Decision Makers Do Want Communication - But They May Not Want Participation

In this article, Wendy Quarry discusses the gaps between rhetoric and implementation of communication strategy, using Afghanistan’s National Solidarity Program (NSP) as an example for analysing "challenges and obstacles to a more fully integrated development communication approach."

In her analysis of the NSP project, the author outlines the objectives of the programme, which were to lay the foundations for a strengthening of community-level governance, and to support community-managed sub-projects comprising reconstruction and development that improve the access of rural communities to social and productive infrastructure and services. The description of the NSP approach to community participation includes this definition: "empowerment is said to have happened when a community selects its own infrastructure project and manages it to completion." The author states that those non-governmental organisations (NGOs) already working in communities assigned to them were more successful working within the 4-month timeframe allotted. She points to a need for more detailed training and for more thorough "facilitation of rudimentary research into the knowledge, attitudes and practice of the different audiences (around issues such as the role of traditional leadership systems; their attitude to government programs; their sense of security; their trusted sources of information, etc.). This would also involve understanding best modes of communication for the individual audience groups. It is only after such basic work that it becomes possible to sketch out an overarching communication strategy for the program."

The article then critiques the style of the communication organisations working on the project. The Program Communication Unit (PCU) of the NSP functioned as a public relations organisation, putting together programmes and products, including radio feature programmes, a radio soap opera, television features and news feeds, print, a website, and a congress, bringing together members of the newly-formed Community Development Committees (CDC).

Equal Access (EA), an NGO from San Francisco, California, United States, was contracted to supply a total of 7,000 radio receivers to communities with established CDCs, and also intended to supply educational programming and training cassettes on how to use the radio, so that the CDC radio holder could record programmes and broadcast them at different times. According to the article, Equal Access distributed the radio receivers only to the Chairperson of the CDC. There was no guarantee that other community members had access to the broadcast - that is, the sharing was problematic.

The group of 24 Facilitating Partners (FPs) responsible for implementing the NSP project created a window of participatory communication approaches within the NSP, as described in the article: "UN [United Nations] Habitat, for instance, produce[d] a series of comic books and cartoons to enhance facilitation at the community level. In addition, they ran a literacy program with the view of strengthening people’s ability to participate in planning through literacy. The International Rescue Committee (IRC), [f]or example,... did an in-depth profiling of each community, identifying the power holders and the disadvantaged - profiling the commanders, unemployed youth, and widows. They next took the precaution of first inviting community traditional leaders to a meeting to solicit their advice on the aims and objectives of NSP. This was not merely the usual type of consultation where people are called to hear government tell them what to do. Instead, IRC found the space to enable real discussion and dialogue around the community leader perception of strong and weak points of the NSP process. In addition, IRC set up two advisory councils at the provincial level. The first group comprised political leaders (provincial and district governors, provincial ministries, Jihadi commanders, and tribal leaders). The second group was made up of religious scholars and leaders. These groups were called to a two-day workshop to discuss and understand the NSP rules, responsibilities, and documents. They were encouraged to discuss the core values of the NSP and see where these fit within their own core values. They were also given the opportunity to offer advice on the NSP and create their own action plan to implement it (Kakar, 2005). Another example of innovative work is the way several FPs decided to institute the idea of peer learning amongst their CDC partners. These NGOs sought to find new ways to cope with a variety of misinformation about the NSP."

The author explains that earlier regimes had tried to form CDCs, which made the Elders in some communities suspicious of the idea. Some NGOs dealt with this in two ways: IRC made a point of first sitting and talking with Elders before entering a community to organise a CDC, and next had the idea of bringing different CDCs together for peer learning: "[t]he FPs quickly saw the importance of bringing newly formed CDC members together with CDC members from other communities to share experiences, resolve problems and generally learn from a collective discussion. In essence, they tried to provide a platform for horizontal communication to take root. The idea initiated by the FPs within their districts was soon taken up by a larger assembly, which brought together CDCs from different provinces, and gradually spread across the country, leading to a decision to hold a grand Jirga (meeting) of selected members of all CDCs....The Congress represented a broad form of participatory communication, since it became the vehicle for providing a platform for discussion, debate, dialogue and dissent around the pros and cons of NSP implementation. It also opened an opportunity for the NSP organizers - the government and the World Bank - to listen to the CDC voices and concerns, and allowed the CDC members to meet with central government." The PCU was able to record the proceedings and disseminate them, bringing the vertical and horizontal communications into convergence.

Following the congress, although funding for communication in NSP remained, when NGOs asked for funding for communication within their prescribed work they were denied these funds. The author indicates that timing, i.e. the desire to "fast track" state-building, rather than engage participation, was one reason. Another was the assumption that "rolling out" the message was sufficient, instead of "the provision of platforms for dialogue and discussion, or monitoring and evaluation for impact." The third reason is a query concerning whether government is the right vehicle to implement a fully participative programme, or whether "the role of government [should be] to provide the space to enable others (civil society) to facilitate deeper participation for its citizens."

The author concludes "that decision-makers clearly value the role of communication in their development work, but stop short at the entry point for participatory communication...[T]his may be due to lack of knowledge or to the fact that governments and some donors (particularly those who only work through government) simply do not have the intention, mandate, time, money or space within their own agendas to apply a fully participative approach.... Instead of expecting a better participatory approach from those institutions that do not really have participation within their mandate, let’s work with them to help widen their understanding of what others may need to make participation effective. It is well within their mandate to foster this approach. An understanding of the importance of space for slower and longer time-frames for others to enhance participation ultimately ends up beneficial to society."

This article is based on: Quarry, Wendy (2006) "Decision Makers Do Want Communication - What They May Not Want Is Participation", a paper prepared for the World Congress on Communication for Development.