Local development: the struggle and the unity of the opposites (Expert opinion)

The majority of implementers of these programmes would not agree with this statement from either of the sides. However apart from the fact that the mentioned statement caused dissent it also allows raising questions about the programmes of local development in our country, which require analysis and discussion. Are there only two? Whether they really focus on one subject? Are they contradictory and inconsistent? What is the nature of interaction between them (fighting, conflict, negotiation)? And finally, what would be results of these programmes?

Why two programs? There is no need for analytical research to find out that the actual number of the local development programmes is much bigger. A list of all the government programmes will take half a page: a Programme for the Development of small towns, villages, socio-economic development of regions, etc. All this applies to local development. In addition, we have to bear in mind public initiatives and structures of the third sector involved in the development of local communities, rural areas, etc. There is no doubt that they also have their own programmes.

It is all also relates to the diversity of documents. If we look at the programmes more widely and more strictly, as a way of social organization of various processes, it should be recognized that all governmental programmes of local development focus on the same subject of programming, have similar conceptual and methodological foundation principles, mechanisms and resources of implementation, tools for implementation and so forth. In fact, every document represents fixation of some phase or aspect of the implemented programme on a large-scale. These documents have primarily managerial and organizational significance rather than introducing changes in the overall programme or the adoption of new programmes on different grounds, with different ideas about development or about the development subject.

Bearing in mind the structure of the third sector it gets more complicated. Existing programs are diverse: they have different subjects and different goals, and seem to be independent from one another, if not dispersed. However it looks that way only at the first glance. Local development, although it is limited geographically, nevertheless, it can not be 'local' in the scope of thinking. Even the Bolsheviks knew that it was impossible to build communism in one country and therefore they had to cover with their way of thinking and programmes not only the Soviet Union, but the whole world too. There can no longer be «development» of one community, one village or one city, not looking at this development as a specific point of application of forces, but taking into account the entire country, and at least the pan-European context. Also if actors turn to the third sector in Belarus, then it becomes obvious that they do not offer or almost not offer their own, so to speak autochthonous, national programmes. This «almost» is not the complete lack of suggestions, it mostly concerns the unwillingness of the third sector to get involved into the implementation of such programmes, including the programs of cultural policy, which have developed its own conceptual grounds, methodological principles and methods of implementation. However let us leave this issue of the attitude towards their own development on the side for a while.

By making such a dramatic statement about the actual lack of own programmes in the third sector, a reservation should be made that the development cycle of a national program requires large number of, above all, intellectual and implementation resources - physical, human and institutional. The Belarusian third sector is weak with few resources and it is dispersed and fragmented. Therefore, in one form or another they borrow broad policy guidelines, primarily ones elaborated by the European programs for local development. They are linked with the Belarusian local programmes at resource, organizational and ideological levels.

What kind of programmes are implemented by the third sector? They can be divided into two types. The first, meaningful use of broad pan-European programmes of local development via borrowing the basic principles, objectives, theoretical and conceptual basis and with the formulation of national or local goals and specific implementation of these programmes. Second – locally eaborated programmes, which  are not thought through (and therefore, often with errors and gaps) and are built on the basis of the European principles of local development. In general, a program of cultural policy is based on the same pan-European principles and in this regard could be included in the same group, however there is one, but significant difference. The difference is that within the programme there is a specially organized place for reflection not only for implementation by themselves however for reflection and promotion of European programs implemented in Belarus.

We have no intention to grade the internal differences of the European programs, which in one way or another used by the Belarusian third sector as a base, but one can confidently speak of the unity of certain principles concerning local development. Therefore, to simplify, it is possible to say that the structure of the third sector is built into a broad pan-European programme for local development.

Is there only one object? To answer this question one should ask: «What should be developed within one or another programme?». The overall government policy, implemented in the whole package of programmes of local development, inherits the basic managerial principles of the Soviet system: manufacturing, command and control. Objects of management and development are identified as part of the production system, regardless of the nature of these objects: territory, towns, communities, areas (culture, education) and so on. Ensuring the cost-effectiveness and feasibility is the basis for determining the criteria for development. While social welfare and other humanitarian tasks sometimes declared the most important in the statements and declarations, the real goal, the production principle, stands clear:

In order to accommodate more equitably the country's productive forces must be integrated into development of regions, with the priority development on small and medium towns ... (State Integrated Program for regional development, small and medium towns in 2007 - 2010 years)

