakamega
As we draw ourselves to the close of this treatment, it is imperative to illustrate the kind of
lessons that ought to be learnt from the process of institutionalism and participation in
Kakamega. One such lesson will be made in light of what Oliphant pointed out. He noted that
whether participation is regarded as a means to achieving an end, or as an end in itself, or
whether it is merely a matter of principle, or of practice, or both, the key question is whether it
makes any real difference to those most directly affected by any planned intervention. 681 In
other words we ask: does the participation enable the communities to have their voices heard?
Does it enable them to assert their own ideas about what their needs and problems are, what
solutions need to be found, and what resources are made available? Does it enable the
creation of a shared institutional system of meaning among the key players, as they jointly
construct a new institutional pattern to govern an existing resource regime? These questions
illuminate the key elements that define drawbacks in the institutional and participation
process, as evidenced in the management of Kakamega forest.
There are varied views on which level of participation is most appropriate, and its importance
that those using participation clarify its specific application. For instance, Finkel and Bevis
point out that participation in formal procedures like attending community meetings, joining
with others to raise issues or contacting elected leaders can have an educative effect,
increasing interest and efficacy as well as building support for development. 682 However,
Bratton et al. argue that institutions aimed at generating real participation should find ways of
shifting from the commonly passive, incentive-driven participation towards the more
interactive end of the spectrum. 683 Others like Ulfelder and Poats labour to question the reality
of community self-mobilization. They argue that not all local communities possess the
organizational skills and technical knowledge to conduct forest management. They also
highlighted the dangers of these supposedly ‘ideal’ bottom-up activities as they may lead to
inequalities in the community, with complete auto-mobilization generating conservation
activities that favour the powerful locals and prejudice against socially disadvantaged
members of the community. 684
Thus, the lack of a universally agreed-upon definition of participation is not only due to
differences in scale and interpretation, but also due to fundamental differences in the moral
grounds regarding the effectiveness of a particular approach. At a more local level of resource
681 Ulfelder, W. H. and S. V. Poats. 1997. Buscando la Conservacion Participativa. Quito, Ecuador. The Nature
Conservancy and Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales 1:1-30.
682 Finkel, C. S and Bevis, G. 2000. “Civic Education, Civil Society and Political Mistrust in a Developing
Democracy: The Case of the Dominican Republic. World Development 24: 1851-1874.
683 Bratton, Michael, Robert Mattes and E. Gyimah-Boadi. 2003. Learning About Reform: People, Democracy,
and Markets in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
684 Posey, D. A. 1992. "Traditional Knowledge, Conservation and `The Rainforest Harvest'." In Sustainable
Harvest and Marketing of Rain Forest Products, edited by. M. Plotkin and L. Famolare, 441-443.
Washington, DC: Conservation International, Island Press.
184