Journal of Social Development in Africa (1988) 3,2, 49-6* 
Participation of the Grassroots in Rural 
Development: "The Case of the Development 
Education Programme of the Catholic Diocese of 
Machakos, Kenya' , 5 ) * 
FRANCIS W MULWA+ 
ABSTRACT 
An effective participation for grassroots development would only be realised 
where the grassroots have the freedom to make their own decisions and set 
their own development priorities, draw their own plans; implement (with 
their own built-in monitoring and evaluation systems) and ensure a fair 
share of the fruits of their work (including any costs thereof) for each 
member of their community. 
Some perspectives on grassroots participation for rural development 
A story is told of a development worker who went to a remote village. He was 
highly motivated and fully prepared to solve all the villagers' problems and 
transform the 'Primitive' community. However, he came to realise diat 
people lived under immense fear and apathy, not even prepared to do 
anything to change their situation. He soon learnt that this fear emanated 
from a 'strange' development in that village. The villagers reported diat they 
had of late noticed a 'monster' across die valley which mey believed was sent 
by the evil spirits to kill them. 
They went to show the development worker where die 'monster' was. At 
one stage the villagers were so afraid diey diey left him to face the 'beast' 
alone. After crossing the valley he discovered diat it was nodiing else but an 
overgrown water melon. Nevertheless, to satisfy die villagers, he acted 
'brave' by drawing out his sword and dramatically cutting it into pieces as die 
villagers watched from a 'safe' distance. 
However, to his great dismay, die villagers could not welcome him back 
despite what he had done for diem. Why? They requested him to leave die 
* Reprinted with permission of the author from Development: Seeds of Change, 1987: 2/3, 
107-114, originally presented at the SIDGRIS Workshop on Participatory Grassroots 
Development in Africa, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, June 1986. 
+ Development Coordinator, Department of Development & Social Services, Catholic Diocese 
of Machakos, PO Box 640, Machakos, Kenya.
"•0 Francis W Mulwa 
village in peace, fearing that he was yet another monster. They wondered 
how he could overcome the 'monster' all alone if he was not another one. A 
few years later there was another overgrown water melon in the same village. 
Another development worker came to the village and learning of their fear, 
he asked them to join him with dieir traditional weapons and face the 
'monster'. They all tiptoed abreast towards the 'unknown'. The development 
worker identified the object but did not disclose what it was. On 
reaching it they all set on the 'monster' with dieir traditional weapons until 
they shattered it. They proudly walked back to the village, singing and 
dancing, celebrating their great achievement. The development worker lived 
in the community for a long time, learning many things from the villagers. 
At the same time he taught them new things including how to grow and eat 
water melons. What does this story mean? 
The present widespread concern for grassroots participation is not 
without a history. It is a diligent effort to correct an historical error in 
development approaches which tended to marginalise the rural traditional 
sector. This error had led to the creation of certain categories of rural 
populations regarded as less privileged and more vulnerable such as 
women, unemployed, sharecroppers, seasonal labourers, tenants, small 
farmers, small artisans, nomadic pastoralists, the destitute, etc. 
The development approaches of die past have tended to relegate die 
'grassroots' to a mere 'resource' for the development of the urban centres 
and die metropolis. The traditional rural sector was often seen as a resource 
potential diat needed mobilisation (for example through the rhetoric of 
participation) in order to provide free or cheap labour for 'ruralmodernisation' 
programmes, or for commercial plantations that fed die 
populations of die cities. The traditional sector was often seen as die source 
of cheap labour for die modern urban sector. On the odier hand, one may 
wonder who largely appropriated the benefits of increased agricultural 
exports? The -net effects of such economic growth stimulated by die 
mobUisation of rural resources will include better wages for die staff of 
farmer cooperatives, increased supply of imported capital and urban 
consumer goods, etc. Of course die traditional rural sector benefits as well 
from such economic growdi but at minimal magnitudes compared to die 
urban sector. In die final analysis, die 'grassroots' will in most cases be found 
to play a passive role in such developmental processes, appropriating die 
least of die benefits. 
How would die participation of die 'grassroots' change this] 'order of 
events'? Would die mere increase of public and private investment in die 
rural sector bring about a significant impact leading to equitable 'grassroots' 
development? Would such an approach in itself promise better living 
standards for the 'grassroots'? 
