Annual Lecture Christianity and Society 2011
Response by Lau Schulpen (CIDIN) – Nijmegen
There is always one major problem in responding to a presentation – and that is a problem
of choice. Do I choose to respond to what has been said or do I choose to respond to what
has not been said? The first would mean that the presenter is actually in charge: he or she
determines what will be discussed. On the other hand: by delving into what has not been
said I am in charge but it is also a bit cheap. After all: nobody is able to cover everything in a
single presentation or paper.
The normal way out is to do both and I apologize for not coming up with a more innovative
way of dealing with this problem. So I will say a few things about the spoken and written text
of Rene and I will say a few things that I miss.
But let me start by saying that I truly enjoyed the presentation by Rene, first of all, because
he is - at least in my opinion - one of the few people in the Dutch development community
who is able to look at the changing world with a relatively open mind. He comes across as a
person who is able to move beyond the narrow and short-term concerns of his own
organisation. In the Dutch development community that is still a rare phenomenon and I
admire him for that.
The second reason is his elaboration of the foundations of Christian thinking. That is not only
because we in development studies have traditionally neglected the role of religion in
development and particularly the role of religion in the lives of people. It is also because for
me personally, as a non-expert in this field and in practice a non-Christian, this view provides
a very welcome addition. Although my gut-feeling tells me that he a perhaps a bit too soft on
the role of missionaries, I found the distinction between Christianity and the Catholic Church
very helpful. The same holds for the distinction between the church in the South and the
church in the North. With regard to that Northern church he is the most critical and with
obvious good reasons. It is important that such a distinction is made because it helps me and I hope others as well - to better understand reality and not fall into the trap of seeing
the Catholic Church as a monolithic entity.
And the third reason why I enjoyed his presentation is that it covers very timely issues. The
changes and developments mentioned by Rene touch upon some extremely important
issues – issues of relevance for what I would like to call the future of development
cooperation (and not only the future of faith based organisations). In issuing his warning
about the need of adapting to changing circumstances and insights, Rene is obviously much
more diplomatic than I am. He captures his message to the development community under
the title ‘do not be afraid’. I would personally have preferred the title ‘change or perish’. For
that is the way I read his warnings and the way that I look at the changing environment and
the need for change itself in that development community. Put differently, and undoubtedly
a lot harsher than Rene does: if the present-day development community does not wake up
from its navel-gazing attitude in which everything has to change apart from itself, that
community will be declared out of date within a few years time. There is no use for
organisations active in change that are hesitant, unwilling or unable to change themselves.
1
You already notice that I am particularly touched by the more general points raised by Rene
as part of his call for a repositioning of the unfinished development and solidarity business.
He is correct in the issues he has raised: the emergence of new powers, the growing
awareness of overarching global issues, the evaporation of the old divide between rich and
poor, the diminishing belief that development aid is the answer to poverty, etc.
This list can of course be expanded because there are many more issues that impact (or
should impact) on the ways we manage and organise development cooperation. Some of
these issues are inherent to the system of development aid. Think of, for instance, the entire
fragmentation discussion and the answer to that in terms of harmonisation or the growing
capacity of southern organisations or the growth of direct funding of Southern NGOs by
bilateral donors. Others are from outside that narrow aid system but with a clear impact on
it. Think of the different crises (food, energy, climate) the world is experiencing.
Added to this is, of course, the question to what these developments should lead. The issues
raised by Rene are clear: they lead to a call for humility and service, for more attention to
inequality, for a vision of the future in which we do not see people merely as consumers and
producers. I can only agree to these points while acknowledging at the same time, and as
often, that it is more easily said than done. Of course, he provides some ways in which his
own organisation, Cordaid, is dealing with these points and although clear they provide only
one possible and partial answer. It would be interesting to hear a bit more about the ways in
which organisations such as Cordaid can (or perhaps should) reposition themselves in a
changing world.
But at the same time, and let me be clear about this: I do not expect the answer (or actually:
I do not want the answer) but it would have been nice if something more can be said in this
regard than that Christianity (in theory) has everything it takes to act in such ways. Besides,
the need for change is not restricted to faith based organisations, or even narrower to
Christian organisations. What then do these non- or other-faith based organisations do?
How will they reach the preferred state of humility, service, etc? If they can do that on the
basis of non-Christian values, inspirations and beliefs then what is so special about
Christianity as a guiding force? Is it simply easier for Christian organisations?
Following this, there is one other issue that I dearly miss in Rene’s presentation. I do
understand his position with regard to Christianity, but I feel that he is a bit too quiet about
other religions and inter-religious dialogue. Particularly in a time that religion is seen as a
dividing line instead of something that binds us, this seems to me one of the important
issues. I would like to hear a bit more about this and about the role of different Faith Based
Organisations.
Perhaps more important for now is that I read Rene’s call essentially as a call for a
restoration of the traditional change paradigm of civil society organisation but then
practised in a different way. His call for a transformation paradigm is largely comparable to
what many in essence view as the traditional paradigm of NGOs. One of my favourite
researchers in the field of development cooperation, Roger Riddell, calls it the centre ground
view of NGOs. And this centre ground view is that: “Poverty and deprivation are linked to a
lack of power, voice and influence. Poverty is caused not only by a shortage of assets, skills
and basic services, but by structures, institutions, policies and processes which marginalise
2
poor people, particularly women and girls, and which maintain or increase vulnerabilities
and limit opportunities of both individuals and communities, thereby restricting the
development and expansion of core capabilities.”
Perhaps more concretely, this traditional NGO paradigm departs from the belief that:
1. Development is a political process to change power relations
2. Development requires the empowerment of marginalised voices at the grassroots
3. Civil society needs to be autonomous to contribute to development
4. Civil society’s value is expressed in terms of providing ‘alternative’ voices
I recognise these same beliefs in the call of Rene. There is nothing wrong with that except for
the question whether NGOs, and particularly those that are part of the mainstream
development business, are still capable of holding on to that paradigm. Because these ideas
are slowly but surely replaced by completely different ones. These different ideas stem
directly from the view that working in development requires you to show results and the
best way to do that is by using all kinds of business talk and instruments. This effectiveness
logic is spreading like a bushfire and it attacks the very essence of the social transformation
logic.
In that effectiveness logic development is not seen as a political process to change power
relations but as a plannable and controllable process to realise outcomes. Development also
does not require the empowerment of marginalised voices but only the right set of
management tools. And the autonomy of civil society and its value in terms of providing
alternative voices is replaced by effectiveness, efficiency, contractual relations and strict
lines of accountability.
Perhaps this struggle to find a way out of this, as Natsios calls it, Clash of the Counterbureaucracy and Development is one of the most important struggles. And perhaps here the
answer is not so much ‘change or perish’ but ‘get out or perish’ – with ‘get out’ referring to
the aid system with all strings attached in which many private aid agencies (including
Cordaid) find themselves.
In essence, it all boils down to what we actually want with this world and from which values
we depart. Only then the question comes how we are going to do that and how we are going
to translate these values into practices. Rene has provided his views on particularly the first
part. That discussion is not over – it actually just started. As said: it is about time that we
take up the challenge – and Rene’s vision is a perfect starting point.
3