South Sudan: One People, One Nation

An interesting poem by Its message is an African message though it speaks of oneness of South Sudanese. Our African poverty is as a result of Tribalism, corruption and selfishness.

By Deng Mangok Ayuel
We are one nation forever,
In epochs of sadness, we unruffled each other,
In minutes of consternation, we embrace together,
When we shortly fall in politics, we hold each other,
When trepidation strikes, fears, we preserve together,
We are not Dinkas, Nuers and Jurchol – we belong to each other
We are South Sudanese.
We are one …!
We shall live together as one people,
Call our leaders as leaders, spade a spade
No matter the shame, no matter the darkness,
No matter the fear we live, no matter the failures,
We shall return to our roots, do things right, build togetherness
Pray to God for forgiveness, reconcile immediately and stop killing ourselves,
We are for one objective, one vision for all.
We are one …!
We fought for our freedom,
And separated from Sudan at referendum.
And we weep, reducing ourselves to doom,
But who to blame, you or cerebral pragmatism?
Everything but the reality, call it mess of realism,
Oh God, oh God, give us peace, free us from tribalism;
……and I am worried of YOU, the leaders, not your realm?
We are one …!
Patience shall make things right,
And purge political fear under one hat
Let’s respect ourselves, our political height
In order to grow and become a better terrain,
We need to come together as stunning nation,
Put the hate on the ledge to stop the desolation
And the public relation engraves a new assertion
We are one…!
We are South Sudanese,
No matter who is Mr. Achak,
No matter if he is from Rumbek,
No matter if he is loyal to Dr Machar,
No matter which tribe: Dinka, Acholi, Nuer
He is your brother, from baby nation, South Sudan.
Let’s us fulfill our dreams for freedom, live together as a nation


Abyei Referendum Pictures

Here are some pictures of the Abyei referendum vote counting process

Residents of Abyei awaiting patiently for the vote counting process to be complete

Residents of Abyei awaiting patiently for the vote counting process to be complete

Foreign journalists and observers follow keenly the counting process

Foreign journalists and observers follow keenly the counting process

Journalists taking pictures of the counting process.

Journalists taking pictures of the counting process.

An open ballot box after the voting process.

An open ballot box after the voting process.

The vote tallying process.

The vote tallying process.

A t-shirt bearing a campaign message on the Abyei Referendum

A t-shirt bearing a campaign message on the Abyei Referendum

The Abyei referendum vote tallying process

The Abyei referendum vote tallying process

The information, educational and communication material on the Abyei referendum

The information, educational and communication material on the Abyei referendum

The Abyei Vote Counting Process

The Abyei Referendum symbols. The one hand means voting to be with South Sudan. The two hands mean voting to be with Sudan.

The Abyei Referendum symbols. The one hand means voting to join South Sudan. The two hands mean voting to join Sudan.

The Vote counting process in the 29 stations of Abyei began after the voting process was finished. The process began by ascertaining the voter turnout. Accordingly, there were 65,000 registered voters.  The vote counting is expected to go on up to the 31st of October morning hours. On 31st October evening the results of the vote will be announced by the Abyei Commission of the referendum. The process also allows those contesting the election to file their petition in the high court of Abyei against the results.

The situation however has become complicated with the Misseriya also resolving to holding a parallel referendum in Abyei. Reports indicate that about 300 Misseriya families have arrived in Diffra which is much earlier than their normal normadic journeying. The holding of a parallel vote by the Misseriya, certainly will usher in a complication as they will certainly vote for maintaining unity with Sudan.

Meanwhile, the Africa Union Peace and Security  Council (AUPSC) had promised to visit Abyei on the 5th to 6th November 2013. Their visit was meant to help diffuse tensions in the area. AUPSC had made their promise to visit the Abyei Area prior to the referendum, when they had also warned the residents of Abyei not to take a unilateral decision to conduct the referendum.  This warning was condemned by the residents of Abyei who felt that the AU was changing goal posts from their decision of 2012 on the issue of Abyei. It remains to be seen as to whether the AUPSC will still visit Abyei after the referendum.

Analysts fear that the outcome could trigger violence. On the other hand, the Sudan Government denied blocking the AU mission from visiting Abyei. According to the Sudanese foreign ministry spokesperson Abu Bakr Saddiq, the Sudan government never prevented the AU and will be welcoming the mission next week. Accordingly the Sudan government supports the AU mediation panel. Khartoum  on the other hand welcomes the AU’s call for the UN security council to intervene in Abyei.