Research in recent years has suggested diat more was needed to ensure
Grassroots Participation in Development 5/ 
that public and private investment in rural areas contributed directly to the 
uplifting of the standard of living of the grassroot populations. The 'trickle 
down' effect of such investment will not just happen in die absence of 
relevant policies that ensure maximum participation of the grassroot 
populations, not only in the development process but, equally importandy, 
in the equitable sharing of the benefits of development. 
Take for instance the effects of the Green Revolution (1960-1970). 
Statistics (Worsley, 1984; Esman, 1978) prove mat agricultural production 
sky-rocketed in many Asian countries and Latin America in the 1960's and 
70's, with comfortable per-capita food ratios and large surpluses. As a result 
of the introduction of intensive technology and mechanised approaches to 
agricultural production, fantastic yields were experienced diat beat previous 
world records. 
Ironically, however, at the same time the Green Revolution was 
performing production miracles, hunger and starvation had become a 
regular phenomenon among the majority of the population in those same 
countries.1 Rural poverty had not been alleviated but instead had 
deteriorated (Power and Holenstein, 1976; Worsley, 1984; Esman, 1978). 
The findings of many social scientists has therefore challenged die originally 
widespread notion diat the mere increase in production records associated 
widi the Green Revolution had made die latter die 'panacea' for the 
alleviation of rural poverty. Somediing more was needed to provide an 
effective alleviation of poverty among die 'grassroots' populations. What was 
diis? 
Alternative development approach sought 
To quote Heredero (in Fernandes, 1980:57): 
"People's participation will go a long way to distribute wealdi more 
equitably, doing away widi die present inequalities and providing a more 
equitable base for a better system of social relations." 
Although diis statement identifies the effects of a genuine participatory 
development programme, it leaves us widi a more fundamental question as 
to how diis process takes place. 
Let us briefly review die approaches of die Green Revolution to identify 
die causes of die social and economic inequalities diat were concomittant 
widi diis process. Esman (1978) observes diat one mistake associated widi 
die Green Revolution approach was the occasional denial of land to small 
farmers in favour of die large farmer. It was assumed diat the large farmer 
had a greater capacity to produce surplus food for die urban population and 
cash crops to suffice bodi local industrial demand and export. This 
assumption led policy .makers to shape policies diat tended to favour die 
large former, such as making more land available to die large farmer at die 
expense of die small farmer (as a consequence, die small farmer was often
52 Francis W Mulwa 
reduced to landlessness and subsequently hired as a wage labourer by the 
large farmer). The introduction of mechanised agriculture laid-off many 
agricultural workers too. 
Chambers (1983:131-132) argues that large farmers dominated credit 
facilities and marketing co-operatives at the cost of the smaller producer. He 
points out diat even agricultural extension staff were "locked in with the 
more progressive farmers". This implies that agricultural inputs and 
technology became concentrated around large farmers who appropriated 
the largest portion of government subsidies through such services. No 
wonder, therefore, the benefits of the Green Revolution have been 
unequally distributed. 
Effective participation towards grassroots development 
Participatory grassroots development is I believe an alternative approach for 
equitable rural development. However certain conditions would have to be 
observed to ensure such results. We will reflect briefly on these conditions, 
which will lead us to the analysis of me development education programme 
of Machakos Diocese as a case study. 
Grassroots participation is seen as a process whereby the marginalised 
groups in a community take the initiative to shape their own future and 
better their lives by taking full responsibility for their needs and asserting 
themselves as subjects of their own history. This is a collective venture 
through which the 'grassroots' discover their identity in the wider society. 
The process is marked by the development of new knowledge and skills by 
die people, including their appropriation through adaptation and control of 
technology and extension services so mat it serves them in response to their 
development priorities and in the context of their life experiences; 
How could this effective participation come about? Eight preconditions 
for effective participation by the grassroots can be identified. 
(a) Effective leadership 
Evaluation of participatory projects in our experience in Kenya show that 
one of the key factors for dieir success is the presence of an effective local 
leadership. This relates to the scope of commitment to the cause of the 
group; trustworthiness and accountability; the degree of creativity, and 
developed general leadership skills. Such leadership would show high 
respect for people's ideas and experiences and the value of die human 
person. For this reason, the leadership will always seek to involve people in 
making decisions which affect their lives. 
(b) Rising level of social awareness 
Our experience has led us to conclude that for effective participation to be 
realised, the 'grassroots' need to be effectively motivated through an indepth 
awareness of the social forces militating against their socio-economic
Grassroots Participation in Development 53 
welfare. They have to discover the causes of their miserable living 
conditions, without which their participation would not only be fruidess but 
also frustrated. The grassroots will have to discover their worth in the 
society, and dieir immense potential to change undesirable living 
conditions. 
