Introduction

The pilot issue of JPoX featured a broad range of contributions that will certainly help to foster debates around ‘political excellence’ of democratic systems. My short contribution was primarily triggered by two features: the interview with Cem Özdemir and his central argument that ‘[Western] democracy is stable enough to go beyond the representative democracy’ and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson’s thoughts on the links between social science and political excellence (). Both stress the centrality of ‘Western’ social science, institutions and governance systems.
The central argument in my short article is that some innovative answers to the challenges representative democracies in the ‘OECD world’ face are currently emerging from so-called ‘developing countries’ and that the academic discipline of development studies is increasingly paying attention to these innovative practices from the global ‘South’ and helps to make them available to decision- and policy-makers in the ‘North’. Excellent ideas and excellent practices around public participation in decision-making, accountability of state institutions and fostering of citizenship can also emerge in challenging, less-than-excellent conditions of developing countries-especially on the local level where ‘the state’ becomes most visible and can gain a lot of legitimacy from disadvantaged citizens. What my short contribution also stresses is that development studies are in a unique position to link theoretical assumptions about participation and democracy to institutional cultures and set-ups, and, at least as important, to the people, relationships and mindsets of those involved in working towards excellence in social change. My work as a researcher based at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), especially its Participation, Power and Social Change Team (PPSC) will serve as the focus of this article as this highlights quite well some of the challenges to engage in ‘applied’, action-oriented research and the possibilities that arise when critically and (self-)reflectively engaging with the political realties outside Weberian understandings of state and bureaucracy (external link).
 

Development research and three dimensions of enhancing ‘political excellence’

‘On the one hand, elements of the “old” Brazil seem to be evident: authoritarianism, bargains and favours, and the kind of intimidation that comes out of being locked into reliance on patronage networks. Yet, on the other hand, the visions of democracy that have animated struggles for democratisation in Brazil, are evidence of other traditions – from those learnt in the base communities of liberation theology Catholic organisers to feminist efforts to create alternative spaces for political engagement. The significance of these cultural dimensions for making sense of the dynamics of democracy goes well beyond that which is suggested by accounts of “background culture” in deliberative democratic theory’ (Cornwall 2008: 23-24)

Andrea Cornwall’s observations from municipal health council decision-making in Brazil illustrate some of the key points when engaging with participatory governance in countries that undergo a transition: Advocating for ‘participatory’ or ‘excellent’ solutions may overlook some of the important processes and the ‘good enough’ practical achievements that appear throughout such processes (cf. Grindle 2004 and 2007); Also, engaging with decision-making structures calls for critical engagement at every step of the ‘policy cycle’ and culturally-embedded research to understand the ‘black box’ of policy-making. Interestingly, development research (and connected disciplines, e.g. ethnography and anthropology of development and policy (cf. Shore and White 1997; Mosse and Lewis 2005)) is more and more concerned with the ‘hidden dynamics’ of development processes as David Mosse describes:

‘Several studies have now begun to examine how the organising policy ideas and “universal codes and principles” for poverty reduction or managed liberalisation are produced and legitimised socially. In doing so anthropologists focus not only on texts but also on the practices of closed epistemic communities, policy networks, the managed agenda-setting consultations and consultant experts (including themselves), and the consensus formation involved in manufacturing transferable expert knowledge’ (Mosse 2005: 15)

Unpacking the meaning of policy buzzwords is one of the important themes that emerges from the three dimensions of engagement with development research and practice that I will introduce in the next paragraph.
 

