What's next for Madagascar from this mickey-mouse regime?
It almost looks like the new dictator, uh, I mean, oh, what do you call someone who takes power supported by the armed forces? TGV? HAT? M-O-U-S-E.
So, it looks like The Mouse is trying to continue to exercise power while he starts to see the futility of his efforts. On Tuesday, Radio France Internationale (RFI) was reporting on the first of the protests by pro-Ravalomanana citizens, and they planned daily protests until the deposed president is back in power. One of the national radio systems, affiliated with Rajoelina, broadcasts RFI news in the mornings, but with a three-second delay from the original transmission, as I listen to it via my satellite television connection while my neighbors blast it on their radios. But the report on the protests began via my satellite, and the local radio station went into music rather than continue reporting the news.
However, on Wednesday, as The Mouse caves under international pressure to hold a referendum, the broadcast report of his gesture of good will was not cut off. Why do I get the feeling that this is just a ploy to buy time and will never come to fruition? Can't wait to see what comes next.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Dripchak on the Malagasy “Transfer of Power”
So much for democracy. As someone who had won two popular elections, I would think that there would have been more support for Ravalomanana, but things are never as they seem. I, personally, thought that Ravalomanana would never quit because he had all sorts of legal supports, such as a constitution that provided mechanisms for removing the President, as well as international pressure on the country to avoid a transition that did not come from democratic elections. Apparently, this is of no concern to Rajoelina, who plans to rewrite the constitution, probably to fit his needs, since he is six years too young to hold the office. And, as the BBC so aptly put it:
“Mr Rajoelina had said the president has been a tyrant who misspent public money but Mr Ravalomanana's supporters said his rival is a young troublemaker who has not offered any policy alternatives.” (See article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7949596.stm )
An Associated Press story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_af/af_madagascar) said, “Rajoelina, however, comes from the wealthy minority that has had a stranglehold on Madagascar's politics.
The African Union has a rule to the effect that any country that experiences a change of leaders through any means other than democratic elections can no longer be a member of the AU. This year will be particularly interesting because the AU was planning to hold their summit in Antananarivo, and many businesspeople were in the process of investing in infrastructure, more specifically hotels and service industries, in anticipation of the event. While the global economic crisis begins to cool off elsewhere, it’s getting worse here.
I live on the east coast, where most people do not / did not like Ravalomanana, and are happy to “have their way,” in a sense though this is not their candidate. But there are people here who say they did not see that Ravalomanana did anything wrong. They recognize many of the positive things he did for the economy, even while stating outright their suspicions that he probably had his fingers in every deal so as to obtain personal gain.
We’ll see how things evolve. Hopefully, I’ll be able to stay…
So much for democracy. As someone who had won two popular elections, I would think that there would have been more support for Ravalomanana, but things are never as they seem. I, personally, thought that Ravalomanana would never quit because he had all sorts of legal supports, such as a constitution that provided mechanisms for removing the President, as well as international pressure on the country to avoid a transition that did not come from democratic elections. Apparently, this is of no concern to Rajoelina, who plans to rewrite the constitution, probably to fit his needs, since he is six years too young to hold the office. And, as the BBC so aptly put it:
“Mr Rajoelina had said the president has been a tyrant who misspent public money but Mr Ravalomanana's supporters said his rival is a young troublemaker who has not offered any policy alternatives.” (See article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7949596.stm )
An Associated Press story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_af/af_madagascar) said, “Rajoelina, however, comes from the wealthy minority that has had a stranglehold on Madagascar's politics.
The African Union has a rule to the effect that any country that experiences a change of leaders through any means other than democratic elections can no longer be a member of the AU. This year will be particularly interesting because the AU was planning to hold their summit in Antananarivo, and many businesspeople were in the process of investing in infrastructure, more specifically hotels and service industries, in anticipation of the event. While the global economic crisis begins to cool off elsewhere, it’s getting worse here.
I live on the east coast, where most people do not / did not like Ravalomanana, and are happy to “have their way,” in a sense though this is not their candidate. But there are people here who say they did not see that Ravalomanana did anything wrong. They recognize many of the positive things he did for the economy, even while stating outright their suspicions that he probably had his fingers in every deal so as to obtain personal gain.
We’ll see how things evolve. Hopefully, I’ll be able to stay…
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Dripchak on "Developmentality: What, if anything, were they thinking?"
“Development” per se, is not a product but a process. It never ends. For example, say you’ve mastered creating formulas in an Excel spreadsheet, and now you want to automate the process with macros. Once that’s done, you want to move onto programming in Visual Basic so you can go beyond one spreadsheet, and on and on. I have never “targeted” development, but rather applied it toward a prioritized list of needs at a community level. The objective is to work oneself out of a job, and that the works left behind are important enough to the villagers, who have been trained, that they alone ensure maintenance and improvements.
That said, the process of development is often controlled through “facipulation” or facilitating the process toward some prescribed goals and objectives, thus manipulating the outcome. Faci + pulation. Might as well be open about it. There are so many agendas to deal with in a project that the “facipulator” has to know how to work his/her way through the morass of conflicting desires.
As for the idea of turning everyone into “little consumers like those of us in the US,” NO! Self-sufficiency is the goal. In fact, I’m often embarrassed by the opinions of Americans that I’ve come across in my work, many of which have been right on the mark, or others so far off that they inspire outrageous laughter, until you investigate where the opinion came from.
I originally joined the Peace Corps because I did not find working in the US of A potentially rewarding for me. There are so many social safeguards that my work would only bring satisfaction to me, if that were possible, but my satisfaction comes from knowing I might have helped someone do something better than s/he used to do it, and that I might have inspired the curiosity of that person to further test and improve the method. It’s kind of like watching and helping kids grow up. They beam with every new discovery, and when so inspired, go on to test other aberrations of your theory.