(c) Self-organisation 
Effective participation will be best realised in die context of a grassrootbased-
organisational framework, be it small community based groups (eg 
women's groups, school leavers' groups, etc) or interest-based community 
organisations (eg share croppers' unions, tenant unions, farmers' cooperatives, 
hawkers' unions, etc). 
A fundamental factor in effective participation is diat leadership in such 
organisations must be provided by die 'grassroots' themselves and not by 
the dominant groups (whedier from widiin or outside the community). 
These are the same groups which often dominate decision-making power 
and leadership in ordinary community institutions and organisations, a fact 
that has relegated die 'grassroots' people not only to spectators but also 
losers in community development programmes. Grassroots leadership has 
dierefore to be cultivated leading to self-organisation for effective 
participation. For the best results such 'grassroots' organisations should 
ensure social homogeneity in membership drives, to avoid the possibility of 
domination by die more powerful groups. 
It is important to point out that the scope of die potential for selforganisation 
of 'grassroots' in any given society will largely depend on the 
nature of die political environment. To be sure, we cannot expect the 
effective participation of die grassroots in a situation where group formation 
and.group meetings would be illegal, or where leadership is only a matter of 
appointment from above. Hence die scope for participation of die 
'grassroots' will tend to be direcdy proportional to die degree of democratic 
freedom in the political environment. 
(d) Support framework 
Usually when 'grassroots' organise diemselves for dieir own development, 
diere develops what appears to be polarised interests between them and die 
powerful groups in the community. Reliable research findings (Esman, 
1978) have observed mat projects oriented to die rural poor will inevitably 
generate social conflict as rural elites resist any efforts that may work against 
dieir interests. 
It has dierefore been argued that organisations for the 'grassroots' will 
need support since, more often than not, die rich already have power over 
die lives of diose who are poor and diat often die social and economic system 
favours the interests of die rich while the poor are constandy less able to 
control their own future (Nyerere, 1973).
54 Francis W Mulwa 
Esman (1978) takes this point further and suggests that such support for 
the 'grassroots' will only be provided either by a government or through a 
legally recognised non-government agency. Such support, however, should 
avoid the temptation of creating a 'godfather' or 'benefactor-beneficiary' 
relationship which would be another kind of domination, leading to apathy 
and defeated participation, rather than to partnership and collaboration in 
development. 
(e) Small-scale projects 
Effective participation will be best realised where the grassroots begin from 
the known and move to the unknown, from small projects which can be 
managed within the scope of their limited local resources and local expertise 
towards more ambitious projects. Success in small and easy projects gives 
the grassroots the necessary confidence to attempt larger and more complex 
projects. In small-scale projects grassroots groups learn to participate, 
organise, and manage, etc, an experience which is translated into a useful 
resource when it comes to more challenging participatory development 
initiatives, the same way small grassroot groups would be recommended 
(as opposed to large groups) for more effective participation in a community 
project. 
(f) Less dependence on bureaucratised professionalism 
Over dependence on bureaucratised professional services will more often 
than not frustrate participatory development initiatives. Usually such 
services would either be too scarce, or completely inaccessible, or too 
expensive for the grassroots to employ. Such over dependence on 'expertise' 
has also tended to perpetuate the 'top-down' approach in development, 
whose end result is the defeat of participation of the grassroots. Hence the 
more a group depends on these specialised services, the more its scope for 
free participation, and potential for creativity, is limited. 
However, this is not intended to imply that 'expertise' and 'professional' 
assistance would be irrelevant in participatory programmes. What is being 
said is that in the process of such assistance there would have to be an 
explicit effort to transmit the basic skills to the local leaders so that, in future, 
diey would have less need for such external technical assistance in projea 
operation and maintenance. Grassroots leaders would have to be helped to 
integrate their local experiences and traditional technology with the modem 
scientific expertise in order to cultivate 'professional self-reliance' within the 
grassroots, towards more effeaive participation. 