Facilitating experiences: Development Research Centres in the United Kingdom

The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) funds a number of Development Research Centres (DRC) at British universities to engage in long-term relationships with academic research, partner institutions in the global South and enhance knowledge on issues such as citizenship, state-capacity or inequality (external link) – issues that are central for sustainable democratic development. Although these research centres are not engaged in research activities in their home country, the findings from the research are fed back to into the UK policy community. ‘Champions of Participation: Engaging citizens in local governance’ is only one of the projects of the DRC on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability (http://www.drc-citizenship.org/), but with an explicit focus of bringing together ‘champions of participation’ from the UK with colleagues from 14 other countries: ‘To hear what is happening outside of the UK context in India, Bosnia, Norway, etc. has helped me think outside the box. In other countries power is often more equally shared between national and local/regional government. This can create both a healthy tension and places for discussion – which is good for participation’ says one of the British participants (Dunn et al. 2007: 2). The discussions around issues from participatory approaches to budgeting , processes of participatory planning, new forms of partnerships public scrutiny and consultation and inclusion, to participation in service delivery unravelled some of the complexities and unique challenges around these topics, but the report also notes that ‘[t]he participants might have been diverse in terms of their backgrounds, but they spoke the same language and were motivated by similar values and ambitions’ (ibid. 46). Bringing together these ‘champions’ is also a reminder that political processes and democracy takes place in a force field of ‘globalizing’ forces as well as ‘localised’ challenges and solutions.
This is also an important theme of a recent piece of research that was funded and implemented under the DRC ‘Centre for the Future State’ (external link) on the links of taxation and state-building in developing countries. The research of Brautigam, Fjeldstad and Moore explores the complex relations around taxation in many dimension-starting from the European and American experiences to look at examples in other parts of the world to finally make some ‘global’ conclusions. Their observations on the institutions involved and historical evidence about taxation and state-building do not just criticize the practice of international development to ‘export’ institutional ‘solutions’ to developing countries, but also raise interesting questions about European tax systems in a global world that increasingly appear on the agenda (s. Werner’s et al. contribution in the pilot issue): ‘The promotion of authoritative, privileged, autonomous revenue agencies as one –shot, stand-alone solutions to problems of tax administration, when experiences in other sectors and basic organisational analysis point to the need to pay attention to the relationships between these agencies and other fiscal institutions’ and ‘the general lack of concern for the historical evidence about the connection between taxation and state-building’ (Brautigam et al. 2008: 259, my emphasis) have, among other things, to some of the challenges developing countries face today. But they also pose interesting questions with regard to citizen-state/EU relations in Europe, for example.
These two short examples can help to illustrate some of the benefits that research and engagement with settings outside the ‘box’ of established Western democratic systems have, but development research has certainly more to offer-especially regarding the unpacking of power relations behind institutions and policy approaches that an important part of daily experiences between state, citizens and organisations from civil society of the private sector.

Organizational learning: The role of people and relationships

Proposing that a bureaucratic organization equip its staff with relationship skills is contrary to the ethos of an organization that looks for controlling, emotionless, objective patterns of behaviour in which time spent with other people can only be justified by a cost-benefit analysis. This is the challenge facing those wanting relationships to work in aid. (Eyben 2006: 44)

Rosalind Eyben, who was worked for DFID for many years, describes one of the challenges when engaging with aid organizations – organizations that are under pressure to strive for ‘excellence’ both internally as ‘learning organizations’ as well as externally in the ‘delivery’ of development. Development research, especially the critical engagement with large bilateral or multilateral organizations, is increasingly questioning the managerial discourses around ‘development’, the ‘experts’ that deliver it and the ways of engagement between supposed Northern and Southern ‘partners’. Andrea Cornwall and other colleagues from IDS have engaged with ‘bureaucrats’ from the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) on the issue of how ‘participation’ as a discourse is perceived in the daily routines of the organization (s. Cornwall and Pratt 2005; Cornwall et al. 2007). This willingness to question work practices could be a sign of the slowly changing landscape around ‘relationships’ that Eyben observes: The fact that a relational approach can now even be mentioned is due to wider social changes, including changing gender relations at work and development of ‘the network society’, resulting in post-bureaucratic tendencies where relationships, influence and emotions are beginning to be seen as essential attributes of current working practices (Eyben 2006: 44-45). But most development practice is still centred around narrower understandings of ‘excellence’ that is in line with results-based management or discourses around ‘aid effectiveness’ rather than engaging citizens in the North and/or the South more innovatively.

Reflecting on attitudes and mindsets: Field visits, meeting rooms and the power of the personal

Experiences from people and research in the ‘South’ or critical engagement with powerful aid organizations is clearly linked to the third dimension, the engagement with the personal dimension of ‘doing’ development, often the ‘elephant in the room’ when power relations and programmatic challenges of development are discussed (s. Chambers 2007). Chambers, who has been with the PPSC Team for well over three decades, argues that personally immersing oneself into the live-worlds of ‘poor’ people is an important prerequisite to understand ‘development’ and work for sustainable (‘excellent’) ‘solutions’.

‘There may, too, be a reluctance to expose oneself, to be physically or morally uncomfortable, to be confronted by the realities of poverty, or to be, or be thought to be, some sort of poverty voyeur. There is an understandable psychopathology here of avoidance. Better, the rationalisation can be, to go nowhere near poverty, to shut it out, than to have any exposure that might be blurred, distorted or misleadingly unrepresentative. The biases of the organised visit of rural development tourism can even be an excuse – ‘I have heard all about that. I am not going to fall for that’, as it has been expressed. It is easy for development professionals in capital cities to find ‘good’ reasons for not going out and meeting poor people’ (Chambers 2006: 10-11).

The ‘urban-periphery’ bias and organizational constraints that Chambers describes for international development are also applicable in many other organizational and political contexts. Organizational change, social transformation, learning and personal leadership – elements that are present in all three dimensions – from the realties of local governance ‘champions’ to participation ‘champions’ in large aid organizations or the personal ‘champions’ who find time and space for an immersion – challenge some of the very Western understandings about policy and politics that pay not sufficiently dues to the multi-dimensionality of people’s lives in their search for ‘political excellence’.

