"Mzungu Service" a two-way traffic?

We have to ensure that Danish Development Workers are value for the money. But they should not only be seen as professional experts, argues Bent Nicolajsen, Chairman of MS.

By Bent Nicolajsen

"Can you imagine an MS in the South (MSiS) programme without Danish Development

Workers?" I was asked by the team presently evaluating MS. "Yes," I said, "I can imagine a future where we operate with more flexible concepts than the Danish Development Workers as we know them today. But no, I cannot imagine that the element of intercultural exchange and co-operation between people will disappear from our programmes in the South."

Our Danish name; Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke or MS translates into "interaction between people". That is what this whole thing is all about, interaction between people and not as some of my colleagues in Uganda once suggested, "Mzungu Service". I happen to be the first MS chairman in history, who has actually been a Development Worker. From 1994 to 96 I worked as the Information Officer for MS and her Partners in Uganda. I thus believe that I have a fairly good understanding of how challenging and rewarding the co-operation between a Danish Development Worker and an African Partner organisation can be.

The current MSiS-programme is primarily a Partnership programme and the appreciation of the Partnership approach is key in grasping how intercultural co-operation and the posting of for instance Danish Development Workers should be understood. The MSiS-strategy combines concrete improvements of conditions at the grassroot level with information and lobby work in North as well as in the South. The experience, knowledge, and insights that MS gathers from our Partner organisations in the South are essential in forming the image of the developing world that we attempt to impress upon politicians and people in Denmark. The development workers have an important role to play in this respect.

More than 4000 Danes have until now been out as MS Development Workers in Africa or elsewhere in the South. A recent opinion poll has shown that two thirds of Danish taxpayers prefer to maintain development assistance to a lowering of their taxes. I choose to believe that one reason for this encouraging result is the fact that in nearly each and every Danish work place or community you find someone who has worked and lived in Africa as an MS development worker.

When the Partnership-based MSiS-strategy was introduced ten years ago, it caused some confusion. What was this new role of the Danish Development Worker? Many got the impression that now the DWs were mainly supposed to be advisers. That somehow DWs should keep a low profile and not do much until they were asked for advice. Fortunately, that misunderstanding is not so common any longer. Whereas we have gone a long way, it is nevertheless evident that MS has to be more explicit and clear in defining the role of Danish Development Workers. Both the MSiS programme and the reality are very different from what Danish "volunteers" encountered in earlier days. The situation in a country like Kenya for instance has changed remarkably since 1968. Just consider the present availability of educated Kenyans and access to information and communication. The Danish society is also very different from the one that ventured into collaboration with Africa more than forty years ago. Consequently, the MSiS-programme has undergone a process of fundamental transformation. While our programme approach has been altered, we may not have managed to go all the way in reforming its personnel component. To improve the personnel assistance factor it takes constructive engagement and inputs from MS, Partners, and development workers. Maybe MS should quit its habit of "nursing" DWs. It is of course essential that the development worker be well prepared for her placement in Africa. But for the modern DWs, the posting in South is no longer a foreign and once-in-a-life-time experience. The "motherly" preparation that MS has been practising has to some extent and unintendedly led to less independent and responsible DWs. MS should also be better at utilising the opportunities of flexibility in juggling in a mix of long term DWs, short terms DWs, regional DWs and Southern DWs.

The Partners should also once in a while ask themselves whether they are sufficiently open-minded when they receive and co-operate with a Danish Development Worker. Partner organisations often complain - and rightfully so - that the DWs are not culturally sensitive and respectful towards local ways of doing things. But how much would the Partner organisation benefit from a completely smooth co-operation with an entirely "suitable" and "correct" Danish Development Worker? Maybe the Partners should also question whether they still subscribe to outdated perceptions of the relation between people from the North and the South, between Black and White. If the Partners enter the co-operation in a self-confident manner, it may be easier for them to acknowledge sense in some of the suggestions for change coming from the development worker.

Likewise, the development workers should more sincerely try to strike the balance between being culturally oversensitive and a somewhat passive observer on the one hand to taking on the role as an entrepreneur-like ever-controlling Bwana Manager on the other. DWs of today should be challenged to really appreciate the many things they can learn from working in an African Partner organisation. This could benefit them in their personal as well as in their professional development in an ever-changing globalised labour market.

We are presently discussing how to formulate the role of the DWs in a way, which would clarify and create more realistic expectations in all three corners of the triangle: MS, Partner and development worker. My suggestions are:

The Danish Development worker should be seen as a staff and team member in the Partner organisation. The DW is neither someone who should train one specific counterpart in the organisation nor an advisor or a facilitator who should only be called upon when need arises. In my opinion there is an important signal in saying, "the Partner is in charge". On a day-to-day basis the Partner is the employer of the DW and the DW is a staff member like everybody else.

The Danish Development workers, however, differ from the other staff members in the sense that in some areas she is less qualified that her local colleagues. Many daily activities of the organisation are in much safer hands with the local staff members than with the DW. The DW cannot compete with local staff members when it comes to competences like knowledge of local culture and local language, but her different background and training will often enable her to bring in new ideas on approaches and methodologies in the work.

Whereas the basic professional qualifications have to be in place, the Danish Development Worker should not be seen as a strictly professional resource. If we were only posting Danish Development Workers on a professional merit they would to my mind not be best value for the money. The Danish democracy is in no way perfect. But one of the most encouraging qualities of DWs is that they are active citizens. Democracy is a lifestyle for Danes and in my view this constitutes the most prominent comparative advantage of Danish Development Workers. They have the potential of being ambassadors of a notion of Democracy, which goes far beyond formal rules about elections and government. It is not only a matter of highflying democratic ideals, it is a series of very practical tools that many Danes master due to their upbringing in a rights culture, their involvement in voluntary organisations, and/or local democratic structures. This important aspect has until now received too little attention in the recruitment, selection, and preparation of the DWs as well as in the preparation of the Partners.

I believe that the widespread misunderstanding that DWs are mainly there to do a professional job causes a lot of frustration among DWs and Partner organisations alike. It is fine that the Partner asks for a civil engineer and it is fine if the applicant is trained as such, but it should be clear to both parties that this is not the main point. The main point is that the DW should be prepared to function as an Ambassador of a democratic lifestyle, as an engaged citizen. And the Partner organisation should be prepared for the challenging experience it will be to involve such a person in the day-to-day dealings and big strategic discussions of their organisations.

My thoughts here are not the Gospel Truths. They are rather an invitation to debate. MS, Partners, and DWs alike need to discuss how best to develop, refine, and realise the personnel assistance element. In a world that more than ever needs co-operation between people, it is bound to be very rewarding for all of us.