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?