‘Excellent’ policy-makers have to start taking relationships more seriously than results-based management

My short contribution has the main objective to introduce innovative and critical research in the field of development studies to the debates on ‘political excellence’. Expanding the view to the complex realities of developing countries, countries in transition or ‘recovering’ from a conflict or war does not only open new horizons in terms of the innovation that is happening. Different forms of immersions are one important way of not only bringing together people, but also challenge their perceptions around ‘poverty’ or ‘democracy’. ‘Political excellence’ does rarely arise from implementing a managerial handbook, but includes a long-term commitment to a community and careful interaction with powerful forces, the building of trust and empowerment of local people. The example from the Philippines illustrates this well:

‘Where I live in the Philippines is locally very rich in minerals, fishing and forests. But there were many illegal activities and these resources were being exploited. The local community were mobilised – but local people were also benefiting so it was very difficult. I spent a year preparing to stand for Mayor against the local dynasty. I worked with the fishermen, the forest tribes and the women to get a vision for the town: our vision was to stand up for what is right, to care for each other and to care for the environment. An NGO helped with resources and tools. I won and when I was a Mayor I continued with my commitment to participation. We developed a plan for the town with ten principles. Over the last eight years, we have stopped the illegal logging and mining. And I have used my powers to protect the environment and social services. Once the people realise these changes are for their survival they will organise to protect them.’ Jerry V. Dela Cerna, Mayor, Municipality of Governor Generoso, Province of Davao Oriental, Philippines (Dunn et al. 2007: 27).

This is a reminder that any ‘recommendation’ needs further unpacking and critical interpretation to prevent it from becoming a buzzword, a neo-liberal ‘plastic word’ in a policy manifesto.
Macro approaches, institutional reforms and meaningful engagement between ‘state’ and/or ‘civil society’ can only take place if the personal dimension is not neglected. This sounds easier than it is, but means serious critical engagement with the institutions, discourses and labels that claim to know what ‘political excellence’ means and how it can be achieved, measured and evaluated. Development research is in a unique position to bring some qualitative research methods and participatory ways of engagement to the table-based on critical experiences in very diverse settings, including institutions in the ‘North’. But, as Jethro Pettit, another researcher from IDS explains, there is still a long way to go – even in development research and practice:

Why is reflective practice not encouraged more extensively among civil servants, NGO workers, social scientists, social movement activists, politicians, leaders etc.? Many approaches to development are simply not that interested in power, or in challenging power in ways that involve critical self-reflection. This is reinforced by the enduring norm of positivism in social science, which advocates removing the self from the analytical process on grounds of objectivity. (Pettit 2007: 77)

Only when we fully explore the potential of different research approaches, organizational cultures and personal behaviour can we unearth the diversity of ‘political excellence’ and its various meanings, interpretations and representations.

References

Brautigam, Deborah; Fjeldstad, Ole-Helge; Moore, Mick (2008). Taxation and State-Building in Developing Countries. Capacity and Consent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chambers, Robert (2006). Poverty Unperceived. Traps, Biases and Agenda. IDS Working Paper 270. Brighton: IDS.

Chambers, Robert (2007). Out of the closet, into the open. Professionalism, power and the personal in development. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 4 (4), 385-394.

Cornwall, Andrea (2007). Deliberating Democracy. Scenes from a Brazilian Municipal Health Council. IDS Working Paper 292. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

Cornwall, Aandrea.; Jassey, Katja.; Arora-Jonsson, Soona.; Scott-Villiers, Patta. (2007). The Beast of Bureaucracy and Other Tales from Valhalla. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

Cornwall, Andrea.; Pratt, Garett (2005). Putting Ideals into Practice?. Participation in Sida. Unpublished manuscript.

Dunn, Alison; Foot, Jane; Gaventa, John.; Zipfel, Tricia (2007). Champions of Participation. Engaging Citizens in Local Governance. International learning event report. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

Eyben, Rosalind (2006). Making relationships matter for aid bureaucracies. Rosalind Eyben: Relationships for Aid. London: Earthscan, 43-59.

Grindle, Merilee S. (2004). Good Enough Governance. Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 17 (4), 525-548.

Grindle, Merilee S. (2007). Good Enough Governance Revisited. Development Policy Review, 25 (5), 553-574.

Mosse, David (2005). Global Governance and the Ethnography of International Aid. In: David Lewis; David Mosse: The Aid Effect. Giving and Governing in International Development. London: Zed Books, 1-36.

Pettit, Jethro (2007). Power and Pedagogy. Learning for reflective development practice. IDS Bulletin, 37 (6), 69-78.

Shore, Chris; Wright, Susan (1997). Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. Abingdon: Routledge