Dr Tara hit on the face with his analysis on a term that politicians commonly use recently as a blanket to hide their corrupt practices.
Bottom-Up Approach: Whose Bottom? Who/What is Approaching?
BY DR. TARCISIUS TARA KABUTAULAKA FROM AVUAVU, GUADALCANAL
Whenever I hear the term, "Bottom-Up Approach," being invoked by politicians, my gut squirms with uneasiness.
The term conjures uncomfortable images that make me ask: Whose bottom? Who, or what is approaching? Who is being referred to as "the bottom"?
Consequently, if I were a politician looking for catch phrases and sound bites to attach to my public image and help me win the up-coming elections, I wouldn't use the term, "bottom-up approach".
I am certain there are more creative and less intrusive catch phrases.
The old and overused cliché, "grassroots development," for example, is more neutral and invokes images of "grass" on a beautiful lawn, and "roots" add the picture of being down-to-earth and connected.
But, while I could relate to "grassroots", I wouldn't employ it. It's overused.
The term, "Bottom-Up Approach" has, in the past couple of years, crawled into Solomon Islands political lexicon and gained popularity amongst current and intending politicians. There are also other terms and phrases that are being thrown around by those who have their eyes set on a chair in that house on the hill.
As the election fever fires up, so has the language associated with it, proving that politics is as much about rhetoric and marketing as it is about sound policies and tangible outcomes.
In the next month, as politicians shift into high gear and press down on the campaign pedal, rhetoric will become the corner stone of political marketing.
This is an age-long art that has over time been perfected by orators and guided by five fundamental canons: invention or discovery, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.
Solomon Islands politicians have varying degrees of rhetorical and oratorical skills: some are reasonably good, while others are simply terrible.
But, my intention here is not to comment on the rhetorical and oratorical skills of our politicians. Rather, I want to examine one particular term that has recently featured in political rhetoric in our country: "Bottom-Up Approach"
The term first came to prominence in the past four years, especially during the time of the Grand Coalition for Change (GCC) government that Manasseh Sogavare led for a brief period from 2006 to December 2007.
In January 2008 when Dr. Derek Sikua launched the Coalition for National Unity and Rural Advancement (CNURA) Government, he adopted the term and was reported in the Solomon Times Online (January 19, 2008) as saying that "the bottom up approach seeks to ensure that the majority of the country's population that live in villages is given priority, and the standard of living in villages can be improved." He went on to say that the Bottom-Up Approach is about all of us taking "responsibility for our own lives and that of our families and work hard at it."
At the end of January 2010, Manasseh Sogavare, speaking at the launch of OUR Party in Auki, promised that if voted into power his party would re-introduce the "bottom-up approach development strategy."
In these discussions it is the majority of our people who live in rural areas - and increasingly in the squatter settlements of Honiara - that are regarded as being at the "bottom", or constituting "the bottom" of our social hierarchy.
This term implies that the government intends to give power to people, to approach development from people's point of view, and ensure that they are at the center of development outcomes - to improve the living conditions of our people.
It implies that the government intends to take the needs and wishes of the majority of our people as the starting point of development; that they are both the source of development ideas and the beneficiaries of its outcomes.
These are big ideas with enormous intentions.
For most of our people - at least for those of us from Haimarao on the Weather Coast of Guadalcanal - the questions are simple: Has the "Bottom-Up Approach" improved our livelihoods? Have our access to opportunities improved? Or, have we been violated "bottom-up", ignored, marginalized and impoverished by misinformed government policies and poor management?
Since the term was first used, no one has provided a satisfactory explanation of why our people are regarded as "the bottom" and how the "Bottom-Up Approach" will be implemented. If it is a "development strategy", as Sogavare states, then there should be an outline of how it will be implemented and by now there should be tangible results on the ground.
But, I haven't seen any improvement on people's lives as Sikua promised: ". . . the standard of living in villages can be improved." It hasn't. At least not here on the Weather Coast of Guadalcanal. In fact, things have either worsened, or we have reverted back to doing things the way they were done in the 1960s.
As I ponder over the "Bottom-Up Approach", I watch as Avelino Suqeboli, a man who lives near the airstrip at Haimarao (Avuavu), carry firewood from the dried-up banks of the Taqeata River. The lumbers are heavy. His back bends to the weight as he clambers towards the shed that houses the copra drier at the edge of the coconut plantation.
If the government and those who occupy its offices are serious about improving our livelihood then people like Avelino should not be carrying firewood for making copra.
Not at this day and age when coconut oil pressing machines have long been invented.
The establishment of oil pressing machines around the country would greatly reduce the labor, time and financial costs of production, reduce the cost of transportation, add value to the product, increase returns and put money in the pocket of a greater number of people.
Avelino would no longer have to carry heavy lumbers to dry copra; a task that has over the years contributed to his ill health. He, like others in the village, have long taken responsibility of their lives and worked hard - as Sikua requested - but, successive governments have failed them.
It is the successive governments, not our people, that have gone "bottom-up". Most of our people - like Avelino - have done their part in "working hard" and "taking responsibilities for their lives."
