Women’s role in the economic, social and political development process has formed a part of the development discourse, notably since the commencement of the UN Decade for Women in 1975. The correlation between democracy and development, although not necessarily causally linked, is also not new. Debates in these areas have evolved over the years to display a more sophisticated understanding of the interplay between gender relations (as opposed to women’s issues) and development issues, and also how the democratic process impacts upon gender roles and the level of development. One of the most important reasons for undertaking a study on women’s relationship to development and democracy is seated in the recognition that, despite the increase in awareness and the research on the plight of women, there is still no permanent and long term evidence in the 1990s that gender issues have been taken seriously on the macrolevel of analysis.

Linda Cornwell’s well-researched article highlights this issue. But her biggest contribution to this subject is to be found in the fact that she avoids the temptation to theorise about gender, democracy and development, each an area of complex and contested academic scholarship and research. In this regard, her writing also stands out because, unlike most feminist studies with their tendency to obscure, she tackles the central question in an articulate and flowing style. Her focus on the overlap or interface between the three areas of study reveals a rich and dynamic web of relationships, more often than not disclosing paradox, contradiction and tension between the various spheres of analysis. The interface between gender, development and democracy is handled competently by first establishing the nexus between gender and development; then elucidating the development and democracy interface; and then, finally, completing the triad by linking all three areas. Cornwell achieves synthesis by placing her analysis in the context of ‘developing world’ African women and their relationship to development initiatives within a ‘soft’ African state.

Her approach is one of inductively guiding the reader from an exposition of the current status and development struggle of women to a more nuanced and somewhat theoretical understanding of the subject. However, her reluctance even to attempt a brief survey of some of the main schools of thought on the basis that there is a lack of consensus (that "a certain level of generality is unavoidable in a study of this nature") and that it would, furthermore — as stated only in the conclusion - "require several volumes", does not convince. Problems of space should not prevent the author from explicitly making her own theoretical assumptions at the onset and, furthermore, should not detract from the inductive approach adopted in the writing. Another problem relates to the issue of why the focus on the nexus between gender, democracy and development was chosen. The introductory section neither makes the choice clear nor does it adequately explain why the three areas of interest overlap as they do. To some extent all these issues are left to the reader to work out for him/herself.

Nevertheless, in the first section of the article, Cornwell makes a strong case for a gendered approach to development as a means to greater understanding of the unequal impact of development efforts on men and women. She argues, quite correctly, that such an approach will highlight the shift within power relations in both the public and the private domain. A re-examination of the private domain, especially intrahousehold power relationships, is undeniably an area which is often overlooked. Sen (as referred to by Pearson1) reminds us that the household should rather be seen as a form of co-operative conflict where considerable negotiation regarding needs and interests takes place. Bauzon’s comprehensive definition of democracy is used in the second and subsequent sections of the article to form the cornerstone of Cornwell’s argument. A concept of democracy and/or democratisation which does not only relate to the politics of the state and government, but also impacts upon all aspects of society has definite linkages with a people-centred or human needs-driven approach to development. Both these processes serve to widen the range of people’s choices in the pursuit of their own well-being. Equitable participation as the common denominator is therefore seen as the key to both democratic and development processes. Cornwell does acknowledge that this somewhat idealistic and largely populist/people-driven stance is mitigated by reality. Not only does the African state very often lack the political will and physical capacity to implement such policies, but the fact also remains that many policies, such as structural adjustment — despite the best intentions of the state — are counterproductive to the cause of democratisation and development.

Relying on a vast body of literature on the subject, Cornwell paints a bleak picture of the current status of women (particularly rural women) in Africa. Gross inequalities exist in terms of working hours, workload, educational levels, income, property ownership, access to land, technology and credit facilities. Not only do women suffer at the hands of gender insensitive development programmes, but they are also adversely affected by a broad range of public policies. Since all policies, as products of human behaviour and socio-political and economic organisation, have gendered implications, our task is to clarify how assumptions about the roles of men and women impact upon these policies. In citing numerous examples of the detrimental effects of development efforts and public policies on women, she reinforces the argument for a gendered approach to development, thus deflating widely accepted assumptions about the universal distribution of development benefits. Cornwell is conscious of the fact that an approach where women are merely "added in" (kept on the periphery of mainstream development efforts) may provide increased visibility to women’s interests, but will not contribute substantially to their empowerment. At the heart of fostering a distinct feminist perspective within the development discourse lies the true meaning of a gendered development point of view — the freedom of women to control their own development.

Notwithstanding the merits of the argument, Cornwell does appear to be treating the various approaches to development as rather monolithic and ahistorical. No explicit (albeit brief) distinction is made between, for instance, the modernisation approach which did not see women as a distinct and particularly disadvantaged group who would automatically benefit via men; the welfare approach which provided financial aid for economic growth on the one hand and relief or survival aid for so-called socially vulnerably groups (women as passive recipients of development rather than participants in the development process) on the other hand; and the politically unpopular equity approach which attempted to use top-down legislation and policies to redistribute power in the public and private spheres.2 While it gradually becomes clear that the author argues from a more radical Southern or developing world perspective, it has to be noted that the critics of development efforts are also not a homogenous group.The critique of Northern feminists, on the one hand, is premised on the gender-biased or sexist character of approaches to development. Southern feminists, on the other hand, contend that women’s declining position is directly related to their assimilation — willingly or unwillingly — into the global market economy that is built upon a patriarchal exchange between North and South. The author repeatedly blames Western/Northern stereotyping for the gendered outcomes. While the cultural bias of external donor agencies and development planners has been and still is largely prevalent, this stance reveals a curiously one-sided view of the role of culture and traditionalism in the lives of African women, in particular. Not only is culture a useful tool for the analysis of the interplay between economic and political dimensions in general, but it can also enhance the interplay between — more specifically — gender relations, development and democracy. Except for a fleeting reference to "traditional patriarchal practices of land tenure" in the conclusion, Cornwell is mainly silent on the ‘homegrown’ cultural underpinnings of some traditional African societies.