I completely agree with my colleague about learning overseas. I knew early on that I was only one person with a limited set of skills to share with others, while they were hundreds, each with something new for me. I definitely made out on that score! Never thought I could save the world, but I wanted to inspire the “Think Globally, Act Locally” approach to changing things. Another ‘ism that became prevalent during my work has been, “If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem.” Too many times people who are excluded from processes sit on the sidelines and bitch about how things should be. I have seen many cases where getting them off their asses have been both positive and negative, but it was definitely better than listening to them bitch! And understanding WHY they are like that is tantamount to making any progress whatsoever.
This gets back to something we (?) used in the PC which was participatory appraisals. So many “experts” talk about how easy it is to do a PRA, but they obviously don’t have a clue. In the Congo recently, a researcher who was an ex-PCV in west Africa said something to the effect that after her two years in the PC, she thought a PRA was quick and easy. I did all I could to resist writing back to her to say that because I went to the zoo as a child, that I was an expert on elephants. When I was in Guatemala, we brought a woman from Virginia Tech to help train staff in PRA. The phrase that rings true to this day in my head is, “It’s the process and NOT the product.” She was SOOOOO right!
Some further thoughts:
I was once the point person for the organization in Guatemala for a “research” project under the USG SANREM project. The gurus from Virginia Tech thought I was dragging my feet on the process, but this was because they had not a clue what participation entailed, and I was in charge of the participatory appraisal component.
While in the Republic of Congo, I investigated why the economic alternative component had not been successful in the past. A former employee who had been responsible for it immediately confirmed my initial analysis that “the numbers” were far more important than the quality of the project. He said they were under pressure to reach and register as “participants” as many beneficiaries in the project area as soon as possible.
Again, a grave misunderstanding as to what “participatory” might imply.
When faced with a contrary opinion from the farmer’s side as to a recommendation from the extensionist, one needs to invest the time to understand why this is the case. What might be the reason(s) behind the non-acceptance of the extensionist’s sage advice.
Anyhow, hope this little message inspires some thought on the part of those of us who still have an impact on other peoples’ lives.
“Development” per se, is not a product but a process. It never ends. For example, say you’ve mastered creating formulas in an Excel spreadsheet, and now you want to automate the process with macros. Once that’s done, you want to move onto programming in Visual Basic so you can go beyond one spreadsheet, and on and on. I have never “targeted” development, but rather applied it toward a prioritized list of needs at a community level. The objective is to work oneself out of a job, and that the works left behind are important enough to the villagers, who have been trained, that they alone ensure maintenance and improvements.
That said, the process of development is often controlled through “facipulation” or facilitating the process toward some prescribed goals and objectives, thus manipulating the outcome. Faci + pulation. Might as well be open about it. There are so many agendas to deal with in a project that the “facipulator” has to know how to work his/her way through the morass of conflicting desires.
As for the idea of turning everyone into “little consumers like those of us in the US,” NO! Self-sufficiency is the goal. In fact, I’m often embarrassed by the opinions of Americans that I’ve come across in my work, many of which have been right on the mark, or others so far off that they inspire outrageous laughter, until you investigate where the opinion came from.
I originally joined the Peace Corps because I did not find working in the US of A potentially rewarding for me. There are so many social safeguards that my work would only bring satisfaction to me, if that were possible, but my satisfaction comes from knowing I might have helped someone do something better than s/he used to do it, and that I might have inspired the curiosity of that person to further test and improve the method. It’s kind of like watching and helping kids grow up. They beam with every new discovery, and when so inspired, go on to test other aberrations of your theory.
I completely agree with my colleague about learning overseas. I knew early on that I was only one person with a limited set of skills to share with others, while they were hundreds, each with something new for me. I definitely made out on that score! Never thought I could save the world, but I wanted to inspire the “Think Globally, Act Locally” approach to changing things. Another ‘ism that became prevalent during my work has been, “If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem.” Too many times people who are excluded from processes sit on the sidelines and bitch about how things should be. I have seen many cases where getting them off their asses have been both positive and negative, but it was definitely better than listening to them bitch! And understanding WHY they are like that is tantamount to making any progress whatsoever.
This gets back to something we (?) used in the PC which was participatory appraisals. So many “experts” talk about how easy it is to do a PRA, but they obviously don’t have a clue. In the Congo recently, a researcher who was an ex-PCV in west Africa said something to the effect that after her two years in the PC, she thought a PRA was quick and easy. I did all I could to resist writing back to her to say that because I went to the zoo as a child, that I was an expert on elephants. When I was in Guatemala, we brought a woman from Virginia Tech to help train staff in PRA. The phrase that rings true to this day in my head is, “It’s the process and NOT the product.” She was SOOOOO right!
Some further thoughts:
I was once the point person for the organization in Guatemala for a “research” project under the USG SANREM project. The gurus from Virginia Tech thought I was dragging my feet on the process, but this was because they had not a clue what participation entailed, and I was in charge of the participatory appraisal component.
While in the Republic of Congo, I investigated why the economic alternative component had not been successful in the past. A former employee who had been responsible for it immediately confirmed my initial analysis that “the numbers” were far more important than the quality of the project. He said they were under pressure to reach and register as “participants” as many beneficiaries in the project area as soon as possible.
Again, a grave misunderstanding as to what “participatory” might imply.
When faced with a contrary opinion from the farmer’s side as to a recommendation from the extensionist, one needs to invest the time to understand why this is the case. What might be the reason(s) behind the non-acceptance of the extensionist’s sage advice.
Anyhow, hope this little message inspires some thought on the part of those of us who still have an impact on other peoples’ lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