The administrative command principle along with contribution to the understanding of the object also explains the way the managerial decisions are implemented. It implies that the managers at the top level know everything about the subject of development and how to do it, and therefore they exercise the guidance to the lower levels. The object of management itself (territory, city, community) plays a passive role and is only responsible for implementation of the orders from above:

Oblast is the best unit of socio-economic space measurement of a country, within the boundaries of which at the present stage of development of administrative-territorial division of the Republic of Belarus authorities can best implement effective management of its territory ... ... (State Integrated Program for regional development, small and medium towns in 2007 -- 2010)

In the basis of the European development programems there is a fundamentally different object i.e. encouragement of consciousness and thinking of actors at a given territory or settlement. This principle concerns responsibility of actors who are to decide how they will live and to bear responsibility for their decisions. I must say that the existence of such self-organized and amateur actors in the European programmes is assumed almost as granted. Therefore, proper development is either linked to the growth of social capital and liability, or with the development of modern knowledge of the conditions and standards of existence and expansion of such responsibility. The objective of the programmes is to enable this self-development. This is the general principle that is specified every time however often not expressly. Nevertheless, not restore it, we will not be able to understand the correlation of action under way in some and other programmes.

The overall objective of development of human settlements is to improve the socio-economic and environmental conditions in human settlements and the living and working conditions of all people, in particular, of the poor living in urban and rural areas. This should be based on technical cooperation activities, joint activities of public and private sectors and communities as well as participation in decision-making, community groups and special interest groups such as women, indigenous peoples, the elderly and the disabled. (of Agenda 21)

Thus, it is evident that the object of these programmes is different: in one case, it is efficient production structures in another self-organization and responsibility of the local community. At the same time, the background for implementation of these two types of programmes is the same. Let’s take for instance a town Disna. The town is famous for being the smallest in Belarus, as well as for being one of the first developed following its own path of sustainable development (sustainable development strategy of Disna Kray (Local Agenda 21)). At the same time like all small towns, after 2006 Disna has its own state development program.

We will not go into detailed comparison of these programs now however will highlight one but crucial point concerning the differences of development in two documents. Development Program of Disna Kray was elaborated and adopted by the local community, formed for its drafting and implementation. The activities which it identifies are the result of their own development and work. If one follows the rules of the Agenda 21, on which the programme is based, it would be obvious that self-actualisation and development of the local community this is the key mechanism for development ( «group of local action»), which includes representatives of local authorities, community organizations, education, business and a proactive residents of the province.

Some time later the State Programme of Development of Disna was adopted. What is the basis for its development? Those include: the program of socio-economic development of Belarus for 2006-2010, socio-economic development of Vitebsk region, as well as the strategy of sustainable socio-economic development of the Republic of Belarus and some other documents and laws. The presence of the third sector is ignored by this development programme, since it is nonexistent.

As a result, the program assumes that the course of the development requires formation of a special relationship between the people living in a town, and their special relationship to the town itself. Another program for its effective implementation requires a gap of this relationship, but the establishment and improvement of other relations, in accordance with the functional places in the production, management or infrastructure. And these places require a completely different attitude toward a town. In the first case - they are the hosts and in the second they are performers and infrastructure developers. And the thing is not that one way is more true or effective than the other, it is that in one case one type of relations is being developed and in the other in the second. Both types of programmes count on the identical human, intellectual, organizational and technical material.

The possibilities of combining. If you look logically and principally at these programs, it becomes obvious they are incompatible on several grounds. Firstly, the object of both programmes, i.e. particular social structures, which are characterized by integrity and system, and therefore do not allow for including other structures with different operational logic.

Secondly, the contrast is found in how the development of something local (territory, city, community, etc.) correlates with the development of a (country, society). The governmental programmes show what parameters of the country’s development determine what measures should be introduced locally. While the European programmes, by contrast, often base on development of the whole via particularity. The parameters of development of a country consist of what occurs in the local development. In one case, the development of society and the country discard the development of the second - the development of a country emerging from the local development.

And thirdly, there is a contradiction in the requirements set up for people and their lifestyles. Realization of the state development programme requires care and maintenance of paternalism among people in the developing territories, which are essential elements of the production cycle can count on full support. European development programmes require an understanding of the subject and the assumption of responsibility.

But the logical calculations meet with the real facts. Both programs are implemented, and even recognized as successful. Moreover, adopted in 2004, the National Strategy for Sustainable Development of Belarus claimed its developers and proponents built on the basis of the ideas of sustainable development and all of the same «Agenda 21». How is this possible?