Abyei finally Conducts the Referendum

Abyei Vote8

Residents of Abyei que in a polling station in Abyei Town. Voters have turned to vote for the referendum in thousands.

On Sunday 28th October 2013, the Ngok Dinka residents of Abyei went to the polling stations to determine their “final status.” This is a ‘unilateral’ referendum which is meant to determine whether it will be possible to split from Sudan and join South Sudan. Ballots were printed with two symbols: a sign of two hands clasped and another one of one hand alone. The former symbol meant continued unity with Sudan, the latter separation from Sudan. Voters turned out in thousands at 29 voting centers across the Abyei region, 4 of which were in Abyei town. In the past months, there was a massive voter registration exercise and compilation of voter registers. During the voting exercise, each  voter first checked whether his or her name was in the referendum register. He or she was then given a ballot paper and marker pen before being sent to a separate place to cast the vote. The voter marked his or her choice with a pen or thumbprint.

Voters cross checking their names with poll clerks.

Voters cross checking their names with poll clerks.

The Abyei referendum is in defiance to  the directive by heads of states of South Sudan and Sudan amid concerns that the poll had the potential to destabilize bilateral relations between the two countries as well as with the neighboring Misseriya tribe. The poll also defied the advise of African Union and the International community. According to a letter addressed to the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU-PSC) by the NIne Dinka Chiefdoms of Abyei Area of 26th October 2013, the right of self determination for the people of Abyei was affirmed in Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the then South Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM), in 1995 by all Sudanese opposition parties, in the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement between GoS and SPLM/A and in 2012 by the Africa Union Commission.

A voter at the polling station

A voter at the polling station

South Sudan’s government has warned that it will not consider the poll legitimate and denied participating in the logistical preparations for the conduct of the vote. Leaders of the Ngok Dinka,  point to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005, according to which the Abyei Referendum was supposed to take place concurrently with South Sudan’s referendum. The Ngok Dinka rushed to hold the vote before the end of this month because the African Union had set a one-year target for holding the vote when it sought endorsement of a plan of the AU High-Level Implementation Panel in October a year ago.

A sample of the voter register in Abyei. Voters have to first countercheck their names before going to poll.

A sample of the voter register in Abyei. Voters have to first countercheck their names before going to poll.

Although there is no formal international election observation mission in the region, members of the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) are taking part in observing the poll, among others. The voting was thorough and all attempts were taken to ensure that there is no rigging. The voting is expected to end in three days and the results will be announced on the 1st of November 2013.

Time to cast the ballot. All ballot boxes were transparent.

Time to cast the ballot. All ballot boxes were transparent.

Abyei Vote6

After the voting process voters dipped their fingers in ink in order. This identified those who had voted from those who had not.

Abyei Vote5

“I have voted at last. I have made my voice heard about this referendum.” This seems to be the message conveyed by this woman showing her coloured finger.

Abyei’s Sensitive Referendum

Abyei residents hopeful that normalcy will return. They yearn for the attention of the Governments of South Sudan, Government of Sudan and the International Community.

Abyei residents hopeful that normalcy will return. They yearn for the attention of the Governments of South Sudan, Government of Sudan and the International Community.

On 26th October 2006, the women of Abyei rose up to song and dance running from one corner of Abyei to another. They carried twigs and sang their hearts out.  The whole town was alive as they anticipated a visit by the Africa Union Commission (AUC).  By 12.00 hours it became apparent that the AUC had cancelled their visit to Abyei, this being the third cancellation. The people of Abyei felt sad and held a peaceful demonstration around their town and converged at the United Nations Camp where they sang and prayed. They had carried twigs of peace and after their function they dispersed and left for their homes. The visit by the AUC would have been very important to the people of Abyei, even if the AUC would not be in a position to state its position clearly on the issue of the referendum because of the diplomatic sensitivities involved. One woman was later heard saying “we know how difficult it is for the AUC but they should have come. We are not sure on whether or not they were denied the visa. But we need to be visited and listened to.” Another said “all we need is peace. I need to construct a house that will stay. I am tired of always starting. I need a life.”

