Opinion: How to get from rhetoric to reality in decolonizing development

To decolonize global development, status quo or slow change is not an option. Transformation is the only viable alternative. It is imperative that the sector’s global leadership channel the positive push for a shift in power by decolonizing areas such as organizational design and structure, the distribution of money, and how knowledge and competence are valued. Events such as the brutal death of George Floyd and the ensuing momentum against structural racism, the rise of authoritarianism, declining aid, humanitarian crises, and initiatives like the “Grand Bargain” and INGO Pledge for Change, though seemingly disparate, collectively highlight the urgent need to decolonize the global development sector. Yet large philanthropic foundations, bilateral donors, and international nongovernmental organizations have been slow, even reluctant in some cases, to change and shift the power. While the decolonization rhetoric is publicly embraced by many global north groups, actions to give it substantive roots remain hollow. This has eroded the legitimacy of the political project of decolonization, leading to a new irony with the use of “decolonized language" but continued colonized practice. This is resulting in widespread skepticism in the global south and a realization that this is at the peril of the sector itself. Global development’s transformation cannot be postponed, as it would be more than a pity if the sector does not show up for a fight to defend the ideals of freedom, equality, fraternity, solidarity, and justice that define it. Locating decolonization in the global political economy As development practitioners, we should not view decolonization as a narrow, decontextualized, and ahistorical project to reshape the power dynamics within our sector. The development sector is a replica and reflection of how power is concentrated within a few groups in the global order, and cannot be divorced from the broader political economy. “Any effort toward decolonization that doesn’t address redistribution of and equitable decision-making in financial resources (money) will remain an empty and hollow endeavor.” --— We will need to factor in neo-imperialism and the history of colonialism and slavery, which has led to the production of public narratives and knowledge led by the global north, against a backdrop of the accumulation of colonial wealth by those countries. The power differential between the global north and south cannot be wished away. These are political categories — not geographical divisions — that won’t be changed by simply using terms like “global majority” for global south for example. With this understanding, the development sector needs to work with sociopolitical movements against imperialist globalization and stand in solidarity with global groups for justice, peace, and sustainability. Working in broader alliances beyond the development sector can create substantive possibilities for decolonization. Here are four dimensions of decolonization that global development needs to address to usher in real change. 1. Decolonizing design and structures The development sector is already looking at its design and structure through the lens of decolonization. Some large INGOs, such as ActionAid and Oxfam, have moved their headquarters from the global north to south. INGOs are broadening their membership and governance by including their southern chapters as equal voting members. Some would argue these are tokenistic gestures, which in isolation may be true, but they open doors for greater representation and participation of traditionally marginalized voices. To ensure this start leads to more, here are three tangible ways of shifting organizational power: 1. Democratize governance by ensuring that all country units have equal representation, participation, and voice in organizational decision-making. 2. Ensure diversity of experiences, in particular southern lived experience, in the organizational executive leadership. 3. Enshrine the principle of subsidiarity in decision-making, whereby decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the people they affect. Currently, at best, the country offices and teams in the south are consulted but decisions are taken in the headquarters. This goes against the fundamental premise of our sector, which professes bottom-up, people-centered development as an aspirational goal. 2. Decolonizing money Any effort toward decolonization that doesn’t address redistribution of and equitable decision-making in financial resources (money) will remain an empty and hollow endeavor. This is the most urgent sphere to address, for reasons which go beyond decolonization to issues like better efficiencies, cost savings, and enhanced impact. Yet resistance from entrenched interests is high: Arguments around fiduciary responsibilities, trusteeship, or accountability of expenditure are all put forward to resist any real shift of power in the use of finances to the global south. The worry about financial accountability can be easily addressed by greater investments in strengthening financial systems at the points of expenditure. But most importantly, the distribution of money needs to be redesigned. Organizations will need to ensure that the vast majority of the money destined for development is moved to the global south, and more importantly, spent there. A very small percentage of management cost is understandable but not the large bureaucracies created in the north to oversee development in the south, which organizationally keeps power intact in the north. This would mean a massive reduction in the bureaucracies created for development. With the growing recognition among donors, evident even in formal commitments such as the Grand Bargain or many bilaterals agreeing on shifting money to local countries, this is doable. 3. Decolonizing knowledge and competence The decolonization project will need to focus on superstructures that perpetuate the legitimacy of colonialism. This means redefining what is considered as knowledge and competence, and changes in the settled patterns of how knowledge and competence are evaluated, produced, disseminated, and rewarded. As a southern activist poignantly told me, “We can only collect data, share experiences, and do case studies, while knowledge and theories, even for making sense of our reality, are produced in the north.” The belief that useful knowledge is produced only when peoples’ realities and data are converted to academic language and analyzed from existing theoretical frameworks needs to change. So much of development thinking appears to be happening at think tanks and academic setups based in the global north. This can lead to the decontextualization of data and mediation through a Western lens. The competence paradox is not very different in the development sector. The front-line skills and competence of working with communities, trust-building, and negotiating power relations with stakeholders, including government functionaries, are seen as lower-level skills, with lower wages and lower positions in organizations’ hierarchies. The skill sets of writing in English, or other foreign languages, using logframes and other professional development tools are much more valued with better pay and decision-making roles in the organization. These roles are filled by global north colleagues or people educated in the global north. To shift this existing paradigm, solutions must be systemic, structural, and focus on shifting mindsets. This would need work on the entire spectrum of research and knowledge by investing in southern scholars — based and working in the south — and think tanks. These should be encouraged to be locally rooted, promote south-to-south knowledge dialogue, build strong publication and distribution networks, intentionally privilege southern voices in the global platforms, and work on building a public narrative and knowledge sphere that is not mediated via the Western lens. Similarly, the rewards system needs to be turned on its head. The work in the field and on the frontlines of development should be privileged and valued with greater pay, decision-making, and recognition within organizations. 4. Decolonizing the ‘theory of change’ Global development distinguishes itself from the old benevolent charity approach where providing food to the hungry or medicines to the sick was an end in itself. It focuses on viewing people as active participants, with agency in designing their future. It also goes one step further in recognizing that this change will be enabled only when accompanying changes in policies, laws, and structures leading to equitable power distribution are accomplished. Still, developmental interventions continue to be conceptualized and designed largely in the global north, and implemented in the south with limited input and flexibility for local groups. It is a vicious cycle as funding goes into these designed interventions and therefore fuels similar designs that appeal to the donors sitting in the global north. To address this would mean inverting the power dynamics in the development sector by visualizing a “theory of change” where ideas, designs, and decision-making are bottom-up. This shift cannot happen in isolation and would have to be accompanied by the above points on decolonizing money, structures, and knowledge. In essence, decolonization must be a comprehensive and multidimensional project leading to structural and systemic change in international development. Development cannot remain a sanitized and depoliticized process where success is evaluated in the corridors of the United Nations or European Union but by the real changes happening in the lives of marginalized, excluded, and exploited communities.