(g) Minimised risks 
Effective participation will only take place where the possible risk 
consequent on such participatory changes have been given due consideration 
and die alternatives discussed. For example, an ordinary small-scale
Grassroots Participation in Development 55 
farmer in a semi-arid zone will be hesitant to adapt to a new high-breed seed 
(even though a better harvest is promised) unless he is assured of an 
alternative survival strategy in case of crop-failure. He would prefer 
retaining his traditional drought-resistant seed dian risking an innovation 
mat might lead to famine and starvation. In diis case, subsidies for the 
innovation costs or crop insurance schemes would be appropriate measures 
for the more effective participation of such small farmers whose fear of 
economic-risk in such participation is well founded. 
Take another example of farm wage labourers whose employer pays 
below the legal minimum wage. An attempt to organise such labourers to 
demand their rights might be met with apathy and resentment, unless an 
alternative survival strategy is provided in case their employer terminates 
their jobs. Villagers may not wish to challenge an exploitative business man 
or unscrupulous money lender until diey open their own cooperative 
consumer shop or start their own savings and credit schemes. The truth of 
the matter is mat the margin of living of the grassroots is so much at 
subsistence level mat they have learnt from experience that simple mistakes 
could mean a lot of suffering. They would merefore tend to be slow and 
overcautious in taking chances (Griffin, 1974). 
(h) Potential for social harmony 
Social harmony in a participatory group project will largely depend on the 
homogeneity in the group membership, whereby members will have 
minimal social differences. It is important to specify membership criteria in 
participatory projects in order to ensure that only the real 'grassroots' people 
become eligible. It is equally important to note that even the 'grassroots' 
themselves can be highly differentiated. Some have bigger and better pieces 
of land, others have better educated children, others are relatives or close 
friends of 'big' politicians, highly placed civil servants, etc. Some belong to 
bigger and more popular families or clans. Omers are clients of local money 
lenders and business men. All diese social differentiations will surface in the 
group relations, exerting a lot of influence on group interaction, thus 
influencing the overall direction and vision of the group. 
Training in human relations and awareness programmes would have to 
be an integral part of the participatory process to help build the necessary 
group cohesion and co-operation, thus overcoming those underlying social 
differences. 
In the following pages we are going to reflect on the Development 
Education Programme of the Diocese of Machakos, as a case study to help 
put in a practical perspective the participatory ideas discussed so far.
56 Francis W Midwa 
The Development Education Programme (DEP) of Machakos, Kenya 
(a) Background information 
The Catholic Diocese of Machakos covers the entire district of Machakos, an 
area of 14 000 sq km with a population of 1,6 million. It is the second highest 
populated district in Kenya. Machakos is a semi-arid district, with the 
population largely living on drought resistant crops like 'Katumani' maize, 
beans, peas, cassava, millet and sorghum. Cotton is extensively grown as a 
cash crop, while coffee is found on the high potential hilly regions of the 
district (less dian 20% of the land in Machakos could be categorised either 
high or medium potential). Livestock keeping would be moderately 
extensive. 
Nearly 98% of the inhabitants of this district belong to an ethnic bantu 
group, theAkamba. The rest are people from other districts who work diere. 
The major development needs and priorities in Machakos include water, 
agriculture, health and the creation of employment opportunities for school 
leavers. It is a district widi meagre natural resources, without any mining 
potential and with limited arable land. However, some wildlife exists in a few 
game reserves. 
(b) The Catholic Diocese of Machakos 
The Department of Development and Social Services under the Catholic 
Diocese of Machakos was established in 1974 when a full-time lay 
Development Co-ordinator was appointed. 
This marked die beginning of a new era in the development approach of 
die church. Until this time, die church had tended to limit development 
outreach to die missionary legacy of giving hand-outs to die needy, ie charity 
to die hungry, die naked and die shelterless. 
Since die early 1960s die church as a whole had been going dirough a 
period of reflection provoked by die teachings of die Second Vatican 
Council. Associated widi diis change was die assumption of more 
responsibility by die laity, not only in contributing to church leadership but 
also in organising community development programmes to better die 
standard of living of die people. 
(c) A pilot adult literacy project takes shape 
Following die appointment in 1974 of die first full-time Development Coordinator, 
die initial task of dlis co-ordinator was to design a community 
survey scheme to identify die development needs and priorities of die 
grassroots in die diocese. This was done widi die help of a national team 
from die Kenya Cadiolic Secretariat, and die diocesan development staff of 
die neighbouring diocese of Kitui. 
