Are we really aware of the development we continue to 'so vividly' accept. What is the model of development Papua New Guinea should be growing by? the jay-walking ends now and today we choose to walk with direction.

Source: Kevin J. Barr

January, 2012

Development and Modernisation

Pacific Island Societies had been in existence for hundreds of years before being “discovered” by navigators from various countries in Europe. One can argue that indigenous Pacific societies survived in the Pacific for thousands of years prior to European contact through their indigenous forms of governance, their appropriate forms of technology and a strong communal ethic of caring and sharing. In time the European empires (in particular Britain and France) laid claim to the Pacific Islands they had “discovered” and annexed them as colonies. As time went by a familiar process occurred in our Pacific Island societies. The colonial administrators were followed by Christian missionaries of various denominations, and traders who sought not only to sell their wares but also to look for products they could sell back home – sandalwood, beche-de-mer, etc. All these outside influences had an impact on our Pacific Island societies and gradually brought about changes in almost every aspect of life – from religion, to political and economic organization, to education and cultural aspirations.

Europe itself had been going through a long series of changes that radically transformed it. There was the Reformation (which changed the religious map of Europe), the Enlightenment (which brought new philosophies, a stress on reason and the need for a scientific approach to life), the emergence of the capitalist system of economics, and then the Industrial Revolution which led to the age of machines, urbanization and economic development. The newly “discovered” colonies in Africa, the Pacific and elsewhere became a new source of raw materials and labour for economic development in the home country. The colonial powers set about establishing new forms of government, religion, education and economic life. Although the colonizers often expressed their respect for the traditional ways of life and used traditional chiefs for a system of “indirect rule”, they introduced systems that were to radically challenge and transform our Pacific societies. They were seen to be in need of development by their colonial masters and that meant moving into the modern world.

As Alumita Duratalo states: “Development was the driving force for the realization of modern societies”. The model for development used was always taken from their own European background. “While the rise of the modern state in Europe took hundreds of years, its version extended to the Third World through colonialism occurred overnight and overlooked the peculiarities of different societies all over the world.” The basic assumption was that if the development formula of the West was adopted in the Third World, then it would experience the same sequence of “economic growth, social stability and democratization” as happened in the First World. This optimistic prognosis however was disproved by the deteriorating pattern of events in the Third World which ranged from military coups, repression, corruption and communal strife, to name a few.

The colonial powers seemed to think of development purely in terms of establishing democracy, educating the elites, promoting economic growth according to a capitalist model and making “developing”, “under-developed” or “Third World” countries into copies of the so-called “developed” nations of the world as if the model they provided is the model for all to follow. But is it? As a number of South American theorists stated, this model created “dependency” and the Third World would never be developed if they continued their dependent link to the First World and its capitalist system. How are we to measure what authentic development is all about? Did not the traditional ways of our Pacific societies also offer alternative models of how society can be organized for the good of all? Following the end of World War II most of the colonial powers prepared their colonies for “independence”. Yet in reality the independent nations were considered successful only insofar as they followed the model provided for them by their former colonial masters. Around this time also the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were established to assist post-war development as well as the development of former colonies. Based as they were on a capitalist economic model (with strong input from the United States) they sought to bring the whole of the “free” world under one economic system which came to be known as neo-liberal free-market capitalism. Thus we had the emergence of the term “globalization”.

Loans were provided to developing nations by the World Bank and IMF on condition that they followed a series of “structural adjustment policies” which included so-called “tax reforms”, “labour reforms”, privatization, reduction in the size of government and cutting down on social expenditure. When these countries were unable to repay the loans, they incurred huge debts which lead them into greater poverty and inequality.

It is worth recalling the prophetic statement of Susan George in her book How the Other Half Dies – The Real Reasons for World Hunger (1976:17):

“The West has tried to apply its own conceptions of development in the Third World, working through local elites and pretending that the benefits showered on these elites would trickle down to the less fortunate. … These methods have not produced a single independent and viable economy in the entire Third World – and in fact were not meant to. ‘Development’ has been the password for imposing a new dependency, for enriching the already rich world and for shaping other societies to meet its commercial and political needs.”

Blum affirms that the US – the great proponent of democracy in the world – is interested in democracy only insofar as it promotes the economic system of neo-liberal capitalism. This confirms the assessment that, on the whole, the modernization paradigm with its underlying theory of development was purely economic and concentrated on economic growth and capital formation. It aimed to integrate Third World economies into the neo-liberal capitalist system which is dominated by the West. Thus, when the US and the West pushes Human Rights and Democracy as integral to its agenda, globalization becomes another form of colonization.

The Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) booklet Peace Means Economic Justice (2005) points at globalisation and sees it as “a global attempt to monopolise the economies of the world through one economic system (capitalism) and to bring everyone under its control”. They access the impact of globalisation as being “disastrous” and “creating new threats to human security” especially in terms of “economic inequality”.

Good Governance

When the World Bank and IMF structural adjustment policies failed in so many Third World countries, it was assumed that the problem was bad governance and a “good governance agenda” was formulated to rectify these developmental problems. In 1996 the IMF declared that promoting good governance through its various aims such as: strengthening the rule of law, improving the efficiency and accountability of the public sector and eradicating corruption can promote economic growth in any state.

When member countries seek financial support from the IMF they must include details of their economic policies and the specific measures they are taking to ensure good governance. This strategy is now part of the new “conditionality” for receiving aid from most of the financial institutions and lending agencies globally.