Practice of combining or acquisition. To deal with «the wonders of convergence», must begin with a general discussion on the relationship of simple and complex. Simple control systems, simple, simple solutions are always more resistant to external shocks and more effective, especially in the short term, to resolve specific problems. Complex systems and programs, on the other hand, and the more subtle and less stable, but in turn address the problem with so-called high number of variables, and ultimately more successful in the long run through the ability to retain flexibility in the balance, as opposed to rigidity. In order to combine programmes equally or one that is easier to be developed and complicated, or is that difficult - reduced, reduced to acceptable limits. The democratic system is more complicated compared with the command system. However these are generic words. What unites Belarusian governmental and European programmes within, for example, sustainable development programmes in Belarus.

As it was mentioned, European programmes, in principle, and Agenda 21 in particular are based on respect for the local community as an actor, determining its own destiny. This democratic principle has long been realized in many European countries that require no special mentioning. Therefore, special attention to the wording of the programme of activities is being given new idea of sustainability or, more balanced development. All contents of sustainable development programmes focused on the fact that the systems of decision-making at the local level were taking into account this balance. The developed mechanisms and methods imply the implementation of these ideas and therefore already implied the existence of subjectivity. It is worth mentioning that in Belarus in particular the weaknesses of subjectivity are recognized and therefore the focus is on bringing broad public participation. A very fine line separates the weak subjectivity and its absence. However this fine line separates fundamentally different attitudes and strategies for action.

One can reduce, not to attach particular importance to implementation of the basic conditions and focus only on specific formulation of tasks, targets and methods of work. And if these targets and indicators can be de-touched from the basic conditions for the formation of subjectivity and in this way to build them into a different programme then simple governmental programmes and more sophisticated European could be combined. Whether the tasks of economic development and environmental security could be combined with the socio-economic development of Belarus? They are compatible, if they do not undermine the basis of social and managerial devices. However the achievement of certain performance is not compromised, it even, perhaps, strengthens the system. Moreover, to fulfillment of the tasks set up by the command and administrative system will be several times more effective. There is no need to be fully aware of the nature of the problems, there is no need to negotiate perceptions and actions, there is no need to wait until people take responsibility. You can «drop» a plan and ensure its resources. And it will be implemented.

For all sorts of system performance, recorded in the governmental programmes, there is local development in Belarus, even if we take into account the «exemplary records». It would be silly to deny the increase in the standard of living of the inhabitants of the country. The same can be expected in the future for other development indicators - environmental, cultural and natural conservation, because they were heavily into incorporated into the governmental programme.

At the same time there is no local development in terms of development of local agents and in the near future it is not anticipated. Even if there are structures of civil society that are seriously concerned about local development through the development of local communities (whether urban or rural), they face numerous obstacles. On the one hand, they face confrontation with the governmental programmes, and with those European programmes that were adapted to Belarusian conditions. On the other hand, they meet with inertia and paternalism of those people who are fueled by the success of governmental programmes. And finally, they are limited in resources needed to organize all the components of the programme design and its implementation.

The issue of choice. After reviewing the current situation there is another issue that comes up. How far the local development undertaken during the current interaction programmes has adequately advanced conditions, challenges and tasks Belarus is now facing? Are the objectives of balanced development valid in Belarus? No doubt, they are. It may well be a reason to accept the prevailing practice at the time to forget about the development of local communities as fully fledged actors and focus on a global problem. We can say that the issue of values, goals and means match their accomplishments, however not just that. The issue is a lot more complicated, because it is not a matter of values only.

The effectiveness of governmental programmes is much higher however it has also become a hostage to all sorts of political and administrative crisis. And they can not be disregarded, especially when pursuing sustainability and long-term results. A guarantor of proper management and secure future through government programs would be well settled management system. In the case of its violation there would be a collapse in carrying out all necessary functions, as there are no mechanisms for settling issues outside of the control system. Who will be ready to take responsibility, to build a new system for the further implementation of programmes and what would be the price of this recovery - is unknown. What would happen with all those achievements in the balance between economy and ecology, if there is no control exercised? Indeed, no one has the subjective personal liability for it and, most importantly, no one has the experience of self-sustainability or organization of a new system of governance. Such situation has already been taking place at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union.

Local development, counting on the local community as an entity that sets and implements goals, is much more cumbersome, difficult and less reliable and stable. However it has one important advantage, i.e. it is involved into the building of its own future by a large number of people. That has a margin for sustainable development.

Tatiana Vodolazhskaya

[email protected]