This survey (popularly referred to as "Listening community survey of
Grassroots Participation in Development 57 
Generative Themes") was based on six areas of life within the grassroot 
communities: family, education, subsistence, recreation, beliefs and values 
and patterns of decision-making (socio-politics). This survey exercise was 
carried out by teams representing various walks of life, eg nurses, catechists, 
teachers, priests, women and youth, for a period of three months. They 
visited public places such as markets, water points, bus stations, funeral and 
wedding ceremonies, where they carefully listened to what people talked 
about with strong feelings. These issues were noted and recorded as 
'Generative Themes' and later prioritised, and incorporated into a 
community development education curriculum. 
Adult literacy was consequently identified as a priority need and a literacy 
programme was started on a pilot basis in three neighbouring communities 
at the end of 1975. 
Literacy class discussions became the springboard to other development 
concerns in the village. The villagers discussed issues raised by the 
'Generative Themes'. Such a discussion would take one hour before 
proceeding to alphabetical literacy to complete a literacy lesson of two 
hours. In this way, the grassroots gradually became not only alphabetically 
literate but also socially literate as they learned to solve their socio-economic 
problems within their community. 
By the end of 1979, the literacy programme had spread all over the 
diocese. It was from these literacy discussions that a.number of socioeconomic 
projects were started, such as women's handcrafts, tree planting, 
cooperative farming, savings and credit schemes, bakeries, cooperative grain 
stores, consumer shops for farmers, water projects, etc. 
In 1978 a women's programme was started under this development 
education programme, and with full-time personnel. This was followed by 
the recruitement of an agronomist to respond to die growing demand for 
somebody to give technical assistance to the then mushrooming agricultural 
activities. A water engineer was also recruited for technical assistance and coordination 
of die fast growing number of water projects. In this way the 
development education programme continued to expand and give birth to 
various additional programmes: primary health care, family life, small 
homes for disabled children, soil conservation and afforestation, school 
leavers' programme, savings and credit cooperatives, farmers' consumer 
shops and leadership training. 
By the end of 1984, the development education programme of the 
Catholic diocese of Machakos had nearly 2 000 grassroots groups with about 
60 000 participants. The diocesan development staff is composed of 11 fulltime 
'professional' staff (all but two are from the district) and eight (local) 
administration staff. We have 16 full-time field workers, nearly 100 part-time 
field workers and more than 1 500 voluntary group leaders.
58 Francis W Mulwa 
The Development Education Programme (DEP) in relation to grassroots 
participation 
As we shall see in this section, DEP is basically founded on the ideals of 
participatory development. 
(a) Methodological approaches of DEP 
The Diocesan DEP shares a common vision with the national DEP of the 
Catholic Diocese of Kenya which reads as follows: 
"We aim at motivating and empowering (people) to take active 
responsibility to transform their own society by setting their own goals 
and making their own decisions, while at the same time being open in 
dialogue to wider society. This will b'e achieved by grassroots awareness 
encouraging the participation of all; leading to coordinated action; rooted 
in small Christian communities. In collaboration without compromise, 
die small Christian communities unite for self-reliance reaching out to all 
God's people, in die struggle for justice for all" (Crowley, 1985:94). 
The key words in this vision statement include: 
— motivation and awareness 
— grassroots 
— participation 
— self-reliance 
— justice for all. 
Certain principles go with the above vision statement, giving die 
functional guidelines as follows: 
(i) No education is neutral: 
Education is understood to be like a messenger with a definite mission. It 
will either help to conform and confine people in dieir existing situation of 
life, or will lead to the awakening of people into new possibilities of better 
living. In other words, education will eidier seek to condone (whether 
directly or odierwise) the causes of suffering, poverty, inadequacy, injustices 
and inequalities, or will seek to avert suffering, alleviate poverty, discredit 
causes of inequalities, open wider potential for adequacy in life, and abhor 
injustices. Education, dierefore, can never play a neutral role in such 
matters. 
(ii) Relevance of development issues: 
People will act on those issues about which they have strong feelings. All 
education and development projects should start by identifying the issues 
which local people speak about widi excitement, hope, fear, anxiety, or 
anger. Participatory research becomes an integral component of people's 
development process.
Grassroots Participation in Development 59 
(iii) Problem-posing: 
All participants are recognised as creative people with a capacity for action. 
The animator facilitates the group process of identifying problems in their 
lives which they wish to act upon, find the root causes and work out practical 
ways in which they can set about changing the situation. 
(iv) Dialogue: 
The challenge to build a just, egalitarian society is very complex. No 
individual knows exacdy how to do it. No one has all the answers and no one 
is totally ignorant. Each person has different perceptions based on dieir 
experience. To discover valid solutions each one needs to be both learner 
and teacher. Education must be a mutual learning process. 
