Local development: the struggle and the unity of the opposites? (summary)

Why two programs? At a glance it is obvious that there are a lot more local development programmes. The same diversity is attributable to 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.

Other views on local development are offered by the third sector, where the variety of proposed programmes is diverse, if not dispersed. However their so to say autochthonous programmes at the national scope do not offer or almost do not offer anything. In one form or another they seem to be borrowing broad policy guidelines, primarily from the European programmes of local development. They are linked with the Belarusian local programmes at levels of resources, organization and ideology.

In the basis of the European development programmes 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.
Thus, it is evident that the objects of these programs are still different, while at the same time, the background for implementation of these two types of programmes remains the same. However both types of programmes count on the identical human, intellectual, organizational and technical resources.

The possibilities of combining. If you look logically and principally at these programs, it becomes obvious they are incompatible. However the logical calculations meet with the real facts. Both programs are implemented, and even recognized as successful. How could this be possible?

Practice of combining or acquisition. 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. In a democratic system it is harder on principle to command and control. 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. The developed mechanisms and methods imply the implementation of these ideas and therefore already implied the existence of subjectivity. In Belarus in general the weaknesses of subjectivity are recognized. Nevertheless, 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 de-touch and not attach particular importance to implementation of the basic conditions and focus only on specific formulation of tasks, targets and methods of work. And 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. However there is no local development in terms of development of local agents and in the near future it is not anticipated.

The issue of choice. The effectiveness of governmental programmes is much higher however it has also become a hostage to all sorts of political and administrative crisis. 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