PARTICIPATION:

Knowledge and History

Participation as a buzzword has been a heated discourse in development purview. It is

constantly contested as it has diverse understandings and applications throughout
development discourse (Rahnema 1992; Mosse 2001; Parfitt 2004; Mansuri & Rao 2013).
Cornwall and Brock (2005) noted that participation, as a buzzword, has a significant role in
the development realm because it can bolster a feeling of togetherness and purposefulness
in the term of constructing the framework of problems and their solutions in development.
Participation has relatively big apportionment in shaping development up to the point where
it became a most discussed topic of development discourse (Mansuri & Rao 2013).
Modern participation firstly formulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18 th century
which is fundamental in modern development colloquy. He emphasized educative value of
participation. Rousseau asserted that participation was not only how to achieve the decision
but also to make every citizen learn how to involved and has a sense of belonging in the
community (Mansuri & Rao 2013). Jumping to 20th century, participation was foreseen to be
a more advantageous way to implicating development within the citizens (Rahnema 1992;
Cornwall 2006; Mansuri & Rao 2013). In the middle of 20 th century, participation became one
of the radical popular movements. The left used participation in the social movements in
which they make it a symbol of rights and voices of the oppressed (Cornwall & Brock 2005).
Along the way, its radical connotation washed away and being the object of mainstream
development (Mosse 2001). Thereafter, the debate of participation become intense when
there was different opinion in the theoretical coherence and the practice of it (Parfitt 2004). In
the modern development, some researchers argue that participation has become output
oriented and it defying the significant impact of participation. It shows how power relations
play key role in the project which can induce deviation of the outcome (Rahnema 1992;
Chambers 1997; Mosse 2001). On the contrary, some other researchers believe that
participation can survive the deviation that mainstream development agent impose. It also
can be improved because of the growing of civil society who can flourish the participation in
a better way (Parfitt 2004; Mansuri & Rao 2013).
As an object of the dominant development, participation would not flourish without any
knowledge involved. The real participation cannot be accomplished if people do not have
power (Arnstein 1969). It is not possible for power to be exercised without knowledge, it is
impossible for knowledge not to engender power (Foucault 1980). In other words, power of
knowledge has significant role in the essence of participation.
Arnstein (1969) asserted that participation can be distinguished into three degrees of
participation: Nonparticipation, Degree of tokenism, and degree of citizen power, it is parallel
with the degree of knowledge of have-nots. In the first degree, people become the object of
development and have no clue about it. The power-holders forcing development into the
grassroots in attempt to cure them. In the second degree, people still be the object of
development. However, they can have a little information in development and have right to

be heard. But, the final decision making is still the government. The final degree happens
when people have the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power (Arnstein
1969).
We can exemplify the degree of participation with its application. Community Driven
Development Program that was supported by World Bank in Indonesia that had been
applied from 1997 to 2014. Implemented in rural area, this program requires the
beneficiaries to involve in the whole process from planning to reporting. They have
facilitators to guide them in the process of developing their village. In one case in rural
Papua, participation was in the second degree of participation. The residents of the village
are indigenous people who are uneducated. This was the starting point when the program
deviated from its original purpose. The process of village assembly was dominated by
facilitators. The villagers were only being informed about what they will do during the
development process. Almost all the planning came from the facilitator except minor
adjustments due to the village conditions. What happened here was facilitators have power
over villagers because the villagers have no knowledge about the program and the
development that they should do. In the other case, in one of villages in West Java, people
had been successfully implementing participatory development. They held their own village
assembly. Facilitators only facilitate what was villagers need during the process of
development. They planed, done, and reported the program appropriately. It is because of
most of locals is educated person with minimal of high school degree holder. Moreover, the
residents were well informed about the program and what kind of development that they
should do. This example brings about the firms apprehension that knowledge has powerful
effect on participatory development.
The conclusion of this essay is participation is a tool to set a framework on how citizen
partaking in development. Participation has wade through development discourse until it
become what we apprehend today whilst it has differences in perspective and application.
Power of knowledge set an important role in the participation application. It depends on the
development agency whether or not they want to make it as a real citizen control or just
manipulation.

List of references:
Arnstein, S. (1969) 'A Ladder of Citizen Participation', Journal of the
American Planning Association 35(4): 216-224.
Chamber, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts?: Putting the First Last. London:
Intermediate Technology.

Cornwall, A. and K. Brock What Do Buzzwords Do for Development Policy?

A Critical Look at Participation, Third World Quarterly 26(7): 1043-1060
Cornwall, A. (2006) 'Historical Perspectives on Participation
Development', Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 44(1): 62-83.

in

Foucault, M. (1980) Prison Talk, in Gordon, C. (ed). Power/Knowledge:

Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, pp. 37-54. London:
The Harvester Press.
Mansuri, G. and V. Rao (2013) Localizing Development: Does Participation
Work? US: World Bank Publications.

Mosse, D. (2001) 'People's Knowledge', Participation and Patronage:

Operations and Representations in Rural Development, in Cooke, B. and
U. Kothari (eds). Participation: The New Tyranny?, pp. 384-393. London:
Zed Book.
Parfitt, T. (2004) The Ambiguity of Participation: A Qualified Defense of
Participatory Development, Third World Quarterly 25(3): 537-555.
Rahnema, M. (1992) Participation, in Sachs, W. (ed), The Development
Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Pp. 127-144. London; Atlantic
Highlands, N.J.: Zed Books.