(v) Reflection and action: 
Most real learning and change takes place when a community experiences 
dissatisfaction widi some aspect of their present life. An animator can 
provide a situation in which they can stop, reflect critically upon what they 
are doing, identify any new information or skills that they need, get this 
information and training (input) and men plan action. 
(b) Characteristic approaches of DEP: 
The DEP leadership formation programme is seen to be crucially important 
since it has been realised that true community development will only take 
shape where there is good, dedicated, informed and skilled leadership. 
Leadership training workshops are organised in phases or as seminars. 
Participants are sent in groups who meet at least 2596 of the total training 
costs. Awareness and information sharing forms part of these leadership 
training programmes. It also includes human relations training and trust 
building skills, etc. 
DEP services to the grassroots communities will only be given to groups 
and not to individuals. This has helped to manage the scarce services more 
effectively and to ensure that services reach die most needy cases in the 
community. It has been observed from experience that it is die lessprivileged 
members of a community who easily work together as a group. 
The DEP groups are run by group committees chosen by the participants 
diemselves. This helps in die delegation of responsibilities, which is an 
important factor in participatory programmes. Leadership is therefore 
decided upon by communities themselves, free from die danger of 
imposition from above. 
The DEP groups use codes (posters, plays, songs, proverbs, etc), to depict 
situations of concern to dieir community, followed by thorough discussions. 
Such discussions lead to the identification of root causes, and plans are 
drawn for action to change die undesired situation and bring about
Table 1 Strategies for grasaroots development through participation 
Elements 
1. Setting development priorities 
2. Scope 
3. Agents of development 
4. Functional unit 
5. Types of activity 
6. Service delivery mechanism 
7. Administrative structure 
8. Monitoring & evaluation 
9. Data collection 
10. Beneficiaries 
11. Success 
Source: "Participation of the Poor in Rural Transformation, A Kenyan Case". Francis Mulua 1985, p 20 (unpublished) 
Standard tov-doun Approach 
Central Planning Hureau und 
technicians 
Area-wide reglonal setting 
Extension offices 
Formal organi ations with 
written by-laws and officers 
and registered officially 
Various purposes, often limited 
to economic development and 
provision of social amenities, 
usually politically motivated 
Piecemeal, by bureaus or depts 
with bureaucratic bottlenecks 
and overlapping 
Verticle lines of supervision 
from central to local offices 
Progress reports from local to 
regional to national offices 
"Objective" research methods 
"All people" 
External leaders creditable 
Part icipatovy bot tv *•*-:<:> 
8 
The grassroots "know where the shoe 
pinches most" 
The grassroots identified as eligible 
participants 
f
s Indigeneous facilitators, group 
leaders, and the grassroots themselves. 
Extensionists seen as catalysts ca1led 
upon only when necessary 
Informal homogeneous groups and 
associations 
Development education for awareness, 
followed or accompanied by income 
raising projects. Transcends economic 
concerns to issues of socia1 
justice in society but without 
politica1 ambitions 
Integrated according to specific needs 
of group of the grassroots. The 
latter seeks for what they need as 
opposed to waiting to receive handouts 
Coordinating committees at all levels 
Multi-level workshops among development 
agency personnel group organisers, and 
the "grassroots" {participatory 
evaluation) 
Participatory action research 
"The grassroots" 
It matters less once the job is done.
GrassrtM* Participation in Dmelopmrnt 61 
grassroots development. This process is undergone by groups assisted by 
their own local leaders. 
To minimise economic risks for most grassroots projects, the DEP 
operates a micro-fund from which grants and revolving loans are 
administered to deserving socio-economic initiatives. 
This encourages groups to attempt a wide range of projects, while at the 
same time giving projects the final push towards their completion. 
Grassroot leaders are trained in basic skills to be able to operate 
community projects, eg water pump operation, servicing and maintenance, 
construction of water tanks, plumbing fundamentals, agricultural skills, 
starting and the care of a tree nursery, etc. This approach is intended to 
minimise grassroots dependence on professional services from our staff. 
DEP has been innovative in its field work. This seems to be a crucially 
important element in grassroots participatory development. An example of 
one innovative approach comes from a programme for the physically 
disabled children in DEP. In mis programme, communities have been 
encouraged to take care of their own disabled children by building 'small 
homes' for them, attached to the village-based primary schools. Parents and 
the community at large care for these children — they bring food for them 
and take them home over the weekends. The children live in the small 
homes attended by a full-time 'mother' and a watchman. This way, care for 
the disabled becomes decentralised and made a community responsibility. 
