Creating permanent institutions

After a long and arduous battle to establish that human rights interventions can actually translate into long term quantifiable economic benefits to the community along with larger impact on thought processes (what-is-empowerment), now the new question was whether there should be a community based institution to sustain the empowerment and the efforts towards poverty reduction. A well regarded development sector consultant suggested in the Empowering Rural Women (ERW) program (setting-it-right-for-generations-to-come), the natural progression should be towards formation of SHG federations in order to sustain the collectives that were bringing economic benefits to the participating women and their families.I knew, understanding how it worked in the current environment of donor support, he was trying to save the program the only way he could. 

But wait a minute! Were we working towards poverty reduction in the strictest economic terms in the Empowering Rural Women (ERW) program? And then does empowerment lead to poverty reduction? Is poverty all about economics? Does empowerment work towards changing economic relations in favor of the poor? And finally, if empowerment is beyond economics, is it still a support-worthy proposition?

My fellow-practitioners are vehement that empowerment not only makes sense, it is necessary if one whats to bring lasting economic-social-political change. This is what a few of them said when I asked them about empowerment:

 "To me, 'empowerment' means radically transforming 'power' and 'power relations', in favor of those marginalized because of gender identity, sexual orientation, caste, ethnicity, religion, ability... for me, the analysis of power is at the centre of empowerment..." 

"Empowerment is when people gain the power, ability and confidence to take action for change for the betterment of their lives and community. It involves people analyzing and understanding their situation, and then to equip themselves with skills and knowledge, and most importantly to take action to make positive changes. Its actually a transforming process that may not complete overnight, but the transformation process can begin overnight."

They also said: "Empowerment is the realization of inherent dignity that in turn awaken the power within for claiming what is rightfully yours." and "Empowerment is the ability to ask questions. For here begins the journey of change" And hence, no change can be sustained without empowerment. 

Is it important to be empowered? Why development agenda had to bother with empowerment? Why cant there be development without empowerment? Is "change" so important? Can't things be better even if we keep the society at status quo? Which would mean rich would keep getting richer but poor will also start becoming richer and everyone is happy. Are you laughing already? Till you remain in good humor let me quickly bring in the next point.

I would now use some assumptions. And these assumptions are  based on work of great economists and social scientists so widely acclaimed that they perhaps do not need mention. The two most important measures of poverty are inequality and vulnerability. However much we would like to believe with our typical middle/upper class heads that "I, myself have worked hard to change the equation in my favor" or we turned the scale of inequality in our lives by sheer individual efforts and finally, others are poor because they do not work hard..it is indeed this structure inequality that helps poverty thrive. But, coming to our personal efforts, have we ever tried to break down the factors that helped us get out of sheer lack of opportunity? Did we not require empowerment to gain the economically superior position is society? What were these empowering factors? And if empowered, what sustained this empowerment?

There are two things that facilitate and sustain empowerment and hence, ensures development. The first and foremost is knowledge. Knowledge, I emphasize. Not formal education. Formal education may or may not empower you. The case in point are so many highly educated women who remain in most oppressive relationships in the name of saving marriage. I think "collective" is the second most crucial factor in gaining empowerment. And which is why we worked towards building women's collectives in the last few years. It is extremely important to know the power of collective for empowerment. There is no doubt about it. But is it important to provide a formal structure to the collective and regularize it? And if so, are SHGs and Federations, the structures that can sustain empowerment as many propose and even use? I doubt it. 

I would bring in just two examples in favor of my argument. I met a SHG-federation group from coastal Odisha (Balasore district). They claimed to be highly successful groups in terms of savings and credits. My independent inquiry also revealed the same. Impeccable reputation and a sizable saving. But the leader of this successful SHG federation came to meet me for a completely different purpose. She came to relate how they are manipulated in their families. How their husbands want the money they get from the SHG savings but do not want them to have any say on how that money gets invested or spent. How the dowry amount is increasing as they now have greater savings. They met me as they wanted training on empowerment and addressing the issue of violence against women in their community, which was on the rise along with the other parts of the country.

The second case in point is the project of one of the biggest bilateral agencies working in the country. In their financial empowerment program, which is supported by SHGs, one of the woman leaders got threatened by the vested interest groups of the village and she dropped out in the face of pressure. The threat could not be neutralized and she is nowhere to be seen in the program now. Here is a story of empowerment and subsequent dis-empowerment, which could have disastrous consequences. 

That brings me to SHGs as institutions to achieve and sustain empowerment. It is often said that to assess the sustainability of empowerment, social network analysis would be important. SHGs fall short on many counts on these. SHGs remain so engrossed in saving and credit and in building financial capital that they ignore the social issues. Have you met Musahar SHGs? Muslim SHGs? then you would know what am I talking about. Next time you visit a SHG try to find out how many members are from a different caste. SHGs do not question status quo. These let people remain in their own small wells. Never challenge the boundary. SHGs work with the boundaries. Not against the boundaries. The limitations of SHGs as social institutions have also been often raised by groups such as Nirantar http://www.nirantar.net/ who work in the oppressive heartland of India towards empowerment of women. Several studies show the failure of the SHGs in this count in Bangladesh too. I remain here to be educated on why then SHGs be considered the institution that can sustain empowerment when in the first place it does bring only limited sense of empowerment, if any!

Lastly on creating institutions for empowerment, I strongly believe, if women in these rural areas gain regular access to knowledge to such an extent that the power of the collective becomes redundant for them, we, the outsiders should not fret much about whether these collectives sustain or not. We, ourselves are not part of permanent collectives, are we? But we are aware of the strength that the collectives bring. We therefore group and re-group as the situation arise and are part of many groups at any given point in time. The institutions created with rural women had a purpose. It may lose its purpose going in the future. A new group may emerge. I foresee that the rural women I worked with will traverse a journey akin to our own. And if they do so that is the success of the vision and not sustainability of institutions in the name of sustaining empowerment.