Partnering People and Perceptions

In the past 4 months, as an intern at PRIA, I have taken part in the preparations of PRIA’s technical support to stakeholders in partnership for community development under the Government of Andhra Pradesh’s ‘Smart Village – Smart Ward’ (SVSW) Program. In SVSW, partnerships may include government officials (state, district, local), businesses, civil society actors, and individuals who will partner with communities (i.e., villages or wards) in the state. Together, these partners and communities will work to reach goals and objectives based on their diverse interests and the needs of communities; these goals should culminate to achieve the SVSW’s 20 non-negotiable development indicators and thus ‘Smart’ status. PRIA is facilitating the capacity-building of stakeholders to deepen their understanding of citizen-centered participatory planning processes so that they may implement these processes and community development based on unified visions. Making these processes effective (i.e., cooperative and just) will require that all interests are represented and commonalities negotiated to develop and activate community/partner action plans (e.g., sanitation infrastructure plan). Yet, the process of building multi-stakeholder partnerships can encounter many obstacles, including power conflicts, poor communication and lack of representation. How does the way partners view their ‘place’ in the partnership in relation to others affect the process? How do we find shared interests among partners? And how do we do so without homogenizing interests? Power inequities and hierarchical perceptions of ‘self’ and ‘others’ can weaken any relationship, including partnership. Some stakeholders might view themselves as dominant and may say that they will participate and listen to others’ needs, while in reality only placate other partners until it is their chance to speak. At the same time, others may not feel empowered to share or defend their needs – especially when in the company of those they perceive to ‘hold’ power. Falling back into these preconceptions or rooted behaviours is much easier and less timely than thinking beyond our comfort zones. So how do we reconcile these cognitive and behavioural structures to find a platform where needs and interests are shared openly and freely? One step is to first cultivate a space that is non-judgmental and supportive to allow relationship-building between stakeholders. However, openness among individuals is not always easy or immediate. Furthermore, when political structures and social, economic, knowledge, and power inequities are present, the notion of openness appears altogether more challenging and necessary. As well, some partners might be participating in exercises such as visioning (i.e., pooling interests to establish development goals) for the first time and know little about the topic of focus (e.g., participatory planning). I have experienced, when learning about a new topic in a group, my understanding has developed quite differently from those of my fellow group members; each understanding shaped unique and sometimes polarizing interests in the topic. Such an occurrence is likely not uncommon in mixed group settings. Yet, if all parties involved are motivated to experience mutual learning (each member learns from one another), perhaps even interests that do not intersect can begin to be negotiated for every partners’ benefit. This is not to say that a shared goal for development should be neatly homogenized. Nor does it mean the result should represent the majority or dominant interests of one group.  Rather, it means bringing a variety of interests together and negotiating objectives that are multi-dimensional and incorporative of different perspectives. Herein lies the creative quality, and burden, of collaborative partnership. It will be an added challenge to both bring interests to the table and discuss them so that they are collectively responsive. In this forum, openness and equal ground between stakeholders will be essential. Despite the challenges, partnership has great potential to generate benefits in ways individuals alone cannot. It can organise diverse skills and resources to meet specific objectives, and can provide a platform to work through problematic power imbalances. Further questions to examine might include: What will the dynamics between partners be in capacity-building processes? How will people express their expectations for the capacity-building exercises? How do these expectations differ? What are the barriers to participation, and how are they overcome? How will differences be fostered as opportunities?

You may be interested to read