Abyei referendum was due this month. The leaders sensing little support wrote to the AU asking for support to conduct it at a later date. This referendum has drawn various opinions from various quarters. Riak Machar the former Vice President was quoted in the Sudan Tribune to have said that South Sudan should stick to the initial proposal by the African Union (AU) for the people of Abyei to exercise their self-determination referendum this month. His statement came in response a  joint communique on Tuesday 22nd October 2013 in Juba, by South Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit and his Sudanese counter-part, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, on their commitment to pursue the formation of a joint administration for Abyei inclusive of Dinka Ngok and Misseriya, prior to the conduct of referendum in the area. Following this communique the Government of South Sudan, on Wednesday 23rd October 2013, issued a statement broadcast on the state-run TV, warning that the government will not be part of a unilateral conduct of referendum by Dinka Ngok in Abyei.

Resolving the final status of Abyei still remains a major issue between Sudan and South Sudan after the latter broke away from the former in July 2011, leaving several unresolved post-secession issues. Fearing a negative impact on the relations between Khartoum and Juba of an unilateral vote and possible tensions between the two communities of Dinka Ngok and Misseriya in Abyei, the UN Security Council and the United States urged to both parties to refrain from actions that can increase tension in the disputed area. The US State Department, also welcomed the outcome of Bashir-Kiir summit in Juba, warned the Dinka Ngok against unilateral action, saying it could jeopardize peace between the two countries.

Last year, the AU mediation team proposed holding a referendum in Abyei this month, but stated that only those residing permanently in the area were to be allowed to vote in the plebiscite and decide whether they want to join Sudan or South Sudan. The Sudanese government, however, rejected the AU proposal aimed at breaking the deadlock over Abyei referendum saying it ignored that the eligibility of the Misseriya. Machar criticised the two governments of South Sudan and Sudan for going back to the outdated proposal of a joint administration between Dinka Ngok and Misseriya tribes, saying this old idea has already been superseded after the killing of the Dinka Ngok chief, Kuol Deng Majok by the Misseriya in May 2013, as well as by the AU proposal presented by President Thabo Mbeki, which urged for the conduct of the referendum in October. He further explained that in accordance with the ruling by the court of arbitration in The Hague, a specific area of Abyei was demarcated for the nine Dinka Ngok chiefdoms, excluding the Misseriya. Machar who led the SPLM delegation to The Hague court in July 2009 on Abyei file pointed out that any Misseriya member who continued to live in Abyei after the court ruling should be considered a mere trader who no longer have the right to participate in the Dinka Ngok referendum. He said as a result of the court ruling, a piece of Abyei land was already cut out to the side of the Misseriya tribe and that was what they should have gotten from Abyei, leaving the Dinka Ngok alone to conduct the referendum.
Machar urged SPLM, not to let down the people of Abyei who have empowered and entrusted the party to negotiate on their behalf since the timen of the CPA. A unilateral referendum by the people of Abyei in their territory per the court ruling need to be conducted and respected as the will of the people, he said. He encouraged that the Dinka Ngok to go ahead with the conduct of the unilateral referendum in the next few days and the result to be declared by 31 October 2013. The former vice-president also commended the presence of the UNISFA forces on the ground in Abyei to ensure the security of the voters.

Kenya endorses regional plan to end tribal raids

Please find original post here

Mrs Museveni

Uganda’s First Lady Janet Museveni chaired a meeting of ministers in charge of security and regional relations from Kenya, Ethiopia and Kenya, who agreed to “an integrated plan” to have communities living in border areas live in peace. Photo/FILE

Original story on Daily Nation by AGGREY MUTAMBO, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013


Kenya has endorsed a move by the region to have joint efforts to bring peace to border areas between Kenya, Ethiopia and South Sudan, in what appears to be an attempt to end perpetual tribal raids.

In a meeting on Monday chaired in Kampala by Uganda’s First Lady Janet Museveni, ministers in charge of security and regional relations from Kenya, Ethiopia and Kenya agreed to “an integrated plan” to have communities living in these areas live in peace.

Mrs Museveni is also Uganda’s Minister for Karamoja region, one of the areas most affected with continual intertribal raids.

Kenya’s Interior Minister Joseph Ole Lenku, Mr Benjamin Marial, the South Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mr Omod Obang Olom, Ethiopia’s Minister for Federal Affairs were in attendance.

In a 12-point communiqué issued after the Monday meeting, the ministers said they would be “committed to the establishment of strong institutional arrangements” that ensure every campaign for peace or security is harmonised for the ‘Karamoja Cluster.’

