Where the power lies: multiple stakeholder politics over natural ...
Where the power lies: multiple stakeholder politics over natural ...
Where the power lies: multiple stakeholder politics over natural ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Introduction<br />
‘In ‘In so so many many of of <strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>se places places <strong>the</strong>re’s <strong>the</strong>re’s so so much much rivalry, rivalry, different different factions factions saying<br />
saying<br />
<strong>the</strong>irs <strong>the</strong>irs is is is <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> man. man. Often Often we we find find this this group group or or that that doesn’t doesn’t accept accept <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> person person <strong>the</strong>y<br />
<strong>the</strong>y<br />
are are working working with. with. Little Little <strong>power</strong> <strong>power</strong> struggles struggles going going on on even even even among among people people you’d you’d you’d think<br />
think<br />
too too desperately desperately busy busy busy trying trying to to survive, survive, survive, to to have have <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> energy…’ energy…’ (Nadine (Nadine Gordimer,<br />
Gordimer,<br />
Nobel Nobel Laureate Laureate 1994).<br />
1994).<br />
There are many examples throughout <strong>the</strong> world of management situations involving<br />
many <strong>stakeholder</strong>s. In some countries, <strong>the</strong> use of terms like ‘joint’ or ‘collaborative’ or<br />
‘partnerships’ describes management situations where more than one <strong>stakeholder</strong> is<br />
involved. However, <strong>the</strong>re are many variations of <strong>the</strong>se situations, some having as few as<br />
two <strong>stakeholder</strong>s while in o<strong>the</strong>r situations <strong>the</strong>re are more. The mythical notion of<br />
<strong>stakeholder</strong>s as bound by ‘common interest’ continues to direct how we view and constitute<br />
<strong>multiple</strong> <strong>stakeholder</strong> groups, <strong>the</strong>refore hiding or ignoring <strong>the</strong> biases that favour <strong>the</strong><br />
opinions of stronger and more <strong>power</strong>ful <strong>stakeholder</strong>s. The challenge addressed in this<br />
manual is to find ways to navigate <strong>the</strong>se <strong>multiple</strong> <strong>stakeholder</strong> situations and make sense<br />
of <strong>the</strong> relations between and among different <strong>stakeholder</strong>s. But relations among<br />
<strong>stakeholder</strong>s are rarely easy to describe and label, as illustrated in <strong>the</strong> case described of<br />
relations <strong>over</strong> a shade tree (Box 4).<br />
This case demonstrates <strong>the</strong> layering of relations among <strong>stakeholder</strong>s as <strong>the</strong>y seek to<br />
accommodate each o<strong>the</strong>r’s interests; first <strong>the</strong> committee of <strong>the</strong> Chidiso garden giving<br />
plots to <strong>the</strong> church members in exchange for loss of venue; confrontations between one<br />
church and a family claiming to represent ano<strong>the</strong>r. All <strong>the</strong>se machinations and <strong>the</strong><br />
dynamism of <strong>the</strong> relations change as stories told by <strong>the</strong> church and by <strong>the</strong> family change<br />
during <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> conflict. The complexity of any relations is revealed here when<br />
a relatively simple situation results in a redefinition of community relations when one<br />
family challenges <strong>the</strong> decision to allocate a church site on <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong>ir field. In this<br />
particular case, we also see <strong>over</strong>laps in jurisdictions; linkages between local and external<br />
interests <strong>over</strong> local issues; <strong>the</strong> competing churches; intrahousehold relations; and gender<br />
relations. For many <strong>stakeholder</strong>s, negotiations around any issue take on a strong political<br />
slant, with allegiances, alliances and conflicts noted intently (Kepe 1997).<br />
There is generally a tendency when one considers cases such as one presented in Box 4 to<br />
equate micro-<strong>politics</strong> with conflict as many <strong>multiple</strong> <strong>stakeholder</strong> situations tend to be<br />
characterized by it. For example, relations involving <strong>multiple</strong> <strong>stakeholder</strong>s have been<br />
described variously as ‘battlefields’; ‘<strong>the</strong> messy middle ground; or characterized by<br />
‘multilayered struggles’. Moore (1996:1998) describes relations between <strong>stakeholder</strong>s<br />
as struggles. In local idiom, one finds a variety of terms used to describe <strong>multiple</strong><br />
<strong>stakeholder</strong> situations. Currently, in Zimbabwe, local Shona people describe some of