Odier DEP programmes with a high degree of innovation include the 
primary health care programme, water projects, cooperatives, etc. 
Other development agencies have learnt from these innovations as much 
as DEP has learnt from their experiences. 
Some bottle-necks in DEP 
1. There appears to be slow growdi towards maturity in tackling issues 
pertaining to social justice within grassroot communities. This phenomenon 
has surfaced in the following ways: 
— It seems to be a slow process bringing some groups from 'projectlevel' 
activities to tackling issues of law and social justice within their 
immediate environment. One implicit explanation of this has been that 
the group leaders would play down such group initiatives which had the 
potential to endanger their job security at the hands of their regular 
employers. Another explanation is the unfounded fear of the authorities 
and those who practice the injustices. It was the people's sense of 
powerlessness that made them slow in taking initiatives to defend their 
constitutional rights and challenge sources of injustice. 
— The 'grassroots' in most DEP groups have not yet achieved reliable 
or significant rises in incomes as a result of group projects. Without this
62 Francis W Mulwa 
realisation, the groups will feel insecure in challenging the local exploitive 
elements, who may be the only source of credit and employment which 
has given them the assurance of survival so far. 
— The DEP does not appear to have given adequate attention to the 
need to establish a Justice and Peace Commission network, which would 
encourage and facilitate grassroots groups towards building a more just 
society. 
2. Some of the rural elite, politicians and other influential personalities have 
sought to 'hijack' and control the DEP grassroots groups to serve their 
interests and ambitions. The grassroots groups, being so badly in need of 
any material offers to alleviate their immediate basic needs, often fall prey to 
diese people. It takes a while before such groups realise they are being 
misused. 
3. Many 'grassroot' group leaders were unemployed in spite of being 
responsible adults with families. Their group leadership, however, was 
basically voluntary. But humanly speaking, it may sometimes appear to be 
another form of exploitation, when the groups demand half their time for 
such services. This has happened often in DEP but efforts are being made to 
train as many voluntary leaders as possible to share the task more widely. 
4. There have been some doubts and questions in DEP circles as to how 
soon awareness creating efforts should lead to economic development. 
Sometimes, there has appeared to be prolonged expectations of progress 
with little or no progress towards the establishment of income-generating 
activities. The fact is that awareness programmes should not appear to 
postpone economic returns for too long since the priority need of the 
grassroots is the alleviation of poverty. Awareness programmes should 
eventually lead to the realisation of the root causes of low standards of living, 
otherwise 'conscientisation mat does not improve the economic lot of die 
poor will only end in frustration'. (Heredero in Fernandes, 1980:62.) The 
challenge in DEP presendy is to consolidate the training of the 'grassroots' in 
socio-economic skills such as project management skills, book-keeping, cooperatives, 
baking, handicrafts, etc. 
5. The other dilemma we have come across is the choice of the direction for 
programme expansion. This has in the past been characterised by the 
constant expansion of the size of service-teams at diocesan level and the 
creation of full-time deanery based DEP teams. The obvious danger in such 
an approach is the increasing administrative costs in salaries, transport, 
stationery, etc. The programme is working out an alternative approach 
towards these service expansions through decentralisation. 
We choose to intensify and extend skill training and awareness creation 
among more and more voluntary grassroots leaders and facilitators. The 
more numerous they are the less the burden to themselves, as they share die
Grassroots Participation in Development 6 s 
leadership roles more widely. This trend will lead to less and less need for 
services from the diocesan teams and therefore gradually such teams will 
either cease to expand or will have to be reduced in numbers thus relieving 
the programmes of salary and transport bills. The ultimate aim would be to 
create sustainable structures in future. This is a constant challenge at all 
levels of the programme. 
6. It has been observed that DEP programmes at the grassroots level existed 
in isolated entities. In most cases, integration has not meant more than a 
mere coincidence of having participants from different programmes 
working on a common project, eg a cooperative endeavour or a community 
water project which brings together youth groups, women's groups, 
agriculture groups, etc, not as programme representatives but as individuals. 