The ‘Karamoja Cluster’ is an IGAD phrase used to describe cross-border region of four IGAD member countries. They are south western parts of Ethiopia, north western Kenya mainly in Turkana County, south eastern parts of South Sudan and north eastern parts of Uganda.

According to IGAD, these areas are located “in the peripheries” of their respective countries and share a history of under-development, marginalisation and insecurity.

As it is now, each of the country connected to the ‘Karamoja Cluster’ deals with its own security problem even though communities living here are mostly pastoralists who bump into each other over water and pasture.

“The ministers identified lack of effective coordination and harmonisation of these efforts as the main reason behind limited progress,” said a statement after the meeting.

In August, ten people on the shores of Lake Turkana were killed after they were reportedly ambushed by suspected Ethiopian bandits in Todonyang.

This wasn’t the first time such an incident happened. In 2011, about 15 people were killed after raiders attacked the same area.

But the areas have started appearing on the map as oil explorers continue to find oil and governments identify the need for security.

The Monday meeting, said the communiqué, was meant to review national policies and regional programmes for peace, security and development in the ‘Cluster’.

Although IGAD has been active in campaigning for similar programmes in the past, it would be interesting to see how this goes because numerous peace deals between the pastoralist communities have often been broken.

role of community participation in the design and Implementation of community interventions

Kindly find original article here

Traditionally a “community” has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and is attributed with social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household. The word can also refer to the national community or international community, Wikipedia 2011.
Community participation is the sociological process by which residents organize themselves and become involved at the level of a living area or a neighborhood, to improve the conditions of daily life (water, sanitation, health, education). It comprises various degrees of individual or collective involvement (financial and/or physical contributions, social and/or political commitment) at different stages of a project. Since, it implies that residents set up management committees in charge of equipment, Moningka L. (2000).

Laura Moningka (2000) adds that community participation can be seen as a process in which community members are involved at different stages and degrees of intensity in the project cycle with the objective to build the capacity of the community to maintain services created during the project after the facilitating organisations have left. Community participation throughout the whole project, thus from project design and implementation to evaluation, ensures the reflection of community priorities and needs in the activities of the project and motivates communities into maintaining and operating project activities after the project is completed.
Community participation processes include an identification of stakeholders, establishing systems that allow for engagement with stakeholders by public officials, and development of a wide range of participatory mechanisms, Laura 2000. Stakeholders are individuals who belong to various identified ‘communities’ and whose lives are affected by specific policies and programs, and/or those who have basic rights as citizens to express their views on public issues and actions. Chambers (2002), highlights the value of engagement with stakeholders in terms of greater local ownership of public actions or development projects.

Role of community participation
Many local authorities in developing countries suffer from a lack of financial, technical and human resources and are therefore not capable or willing to deliver and maintain urban basic services. Possible benefits of community participation for projects are:

Increasing democracy.
Community participation in decision-making, planning and action is a human right. An increasing number of citizens are disillusioned with the government and want to see more participatory approaches to democracy. It is increasingly being argued that new styles and structures of governance are needed that transcend people being viewed as passive recipients of services provided by agencies and decided by elected representatives and enable genuine participation, empowerment and citizenship, Tam,H.(1995).
Participation leads to improvement of project design and effectiveness. If the community is involved in the design of the project, it is possible to integrate its needs and constraints in the objectives of the project and in this way come to a more effective implementation.
Involving the community in the project may increase local ownership of projects and enhance a sense of responsibility for maintaining services provided by projects. These aspects are both essential for the durability and continuity of projects. Community participation is essential if interventions and programmes aimed at promoting health, well being, quality of life and environmental protection are to be widely owned and sustainable. However, such sustainability requires that the community participation process itself be sustainable, with fundamental prerequisites being in place, Tam, H. (1995).

Project efficiency.
Community participation may be used to enhance the understanding and agreement of cost sharing (both financial and physical contribution). Furthermore, community participation can be used to prevent conflicts and to stimulate cooperation and agreement between different actors. In this way delays in project execution can be reduced and overall costs minimized.

Community participation has a role of increasing awareness of knowledge and capacities, to improve the ability to negotiate as equals with authorities and other stakeholders to promote common objectives, and increase responsiveness to conflicts within the community. Community participation helps in building local capacities and capabilities. Participation in decision making ensures that the different needs and problems of the community are integrated in the project’s objectives.

