Capacity development in fragile environments: Insights from parliaments in Africa
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/20425961201000034 |
| Published date | 01 October 2011 |
| Date | 01 October 2011 |
| Pages | 113-175 |
| Author | Severine M. Rugumamu |
| Subject Matter | Public policy & environmental management |
Copyright © 2011 WASD 113
1Professor Severine M. Rugumamu, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Dar-
es-Salaam, P.O. Box 35169, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, Email: rugumamus@yahoo.com
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN FRAGILE
ENVIRONMENTS:INSIGHTS FROM
PARLIAMENTS IN AFRICA
World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 7, Nos. 2/3/4, 2011
Severine M. Rugumamu1
University of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
Abstract: Capacity development in fragile environments in Africa has often proven to
be a complex undertaking. This has largely been because of existing knowledge gaps
on what exactly causes fragility of states, the economy and society. The liberal peace
development model that generally informs post-conflict reconstruction and capacity
development has a limited conception of fragility by narrowly focusing on the national
dimensions of the problem, promoting donor-driven solutions, emphasizing minimal
participation of beneficiary actors in the identification and prioritizati on of capacity
development needs, and by subcontracting the design and management of projects and
programs. The resulting capacity development impact has generally been disappoint-
ing. In the absence of homegrown strategic plans, stakeholder participation and owner-
ship, international development partners have all too often addressed capacity gaps by
financing training, supply of equipment and professional exchanges of parliamentar-
ians and parliamentary staffers. These efforts usually achieved their presumed number
targets but tended to ignore addressing the larger issues of political economy within
which capacity development take place. However, the recent re-conceptualization of par-
liamentary capacity development as a development of nationally owned, coordinated,
harmonized, and aligned development activities seems to be gaining growing attention
in Africa. As the experience of Rwanda eloquently demonstrates, capacity development
is essentially about politics, economics and power, institutions and incentives, habits
and attitudes - factors that are only partly susceptible to technical fixes and quantita-
tive specifications. These structural factors have to be negotiated carefully and tactfully.
Keywords: Fragile States, Conflicts, Capacity Development, Parliamentary Strengthening, Coor-
dination, Harmonization And Governance
M. Rugumamu
114
economies and societies were lo-
cated. Accordingly, in order to es-
cape from the fragility trap, con-
ventional policy recommended
the opening up of Africa’s econ-
omy to foreign capital as a means
of improving growth and thus
eliminating poverty as a cause of
conflict, as well as the adoption
of a more democratic system of
governance as a means of encour-
aging more inclusive kinds of pol-
itics. The strategy presented itself
as encapsulating a comprehensive
answer to all society’s problems,
from poverty and illiteracy to vi-
olence and despotic rule. This
view has been broadly held by
the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Bank and most
multilateral and bilateral develop-
ment agencies.
All too often, the notion of
an ‘effective state’ was equated
with a liberal democratic state
and largely focused on the extent
to which civil society successful-
ly set up mechanisms for effect-
ing checks and balances on the
exercise of state power. The role
of other institutions of demo-
cratic governance in the nation-
al governance processes was ei-
ther given peripheral attention
or downrightly bashed by multi-
lateral agencies in the design and
implementation of the Structural
INTRODUCTION
“Fragile”, “failing” and “failed
states” became part of interna-
tional relations and in the devel-
opment lexicons from the early
1990s. In particular, the concept
of the “fragile state” entered into
development discourse when,
in the early 1990s, the Somalia
state and society disintegrated.
Millions of its citizens experi-
enced massive insecurity and vi-
olence at the hands of armed
groups that partly resulted from
the fragmentation of the state
into different regional entities
vying with each other for power.
Million of other Somali citizens
faced starvation and even death
because of the ensuing economic
dislocation. However, the concept
was neither given adequate atten-
tion by academia nor by devel-
opment policy specialists. Until
9/11, it was only the humanitar-
ian organizations that worried
about fragile and collapsed states
in developing countries. The
dominant discourse on the root
causes of fragility and conflict
in Africa, for example, tended to
emphasize the weak institutions,
poor implementation of econom-
ic policies and bad governance.
Little attention was given to the
role of the larger global economy
within which these weak states,
115
Capacity Development in Fragile Environments
culture began taking root, where
all the main political players seem
to be accepting democracy as ‘the
only game in town’, à la Juan Linz
and Alfred Stepan (1996, p.1). It
is now little surprising that many
donors who previously either ig-
nored or undermined the role of
formal democratic institutions
have come forward in droves in
order to strength their respective
capacities, particularly in politi-
cally fragile environments.
Does the recent upsurge in en-
thusiasm for developing state ca-
pacity in Africa effectively address
the fundamental conditions that
generate fragility? Are the new
capacity delivery modalities go-
ing far enough to respond to the
critical needs of societies in frag-
ile environments? How can the
strong commitments of the Paris
Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
be effectively, efficiently and sus-
tainably exploited in identifying
and linking all the three points of
capacity development, namely the
individual, organizational and
the enabling environment? This
paper seeks to interrogate the
theoretical and empirical founda-
tions for capacity development in
the Africa’s fragile environment
with particular reference to par-
liaments in fragile environments.
Some insights of best practices
Adjustment Programs and the
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.
However, beginning in the late
1980s onwards, a new wave of
political liberalization and de-
mocratization has swept across
the entire African continent.
In country after country, auto-
cratic civilian governments and
military regimes were replaced
with periodically and popularly
elected governments. Moreover,
citizens began to demand that
their leaders be accountable and
transparent, and that they serve
with integrity, honesty and com-
mitment. The re-activated insti-
tutional structures and arrange-
ments for democratic governance
- multi-partism, independent leg-
islatures and judiciaries, civil so-
ciety groups and unhindered me-
dia - gradually became part, the
very least, of the dominant con-
stitutional discourse. Related to
this trend, donor support policies
and programs started strategically
tying development assistance re-
sources to progress toward “good
governance” by recipient govern-
ments. More significantly, the
growth of civil society organiza-
tions both in number and sophis-
tication began to push the role
of parliament and the practice
of popular participation to the
political centre stage. Slowly but
inexorably, a democratic political
To continue reading
Request your trial