Working Paper Series FROM SUBJECTS TO CITIZENS: Local Participation in the National Solidarity Programme By Inger W. Boesen August 2004 Funding for this study was provided by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, and the governments of Sweden and Switzerland. © 2004 The Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU). All rights reserved. This working paper was prepared by an independent consultant with no previous involvement in the activities evaluated. The views and opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of AREU. Acknowledgments The present report attempts to convey the richness of data and information that has been gathered during 29 days of fieldwork between March 4th and April 14th, 2004 involving interaction with villagers and NGO staff engaged in the National Solidarity Programme (NSP). My special thanks are due to the people in the communities visited during the study – to the women and men who took their time, in a graceful Afghan manner, to tell us about their expectations and perceptions of the project, their history and experience of the past, and their hopes for the future. Thanks are also due to the highly motivated and engaged national and international staff of the Facilitating Partner NGOs who are implementing the NSP, both for their willingness to share the wealth of information they have about the programme, and for their generous hospitality and practical support during the research in the provinces and districts. Warm thanks are also due to the research team; the AREU drivers – Laghman, who escorted us in the Pashtun villages of Qarabagh, and Shikeb, who drove us around with undaunted courage in the districts of Baghlan and Jawzjan on sometimes near to impossible village roads; Jalil and Anil, the translators; and the female NGO staff who accompanied us as translators for the discussions with women in the communities. Also thanks to Alexia Coke at AREU for her comments on this paper, and Brandy Bauer for editing the piece. Table of Contents Definitions................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 2 1.1 Overview ................................................................................... 2 1.2 Study Methodology........................................................................ 3 2. History of Democratic Participation in Afghanistan .......................................... 5 2.1. State and Local Participation in the History and Development of Afghanistan: “Democracy from Above” ............................................................... 5 2.2. The National Solidarity Programme.................................................... 7 2.3 Afghan Women and Participation in Community Decision-Making ................ 8 3. The Districts and Communities ................................................................. 10 3.1. Qarabagh District, Kabul Province ....................................................10 3.2. Dahna-e-Ghori and Andarab Districts, Baghlan Province ..........................10 3.3. Aqcha, Faizabad, and Khwaja-de-Koh Districts, Jawzjan Province..............12 3.4. Security ....................................................................................12 4. The Facilitating Partners: Approach and Practices......................................... 14 4.1. Sanayee Development Foundation (SDF) .............................................14 4.2. Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) .............................................14 4.3. GOAL (Ireland)............................................................................15 4.4. Actionaid ..................................................................................16 4.5. The Role of Community Facilitators (CFs) ...........................................17 5. Communities’ Perceptions of NSP.............................................................. 19 5.1. General Views of NSP ...................................................................19 5.2. Perceptions of the Government's Role in NSP .......................................22 5.3. Men’s and Women’s Access to Information ..........................................23 5.4. Development Needs and Projects .....................................................24 5.5. Ashar & Community Cooperation, Contribution and Self-Reliance ..............27 6. Elections for CDCs ................................................................................. 29 6.1. Perspectives and Expectations of Elections and Voting ...........................30 6.2. Male vs. Female Participation .........................................................30 6.3. Motives for Election of CDC Representatives........................................35 6.4. Electoral Clusters – Locality, Kinship, or Both? .....................................36 6.5. Secret Voting and Voting as “Fair and Free”? .......................................37 6.6. Interference in Elections by Local Elites and Political Parties ...................39 7. CDCs – Perceptions and Practices .............................................................. 42 7.1. The CDC as a “New Shura” .............................................................42 7.2. Views about the Future of CDCs .......................................................47 8. Women’s Participation in NSP, CDCs and Women’s Shura ................................ 48 8.1. Perceptions of Women’s Participation and Access to Information...............48 8.2. The Women’s “Shura”...................................................................52 8.3. Men’s and Women's Shuras and Women's Project Proposals ......................54 9. Main Findings ...................................................................................... 57 10. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................... 61 1. Strengthen the Methods and Activities of the Facilitating Partner......................62 2. Promote Women's Participation...............................................................63 3. Develop Income-Generating Projects ........................................................63 4. Strengthen the Long-Term Constitution and Sustainability of the CDCs ...............63 References ............................................................................................. 65 From Subjects to Citizens: Local Participation in the NSP Definitions Participation “Participation is a process through which stakeholders influence, and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them.”1 Livelihoods “…refers to the sum of ways and means by which individuals, households, and communities make and sustain a living over time, using a combination of social, economic, cultural and environmental resources.”2 Jerib Approximately one-fifth of a hectare (2000 square metres) Family For the purpose of the present study, the following definition of “family” - evolved by NSP for the purpose of the programme - is adopted. A family is defined as a nuclear family consisting of a man, his wife (or wives) and unmarried children, or a widow(er) and her/his unmarried children.3 Household In the present study, the concept of “household” is understood as either a nuclear family or an extended family, which may include several generations, interrelated through patrilineal descent and with common interests in the management of shared assets and family honour (house, land, animal flocks, or other assets).4 This definition requires some comment, as it is wider than more narrow definitions currently used by some researchers, according to which a household is defined as “persons eating from the same pot.”5 Thus it reflects the attempts of the research team to capture the fluidity and complexity of Afghan concepts in relation to different social arrangements and situational contexts. For example, a typical extended household would consist of several related nuclear families and could comprise a male household head and his wife or wives, their unmarried children, as well as their married sons with wives or co-wives together with their unmarried offspring. Notwithstanding the shared interests that the members of such a household might hold in shared assets such as land or the household compound itself, the household would comprise multiple cooking places, and the groups “eating together from the same pot” could in practice consist of the different nuclear families, or of different co-wives and their children cooking and eating separately, 6 all depending on their specific personal relationships. 1 The World Bank. “Environmentally Sustainable Development.” The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. 1996; 3. 2 Pain, A. and Lautze, S. Addressing Livelihoods in Afghanistan. Kabul: AREU. 2002; 1. 3 NSP Operational Manual, 20 March 2004; 8. 4 See for example Boesen, I. W. “Conflicts of Solidarity in Pakhtun Women's Lives.” In: Utas, B. (ed.): Women in Islamic Societies. Social Attitudes and Historical Perspectives. (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies; now Nordisk Institut for Asiensforskning (NIAS)). London: Curzon Press. 1983; and Christensen, A. “ Agnates, Affines and Allies: Patterns of Marriage among Pakhtun in Kunar.” In: FOLK, (Danish Ethnographic Association) 1982: 24. 5 Hunte, P. A. Some Notes on the Livelihoods of the Urban Poor in Kabul, Afghanistan. Kabul: AREU. 2004. 6 Boesen, I. W. “Women,