Community participation may give people the opportunity to devise and initiate strategies to improve their situation. Empowerment is a continual process whereby individuals and/or communities gain the confidence, self-esteem, understanding and power necessary to articulate their concerns, ensure that action is taken to address them and, more broadly gain control over their lives, Schuftan, C.1996.

Role of improving accountability;
Involves creating increased transparency from community involvement with public sector agencies, community participation in management, and community participation in public hearings, Cummins 2007.

Citizens can exert their collective voice (which occurs in the relationships between citizens and policy makers) to influence policy, strategies and expenditure priorities at different levels of policy making (national and local) according to their wishes and preferences
Strengthening the citizen’s voice enhances accountability of policy makers motivating them to be responsive to the needs of communities and stimulates demand for better public services from service providers. Local communities in can be empowered by law to recall their leaders, which motivate elected leaders to be more responsible to the needs of their communities. Citizens can also exercise power as the end users of services.

Improved information about services being provided at the local level, as well as a choice of providers, can represent important elements of client power.

The accountability of providers to poor people can also be strengthened through mechanisms for poor people to voice their priorities and views. In this case, the path to enforceability is through clients’ various forms of interaction —encouragement and complaints. Although parents cannot monitor all aspects of education, they can monitor attendance by teachers and even illiterate parents can tell if their children are learning to read and write.

Allocative efficiency;
Involving the community in the program can lead to a greater awareness of service delivery problems and often members of the community can suggest appropriate and effective solutions. Improving various dimensions of allocative efficiency include; greater attention to the priorities of communities, increased transparency on budgets and public resources through such mechanisms as public budgeting and Public Expenditures Tracking systems, and a subsequent reduction on ‘rent seeking” by those in positions of power.
Improving technical efficiency;
Improving allocative efficiency; and improving mechanisms of accountability. Community participation initiatives are related to technical efficiency through such areas as overcoming information asymmetry, providing communities with information on quality through various forms of Monitoring and Evaluation, and ensuring that resources are spent for necessary technical resources by service providers. Clients are usually in a better position to monitor programs and services than most supervisors in public sector agencies—who provide the compact and management. When the policymaker- provider link is weak clients may be the best positioned due their regular interaction with frontline providers. As documented in the case of Educo, where parents had the ability to hire and fire, as well as monitor teachers World Bank (2003), improvements in basic education often depend on participation by parents Mozumder and Halim (2006),.

Mobilizing resources;
Communities have a wealth of untapped resources and energy that can be harnessed and mobilized through community participation, using a range of practical techniques that can engage people and, where appropriate, train and employ them in community development work. There is a clear tension here between mobilizing resources in a way that empowers communities and mobilizing to reduce the cost of providing services, Robertson (1994)
Combating exclusion;
Community development and community organizing often works with specific groups of the population, especially those that are marginalized and disadvantaged. The changing contexts within and between European countries (such as increase in asylum seekers) can pose special cultural and political challenges and require that workers be equipped with relevant skills, knowledge and
b. What are the limitations of community participation? Illustrate with examples.
Community participation may have its own limitations and these may include;
Lack of understanding of the Policy Process and interventions
Before rural communities can make attempts to impact public policy or an intervention, it is important that they have an understanding of the policy-making process itself. Understanding the policy-making process can help individuals and community-based organizations decide whether they will become involved in trying to develop or change a policy and, if so, how to best go about it. Unfortunately, the policy-making process tends to be very complex making it difficult for almost anyone to understand it completely. However, understanding the process can help empower individuals and community-based organizations to impact policy Dukeshire S. et al (2002).

Lack of Resources
In order for communities to fully participate in the policy-making process, it is necessary for their members to have access to resources. These resources include adequate funding, government training programs, education, leaders, and volunteers to support rural causes and initiatives. Many rural communities tend to lack one or more of these resources, a situation which interferes with their ability to effectively impact the policy-making process.
Having inadequate resources negatively impacts a rural community’s ability to effectively influence and develop policy compared to other players in the policymaking process. For example, corporations and professional organizations often have access to large amounts of financial and human resources. This creates an inequity whereby community organizations that may be equally or even more affected by policy change do not have the same opportunity to participate in and influence the process.