Our analysis questions the adequacy of such an approach towards 
integration. Effective integration would have to bring together tihese 
different programmes under a structure which is representative, creating a 
forum for joint discussions, evaluation and planning. This strengthens 
individual groups within the community, thus creating more horizontal 
linkages to complement the already existing vertical linkages. The vertical 
structures have been common in our programmes, eg local women's 
committees, diocesan women's councils, etc. All other DEP programmes 
had similar vertical structures while horizontal networks to link them up at 
the grassroot level were either missing or too weak. 
We have, however, introduced the formation of the Development 
Education Parish Committee (DEPCO), bringing together all grassroot 
group leaders and facilitators at parish level. Such a structure is helping to 
bridge the integration gap that existed between the programmes at the 
grassroot level. Some parishes have taken up diis challenge while others are 
still in the process of doing so. One most important outcome of such 
horizontal linkages has been a better co-ordination of services delivered to 
these programmes. The grassroot groups have also developed a strong sense 
of support and 'belonging-together', necessary to tackle issues of social 
justice and the articulation of their common interests. 
7. A fairly recent phenomenon has developed, what I may call the 
'burning-out' of the DEP staff-members. This trend has surfaced in various 
facets. Some members of DEP teams had joined the programme with high 
motivation and expectations of an immediate transformation of the living 
standards of the grassroots, only to realise that great dreams sometimes take 
time to come true. Others have experienced a lack of support and 
encouragement which they so much needed to carry them through the 
challenges of the programme. Some staff may have overworked themselves 
and, lacking opportunities to undergo a period of reflection, have 
experienced burn-out.
64 Francis W Mulwa 
These forces have sometimes led to resignations to look for 'greener 
pastures', more secure jobs or new challenges. Our challenge is how to 
reverse this trend or to make the best of it. 
Conclusion 
The participation of the grassroots in rural development implies a genuine 
effort to reverse the trends of development by creating the potential for 
maximum involvement of the marginalised communities in the process of 
development for all. In this process the grassroots are given a prominent 
role, not as tools for rural development but as subjects of development as 
well as co-beneficiaries of the fruits of their labour. Grassroots participation 
in planning, implementation, evaluation and sharing the fruits of 
development is the basis for equitable rural development. This process will 
not be realised without proper leadership formation and an independent 
organisational framework and some institutional support for the grassroots. 
The Development Education Programme of the Catholic Diocese of 
Machakos is basically aimed at reaching the marginalised rural grassroots 
who are striving to better their living standards. This programme identifies 
the participatory development approach as the most effective approach for 
equitable rural development. Our intensive leadership and basic skills 
training programmes are intended to create the potential for local selfreliance 
and thus create less dependence on specialised professionalism, 
which has often tended to slow down participatory programmes. Finally I 
would like to point out that the long-term goals of DEP are not incompatible 
with that of the government development plans as stated in the most recent 
sessional paper No 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for Renewed 
Growth, which in part states: 
"The urgent need is to renew economic growth in ways that will provide 
jobs for the growing labour force, prosperity for the mass of people in the 
rural areas, an equitable and widespread sharing of the benefits of growth, 
and a continuing provision of basic needs for all." 
This can only be achieved through effective grassroots participation in 
rural development. 
FOOTNOTE 
1. In Mexico for example, as a result of their so-called 'permanent miracle' of the Green 
Revolution recorded in 1950-75, 40% of the population at the poorest end suffered a 38516 
drop in real income; only 55% of children between ages of 6 and 14 enjoyed access to basic 
education; 96% of the preschool population suffers from malnutrition (Frank, 1981:18). 
References 
Chambers R (1983) Rural Development Putting the Last First, 
Longman, London.
Grassroots Participation in Development 65 
CrowleyJ (1985) "Go to the People: An Experience in Development 
Education" in Spearhead no 86-87, April/June 1985, Gaba Publications, 
Kenya. 
Esman M J (1978) Landless and Near-Landless in Developing 
Countries, Cornell University, New York. 
Fernandes W (ed) (1980) People's Participation in Development: 
Approaches to Non Formal Education. 
Franil A G (1981) Crisis: In the Third World. 
Griffin K (1974) The Political Economy of Agrarian Change: An Essay 
on the Green Revolution. 
Mulwa F (1985) Participation of the Poor in Rural Transformation: A 
Kenya Case, unpublished dissertation, ISS The Hague. 
Nyerere J K (1973) Freedom and Development 
Power and Holenstein (1976) World of Hunger. A Strategy for Survival. 
Republic of Kenya (1986) Economic Managementfor Renewed Growth, 
Sessional paper no 1. 
Worsley P (1984) The Three Worlds: Culture and World Development