However such a strategy for promoting development through governance is viewed by a number of scholars (mostly from the developing world) as biased and reflect a lack of understanding of the social realities in the developing world. Parthasarathy, for example, says: “a focus on political, administrative and economic reforms, ignores social structures and divisions with crucial implications for poverty and equity dimensions of development programs and policies.” He further argues that the good governance agenda are determined on their potential to generate profits and hence continue to promote globalization and push the neo-liberal capitalist agenda. The good governance baggage conceals the power relationships that are involved in its production and distribution. “It defends a universal model of good governance based on specific ways of approaching issues of democracy, freedom, development and human rights.” He calls this “cultural imperialism” and says it exacerbates the problem of poverty rather than eradicating it (which is one of the main goals of the good governance agenda).

The Samoan writer, Iatilati, argues:

“These policies were predominantly derived from the socio-political experience of western countries. The transference of these policies raises at least one critical issue: can systems and institutions that were developed through western experience be replicated in Pacific Island countries and what impact they will have?”

3. Christian Voices of Concern in the Pacific

The values of compassion. mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, generosity and social justice mentioned above are gospel values which resonate with the traditional values of most Pacific Island countries where relationships in community, caring and sharing and reconciliation are to be found. They provide an alternative way to that of so-called “modernisation”. Yet in many Pacific Island societies they are under threat, being challenged by “modern” ways and are slowly dying. In an address to the South Pacific Association of Theological Schools (SPATS) on the 10th June 2002 the late Savenaca Siwatibau then Vice Chancellor of USP spoke of the tremendous changes brought about by individualism and the capitalist economy on the traditional societies of the Pacific. He spoke of poverty, the dislocation of family life, inequality, corruption and the inability of governments to really address these issues. He asked "What can the Churches do?" He noted that, in the past, the Churches have mostly been active as social welfare agents ministering to the needs of the victims of society but rarely addressing the root causes that created these problems in the first place. He then recalled the words of Dom Helder Camara: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint but, when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." He then continued: "I believe that the churches have a very important and critical role to play in the Pacific today, not only to be called saints but also not to be afraid to be called 'communists'. Church leaders and theological teachers need to begin to question why things are as they are, to analyse the root causes, and to seek solutions rooted in the basic values of Christianity that all religions share."

The Vice Chancellor then posed a number of questions for the Churches:

"Should the Churches stick to their role as saints and administer only to spiritual needs and physical needs of victims? Do they ask questions about root causes and seek answers to correct these? Does the Church remain only the saint and therefore accept that the majority of our peoples may continue to be marginalized and remain deprived of the benefits of development? Does it also dare to be called 'communist' following the example of Jesus when he overthrew the tables of the money changers and chased out those who traded in the temple of God in Jerusalem. To ask questions about causes is to analyse, to publicise and to work to root out the causes of exploitation, of oppression and of corruption in our countries. It is not to be afraid to question those in power. Is it possible that the churches can be accused of cowardly silence or even compliance, in the face of abuse of power by those who wield it in our countries?"

Mr. Siwatibau noted that the Churches and Church leaders are respected and wield considerable influence in our societies and asked what they should be doing to curb the scourge of corruption, entrench good governance and strong leadership in the societies of the Pacific because: "the churches have an important role in assisting those who wield power to do so with compassion and justice. … As a layperson, my understanding is that Jesus was a social activist who was fearless of those in power, and did not hesitate to expose their hypocrisy and corruption. How far will the churches in today's Pacific follow his footsteps?"

Another layperson who has challenged the Churches of the Pacific is Manfred Ernst who in his book Winds of Change (1994:287-288) wrote: "The mainline Churches are not over politicized, as conservative opponents argue, but underpoliticised.

This is related to a lack of vision that has kept the Churches too long in the role of passive spectators of an increasingly unjust socio-political order. At the centre of any vision should be the poor, the exploited, those in need, those without voice or power."

Is it possible that the churches could be accused of cowardly silence or even compliance? Are the Churches passive spectators of an increasingly unjust socio-political order? These are challenging questions we need to face.

Some Perspectives on Development

A. United Nations

The primary objective of development is to benefit people - to enable them to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives:

• Long life expectancy (involves adequate nutrition and good health care);

• To be educated and so be literate and have knowledge (up to as high a standard as possible);

• To enjoy a decent standard of living (with access to the resources needed for this such as land, income, credit);

• To enjoy political, social and economic freedom;

• To have opportunities to be creative and productive;

• To enjoy personal self-respect and be guaranteed human rights.

Note: Economic growth measured in terms of GDP is simply a means to the end of benefiting people.

B. The Christian Vision of Development

“It is not just a matter of eliminating hunger, or even of reducing poverty. The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary is not enough. It is a question rather of building a world where every person, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed by others or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control, a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at table with the rich man. This demands great generosity, much sacrifice and unceasing effort on the part of the rich man.” (#47 On the Development of Peoples, 1967 Pope Paul VI)

C. A Third World Perspective

We want:

• Justice: cease oppression and exploitation of Third World peoples;

• To be self-reliant;

• Enough economic growth to sustain a good quality of life;

• Just trade agreements.

Therefore the rich nations must:

• Change/simplify their lifestyles away from over-consumption;

• Stop controlling Third World countries;

• Share their resources;

• Become partners in the process of mutual human development.

Similar sentiments shared by ACTNOW! PNG can be accessed on the link below; http://www.actnowpng.org/campaigns/promote%20an%20alternative%20model%20of%20development