The author offers a number of useful suggestions on how to reverse the differential impact of development on women. These include the institutionalisation of a gender perspective at the national level and in international donor agencies by means of desegregated gender statistics, increasing women’s access to resources and time to improve their educational status, as well as a development approach which takes cognisance of gender issues rather than women’s issues. With regard to the institutionalisation of gender issues in public policy-making, the emphasis — to quote Cornwell — is placed on "truly transformative changes to the economy" and changing "the laws that govern women’s access to factors of production." What Cornwell ultimately proposes, is a radical redistribution of resources.

Cornwell alludes in her critique of development efforts to the danger of conflating women’s interests with gender interests. In pursuing the goal of the institutionalisation of gender in development and democracy, Caroline Moser’s3 distinction between strategic and practical gender needs may therefore serve as a useful methodological tool. Strategic gender needs are essentially feminist, as they challenge women’s subordinate position in society. In contrast, practical gender (or rather women’s) needs are more tactical and usually non-feminist in nature, because they are formulated from women’s concrete experience, that is, the effects of women’s engendered status. Her proposals should therefore be read in this context, namely one where strategic demands for equal opportunity and access in the areas of education, health, wage labour, agriculture, the management of natural resources and financial services are coupled with grassroots attention to basic needs such as food, water and shelter, thus allowing room for differences between African women themselves.

The second part of the article on the development and democracy interface is superior in coherence and clarity of argument to the former section, mainly because of the emphasis on the shared features of people-centred development and an expanded notion of democracy which goes beyond a formal or procedural legal and political form. This implies that truly transformative participation becomes an end in itself. Quite clearly — according to this view — participation, empowerment, ownership and the freedom to choose embody the essence of both the process of development and of democratisation. Cornwell, however, is mindful of the paradox that this perspective poses for development on the African continent. If the answer lies in no longer regarding the state as the only vehicle for development, then it follows that the state should relinquish some of its vested powers. Yet, ironically, the very nature of the African state, weak as it is, mitigates against a needs-driven approach to development. On the contrary, in order to ensure its survival, the state often turns to increased centralisation and intervention, as few mechanisms exist to manage the co-operative and conflictual demands of a pluralist society. In Zimbabwe, for instance, localised efforts at community development have been advocated widely in terms of the benefits for strengthening democracy and civic responsibility, minimising bureaucracy and thereby achieving greater efficiency. But, in practice, the transfer of power and authority has been problematic, especially for those in power.4 Recent poverty hearings in South Africa’s Northern Province have also revealed how deeply entrenched traditional power structures can be. In rural areas, any development initiative such as self-help schemes, has to be approved by the local induna. Such an anachronistic system makes a mockery of democracy, especially in light of the fact that provincial officials legitimise the traditional leader’s authority by refusing to act without his consent.5 Rather than being a primary agent for development or providing an enabling structure for development by other agencies, the state in the African context is therefore generally seen as a structural impediment to development.

In the third and final part of the article, Cornwell completes the argument by linking gender, democracy and development. The low levels of participation of women in public or political life point towards and confirm the fact that women have always been on the margins of democracy; just like their invisibility in macro-economic planning testifies to their marginalisation in development planning. Given the impotence of civil society as a vehicle through which women can exercise their choices, the author opts for a democratic (state) system as the only viable alternative, mainly because it provides a platform for the mobilisation and organisation of women’s and gender interests. Cornwell’s choice poses another paradox, namely that — while the state enables women to educate themselves, which ultimately allows them to enter public life, thus providing a platform for women to challenge the state’s gender bias — the very weakness of the state makes it difficult to ensure responsiveness, even in the face of growing pressure. In this context, women’s role in the reinterpretation of tradition may then become an exercise in futility.

Disentangling these and many other contradictions in the intersection of democracy, gender and development, is what makes Linda Cornwell’s contribution noteworthy. Her work provides a noble vision of people (and women) themselves as agents of development and democracy. Much work, regrettably, still needs to be done to find ways of replicating such a vision on a larger scale than the local one, for example the regional context.

Endnotes

R Pearson, Gender Matters in Development, in T Allen & A Thomas (eds.), Poverty and Development in the 1990s, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992, p. 302.



See C O N Moser, Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Needs, in R Grant & K Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1991, pp. 95-96, 98-101, for a more detailed discussion.



Ibid., pp. 106-107.



J Chikwanya, The Evolution of Development: Comparative Analysis of Southern African Country Approaches, Cantilevers, 4, Second Half 1997, p. 15.



C Barron, Tradition’s Lords of Poverty, Sunday Times, 5 April 1998, p. 21.