The more I sit listening to stories of development success from Donor and CSO types, the more I ask myself, whether it is delusional or real. Could be success is merely a microcosm of one’s microbial space of activity or influence. But, is success in development agendas merely a question of microbial defined spaces? Can these Donor and CSO types surely result in a success at a level that tomorrow, I am not going to be standing at an unmarked small grave, in which lies a child that died of a simple curable illness?
Shouldn’t it be that these Donor and CSO types should be talking of success in a humanitarian space, and not a development space? Can they surely convince my grandmother in Shangombo that they have succeeded in changing her pitiable unsustainable livelihood?
From the pedestal of reason, I see success in the development agenda as a time when the government provides for sustainable livelihoods for most; not when Donor and CSO types ameliorate livelihoods in small and scattered spaces in my country. That is simply humanitarian success, commendable but not sustainable.
Shouldn’t we then starting re-thinking success as the times in which the people rebel against the inability of their government to provide sustainable livelihoods, in an environment where the government types, both political and civil, perpetuate parasitic privileges that serve to undermine the government’s ability to move towards the story of success.
Sometimes, I wonder. Do these Donor and CSO types ever question the cost to the public of parasitic public sector privileges (like V8s parading as personal to holder for individuals that can ordinarily service a car loan), on attaining real success in Shangombo?