July 17, 1989
Aloysius P. Fernandez

While the RMS papers brought out so far document the processes that have developed in some of MYRADA’s major programmes they have not spelled out explicitly the main features of MYRADA’s strategy which this RMS paper attempts to do.

In 1983 and 1984 we were struggling to see our way through several institutional problems and at the same time to evolve an ideology which, briefly, we interpreted to mean a pattern of inter-related concepts which underlie a vision of society. In 1984 we had written;

"MYRADA does not adopt an ideological stance to development; it does not, therefore, approach every project determined to create a revolution, nor does it accept an established institution as the prime mechanism to implement change. A careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each target group has helped MYRADA keep its strategy flexible and creative. Where it has discovered that existing cooperatives are biased heavily towards the large farmers, it has sought to establish groups of the marginal and landless, often against great opposition. Where change is possible within the existing structures, it has worked to give the marginal actions an effective role in the management. MYRADA has placed its firm belief in organisation of the people."

This approach helped us to relate with other NGOs and to groups in the villages; to respect them, to learn from their experiences and to support them in turn. During this period we had to cope with NGOs who criticised us because they believed in absolute ideology, usually radically formulated. Though often shaken, we refused to become defensive, even though our stand did not attract the attention (from development theorists) that other more radical groups received. Gradually, when we began to assess their approach in reality, we found that some of them used their ideology to justify and rationalise their take over of smaller NGOs who came to them for assistance on the grounds that they alone could organise mass movements which necessary to change the system which the smaller NGOs could not. Some of them did not go so far, but took refuge under the pattern of networking, which when further analysed, meant that they controlled and often channeled the funds which these smaller NGOs received.

MYRADA found it difficult to accept the word "ideology" since due to historical linkages the word "ideology" had gathered radical and absolute content. MYRADA on its part, decided that :

1. it would not allow its "ideology" to cloud or obstruct its constant search for solutions to people’s problems - solutions which originated from the people. 2. it would not accept an "ideology" which demanded a strategy that was formulated and imposed from outside and in different circumstances and which was limited in scope and did not allow for alternatives. We thought that if an ideology restricts its options for change to a radical restructuring of the system (or to any single option for that matter) then it could also imply that the official system only could solve all problems. This would not allow space for the emergence and nurturing of alternative systems managed by the people. 3. it would make adequate room for staff to identify, evolve and experiment with new strategies that would help the poor to achieve self reliance and which had their roots in rural society.

We realised that this approach called for selective choice of staff, for intensive staff re-orientation and upgrading of skills on a continuing basis.

MYRADA during 1984 - 1986 went through a process of explicitly articulating its mission and of clarifying its goals and objectives and the strategy to achieve them. It adopted the word MISSION which it felt projected a message of a goal to be achieved - a vision of society - and which implied a committed search to achieve this goal. Today, the word MISSION is common in Government which has invested it with content ranging from provision of drinking water to management of wastelands. Underlying these various Missions however, is the common message that these programmes will be implemented with a high degree of commitment, with professional management and completed on an agreed time schedule. A Mission also allows a degree of freedom to adopt alternatives and appropriate and innovative strategies towards achieving the goal.

To make explicitly MYRADA’s mission demanded a period of intense reflection, introspection, discussion, sharing and a high degree of consensus. What emerged as the mission statement in 1985 was the following :

•  "To foster a process of on-going change in favour of the rural poor in a way in which this process can be sustained by them through :

  • Supporting the rural poor in their efforts to build local level institutions with appropriate and innovative management systems. * Influencing public policies in favour of the poor.

 It was reviewed in 1988 and a few additions were made :

• "To foster a process of on-going change in favour of the rural poor in a way in which this process can be sustained by them through :

  • Supporting the rural poor in their efforts to build local level institutions rooted in traditional values of justice, equity and mutual support.

  • Working towards recreating a self-sustaining habitat based on a balanced perspective of the relationship between natural resources and the legitimate needs of the people.

  • Influencing public policies in favour of the poor.

MYRADA also decided as a normative goal to work with one million poor and to support their efforts towards self-reliance by 1995.

THE STRATEGY :

With the degree of freedom given by a "mission" to adopt several options, MYRADA then attempted during 1985 to answer the following questions :

1. What should be our approach to the "System" (political, economic, social)? Do we accept the radical demand for a structural change of society as the only solution to poverty? Is the system totally dysfunctional in its strategy to help the poor? Has it become totally insensitive to dissent - treating it as wrong?

2. What should be our approach to components of the system which are meant to implement anti-poverty programmes. In the same context, would it be functional to label the bureaucracy as part of these anti-poverty programmes; or do we assess individuals, within the bureaucracy, many of whom are sensitive, upright, decisive but often find it difficult to function, and often welcome the opportunity to collaborate with NGOs? Briefly, is no one in the system able and willing to implement existing laws and programmes in the favour of the poor?

3. How does MYRADA create a situation where people can develop alternate systems based on traditional patterns and values but with appropriate institutional changes to cope with the emerging social processes, new relationships and needs in rural society? There is ample evidence to prove that such traditional management systems existed in the past but were destroyed or are lying dormant. To hold that only the official system whether the present one or a new one can answer the problems of the poor is to imply that the poor cannot or will not be allowed to develop and revive their own systems based on traditional values and patterns of behaviour which in the past have served their purposes and which if regenerated and adapted will do so in the future.

To summarise therefore - MYRADA did not cling to an absolute ideology but evolved a mission from which flowed a strategy that had three thrusts which are not disparate but interlinked.

1. TO TARGET THE SYSTEM for structural change in the long run and for the creation and implementation of new policies and legislation in favour of the poor in the short run.

2. TO SUPPORT COMPONENTS IN THE SYSTEM and responsive officials in implementing Government programmes and policies to eradicate poverty.

3.  TO SUPPORT THE EMERGENCE OF ALTERNATIVE INNOVATIVE AND APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONS of the people in their efforts towards self-reliance.