Reliance on Volunteers
Lack of access to financial resources necessary to address problems and concerns of rural communities leads to organizations relying on volunteers to carry out community-based activities. Low populations in rural areas can result in the availability of only a small number of volunteers to carry out all the necessary activities demanded by their community organizations. This situation can lead to a reluctance to become involved in the complex policy-making process. Even more difficult is finding individuals within rural communities with the skills, abilities and desire to initiate and champion rural policy development. Further, there tends to be a lack of programs to train, support and motivate new leaders and volunteers. As a result of a lack of these resources, some community leaders and volunteers face burnout that affects their productivity and progress in furthering the work to help their community. In addition, the loss of youth from rural communities results in a depletion of potential future community leaders and volunteers.

Another factor which can be considered contributing to the absence of a volunteer pool may be the political and social visibility that can result from becoming active in the policy-making process. Such visibility may be uncomfortable for some and emphasize the vulnerability of certain community members, for example, those of low socioeconomic status.

Lack of Access to Information
Rural citizens have indicated that they feel there is a lack of access to information about government programs and services. Rural populations have also reported that the information that is available on policy, government programs and services is difficult to obtain and interpret. There is a desire to learn about and access information about government programs and services that is understandable, concise and timely, Rural Dialogue, 2000.

Another information challenge is the fact that little research has been conducted concerning rural communities and the policy-making process. Further, this research often is difficult to obtain. Rural communities have also indicated that they need access to information specific to the status of their communities. Once again, this information, if available, tends to be difficult to access and may be expensive.

Absence of Rural Representation in the Decision-Making Process
Living in a democratic society, representatives are elected to speak on behalf of local people at the government level. By virtue of their larger population, urban areas tend to have greater representation in the Federal parliament and Provincial legislatures than rural areas. The greater number of urban representatives is one factor that can lead these elected bodies to have a more urban focus and reduce the influence rural community members have in the decision-making process. Specific communities and groups of community members must also be considered in the rural policy-making process. Unfortunately, there are some groups who tend not to be well represented in the policy forum, for example, people with lower socio-economic status

The Relationship Between Rural Communities and Government
The relationship between rural communities and government is strained by the community perception that governments do not understand rural issues and impose policies and programs that negatively affect rural communities. Even worse, there is sometimes not even agreement among key policy makers that circumstances in rural communities are problematic and deserving of government action, Doern 1988. Government is also seen as sometimes downloading responsibilities on rural communities without providing the necessary resources
(e.g. financial support and, educational programs) for communities to assume these responsibilities. Further, rural community members get frustrated and discouraged by rejections of policy proposals by government and ever-changing program criteria.
From the perspective of rural communities, the attitudes and action of governments have created barriers to working together to affect policy to improve the health and sustainability of rural communities. Rural community members often perceive government priorities and programs as detrimental to their community’s health and sustainability. These perceptions create a barrier to community involvement in the policy-making process.

Time and Policy Timeline Restrictions
Often the policy timeline can create difficulties for communities looking to impact policy around a particular issue. Although government may be considering a policy change for a long period of time, the public consultation process may be relatively short and not allow community-based organizations the time to research and properly prepare to effectively participate. On the other hand, the policy-making process can take a very long time, draining the resources of community-based organizations and frustrating those who want change.

Participation of the community in a neighborhood activity or policy formulation should be considered as a voluntary act of civic responsibility, a commitment by the residents to one or several stages of a collective project, (control, awareness-raising, providing information, promoting, decision-making), although the actual tasks may not always be visible. What is worth highlighting is the fact that inspite of its importance in interventions and policy development, community participation is usually faced with a number of bottle necks and much needs to be done to make participation relevant.


Chambers (2002); Cornwall and Pratt (2003) Community participation.

Cloke, P. J. (ed.) (1988). Policies and Plans for Rural People: An
International Perspective Unwin Hyman Ltd.: London
Canadian Rural Partnership “Rural Dialogue”

Cummins Stephen (2007) Community Participation in Service Delivery and Accountability
Doern, G. B. & Phidd, R. N. (1988). Canadian Public Policy: Ideas, Structure,
Process. Nelson: Toronto
Dukeshire S. et al (2002) Challenges and Barriers to Community Participation in Policy Development, Rural Communities Impacting Policy project ISBN 0-9780913-2-9

Matthew Andrews and Anwar Shah, “Voice and Local Governance in the Developing World: What is done, to what effect, and why?”, World Bank, 2003

Previous Older Entries