MS Uganda Newsletter July 2007

Empowering the grassroot communities

Thoughts on working with democracy conceived from the 2007 annual meeting

By Massy-Moses Kasule

Most definitions of democracy seem to point to a universal understanding as to what democracy is. However, the reality on the ground is different and one wonders whether the “democracy concept” has different definitions to the elitist and the unsuspecting poor majority in developing countries. If one was to ask a government functionary in Uganda if there is democracy in the country, the answer will obviously be an emphatic “yes”. Likewise, if the same question was posed to the middle class the answer will be an emphatic “no”. The rural poor or impoverished majority will either not know the answer or will be totally unaware of the democracy concept.

Various approaches
To operationalise the democracy concept in the Ugandan context, one has to take into consideration the classifications of other concepts. Already several studies have surfaced on the different approaches to democracy building. Most discussed dimensions are terms like “Authoritative democracy”, “Representative democracy” and “Participatory democracy”.

Allow me to express my own definition of democracy: Democracy is a conscious process that allows individuals in a community the freedom and right to participate in matters or issues concerning their livelihoods, and take appropriate decisions that contribute towards an equitable allocation of community resources.

MS democracy work
The new democracy focus in MS is a further focus on MS’ work in the south and its lobby and advocacy work globally. Emphasis will be put on empowering the poor first, a bottom–up approach that focuses on the grassroots. The new strategy aims to empower the poor politically, socially and then through participatory decision making. MS hopes to change the present perpetuation of poverty within the rural vulnerable communities. At the same time they hope to achieve the ultimate goal of participation in decision-making and being part of the badly needed accountability and transparency in the Ugandan society.

During the 2007 MS Uganda annual meeting in Jinja, Sarah Muiruri, PAC member MS Kenya observed that poverty is perpetuated by systems of governance. MS at both country and regional level need to rise up and make people at grassroot level aware of their rights, and understand the roles and functions of those in leadership. In this way the poor will be able to demand for accountability and everybody’s voices may be heard in resource allocation.

At the annual meeting, the MS Uganda partners raised a number of questions that can be summarized in one sentence; uncertainty of what will constitute the identification criteria for partnership with MS in the new democracy focus. The facilitator, Frank Muhereza of Center for Basic Research, challenged the partners to find answers to the questions raised and noted that no specific contextual question had been raised. He however assured the MS partners that there exist numerous ways through which they can practice and integrate the new democracy focus into their work.

Partners in all their forms should act as “change agents” in reforming society to appreciate re-organization and suggest structures or societal settings that will develop political, social and economic empowerment for grass root communities (the active and inactive poor). Prof. Dan W. Nabudera emphasized this point and rhetorically asked: “How do we expect the poor to overcome poverty if the very cause of poverty is built within the structures and relations of society?”

Partners as change agents could arrange seminars, meetings that will include all, both young and old regardless of education levels. The seminars and meetings ought to focus on raising awareness and enlightening the poor on the need for collectiveness in overcoming the daily barriers of poverty eradication. Partners could encourage disaggregating of societies from the present known arrangement of all farmers association to for example, maize farmers, rice farmers, cabbage farmers, bee keepers, credit and saving, and tomato farmers associations.

Danish perspective on democracy building
I believe they are right. The structures need to change and to change for the benefit of the poor. But the key point is that the poor have to participate in the change of structures otherwise everything will remain the same to the benefit of the few.
Based on my 26 years(1980-2006) experience in the Danish society with its multitude of community associations and cooperative societies, I am inclined to think that these could be good vehicles in building democracy right from the grass root level as was and still is the case in Denmark.

In Denmark women, men, the youth, you name it have associations (popularly known as “foreninger”) in every thinkable section or sector of the society. The formalization of these associations has made every citizen a participant in decision making. In Denmark a citizen can be a member of several associations. The citizens own up to their decisions and questions are usually asked for the sake of accountability and transparency. “One thing is certain about Denmark as a country today, participatory or societal democracy is key to all decision making in the society and this makes Denmark one of the most democratic countries in the world. (Democracy Journal-Cambridge)¹

New type of citizens
The introduction of democracy in Denmark began in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was a great challenge which deeply affected the social and economic structures of the country. It demanded completely new attitudes from the general public and indeed a new type of citizen; enlightened and active. One of the pillars of democracy in the country was the “Danish folk high school” which attracted the young men and women from the country side .

The “Danish folk high School” popularly known as “high school for the people” can be defined as institutions established for citizens to attend and from which they have a platform to exchange ideas and gain experience from fellow citizens, as regards to their daily work and activities. The main reason behind the high schools was to raise the citizens’ awareness of their surroundings, and after a pre-determined stay at the folk school young men and women went home enlightened. All citizens, young and old had the same opportunity to attend the high school regardless of their academic levels. This encouraged the poor peasants in great numbers to take up the opportunity.

Politicised peasants
According to Gunner Skov Andersen (President, Danish Cooperative Wholesale Society –FDB), N.F.S Grundtvig, the father of the Folk High School, was actually thinking along political lines when he proposed the idea of having an “enlightened and active population.”

At the time of setting the consultative provisional assemblies in Denmark in 1834 Grundtvig had already realized, that if the poor peasant farmers was to play an active participatory role in the affairs of the state, their horizons ought to be widened. To Grundtvig it was clear “especially” to his apprentices that the most important point was not the democratic organs and state affairs, but more so the peasants daily work. The peasants, young and old, should have a new view of themselves as people, and as citizens of society with knowledge of the surroundings and the need to be organized on central issues of common interests. The scepticism that the cooperative idea or movements met from the higher circles of society were overwhelmed by the practical advantages. It was these advantages that decided the matter.

Learning curve
MS’ new democracy focus calls for MS partners to act and devise tools for implementing the new democracy focus within the communities, starting with the grass-root rural poor. The requirement is to enhance and create a culture of participation, fairness, transparency, and efficiency among key local actors, with the end result of poverty eradication throughout the communities. The present and future partners have the challenge to transform themselves into agents of change in society.

My experience tells me that the Danish cooperative movement could be a good learning curve in the process of enlightening the grassroots, mostly the youth and women which groups are the most vulnerable social groups within the Ugandan society. Already now some MS partners in Mbale Eastern Uganda are using an approach similar to the Danish folk high school, and only need strengthening through further training in the dimension values of cooperatives in relation to MS New democracy focus.

Massy-Moses Kasule, is a Development Worker working as a Roving Financial Management Advisor,
Email: kasulemm@hotmail.com