That afternoon people from the surrounding villages gathered to cut the grass at the Haimarao airstrip. They did it the old fashion way: with bush knife. One of them was Michael Talanimoli, now old and fragile, but still struggling to make a few dollars. I watch as he bends over and swings his aging arm, driving the bush knife into the thick grass.
My heart sunk as questions flooded my mind: Why should people cut grass manually in the 21st Century after lawn mowers and mechanical grass slashers have long been invented? Where has all the rural development funds (like the RCDF, Millennium Funds, etc.) gone? Why are we cleaning the airstrip in the same way did in the 1960s and 70s?
The day after, I went to the Avuavu Clinic. It was built fifty years ago by a volunteer group from New Zealand organized by the Catholic Church. Since then, successive post-independent Solomon Island governments have done nothing to improve the infrastructure. Most of the louvers had fallen off, the paints - which I am sure contained lead - had peeled off, the tiles - which most certainly contained asbestos - were peeling off and disintegrating. The beds were bare and there was hardly any medicine. It looked more like a health hazard more than a health center.
It was these observations (plus many others) that have made me lose hope on the concept of "Bottom-Up Approach."
That evening, as I watched the sun set, an eerie feeling crawled through my bones and veins. It seems that the next batch of politicians will continue to use rhetoric and terms like the "Bottom-Up Approach" to misinform and marginalize our people. That will contribute to the vulnerability of our collective bottoms, creating a nation of "bottoms up".
I think we all need help from each other. It is a good analysis but fall short of coming up with a conclusion. I see the current/past/aspiring politicians as builders with too much overheads.
They drew plan withou profesionals* help, made far un realistic promises, to build this and that etc.
In they end all they ever manage to get are some water tanks, iron roofings and solar etc, hardly income generating projects which will move the country forward.
Okay, i don't have a clue either but i'm planning ahead and will be contesting comes the next general election.
We can blame everything in the air why our nation is in this pit, we can even say that its the corrupt leaders and so forth.
but what is really the problem?? what should we be investing in??
why not education? and education doesnt mean form 5 (maybe it does a century ago..well guess what?? not anymore). More than half the population is not educated, one might argue and say otherwise but seriously, think about it. Can we ever move forward with ancient ideas?? with people who dont see beyond their porch?? A nation is built on great ideas and people who are willing to work. We all need to broaden our horizon, and stop longing for "the good old days". Every year (well more like every month) we send delegation after delegation to go on work shops, meetings....then they come home and say " oh no funds so i cant carry out what i learn from the last travel" (who are you kiddin???)it seems like everybody needs the extra allowance before they can move (if so then what are they paying you for?? ...to sit there and play cards?? while waiting for the next allowance to go do your job?)
one can say, yeah but i need to feed my family and the government is not paying enough and the prices are too high right now...well how can we bring those store prices down?? simple, do your job and stop all this lazyness.
I belive that Education is one thing that solomon should really invest in, we might not reap the harvest tomorrow but it does gives us a promising future.
And the "bottom up approach" what is that?...another joke?? whoever propose such ridiculous plan (or "approach") should really think about it...go do some more research. Solomon needs a plan that will work, a plan that includes everybody not just the minority.
As for the water tanks, solar , roofing iron (which always puts you on the front page the star) ....what are you going to do with those?? im sure a year later those things are no longer utilised....so you go back again and ask for another water tank
we all need to look at the cause of the problem, why are we still here 32 years after independence....whats the difference between us and PNG, FIJI, Vanuatu...etc etc( and feel free to come up with excuses) . They are not getting millions of dollars from taiwan and they are doing fine. They stick with the crowd that matters...why not do the same.
we have alot of of good people, highly educated (but they also know that they dont stand a chance against the crooks...why??? the rest of the population is behind those guys...they are being brain washed and manipulated....(feel free to think otherwise...til a free bag rice fall on ur doorstep)
solomon does have alot to offer, more than most nations and yet we sit back and wait for taiwan to pour manna down from waku heaven.
I am pretty sure that Dr. Tara knows exactly the meaning of "Bottom up Approach" [BUA], or at least the implications of the terms. I like his playing with words and how his words bring emotion to readers, but somewhere in there lies the true meaning and importance of BUA . Is BUA ridiculous? Not all, is it a figurative "bottom"? off course not! The BUA is a concept or an idea of leadership.
Any government body, or any ordinary office has at least a hierarchy likes a physical body; a head, a number of people under certain number of people and there goes the pyramid. Of such comes the meaning of BUA. Why I like BUA is the fact that not only does the BUA concept talks about government and the people of SI as a hierarchical body, but it helps us understand where the priorities of our leaders are. To understand how government works in our country is to understand the composition of this pyramid.
The term is a business model and it had been used by political strategists and it was made popular by Ulufa'alu government in its "Beneath Guadalcanal" policy paper. Over the years, Solomon Islands' leaders have been using the Top Down Approach [TOA], which is a self-serving approach toward leadership. The BUA aimed to serve the interest of the people on the broader base. Doing so would solve or at least address some of the problems on the top, which is the bureaucracy. This should be the leadership model for our politicians because by far, BUA remained a remote political concept. We can't address our issues in government without addressing the bottom of the pyramid. When you have a PM like Kemakeza serving his own interest and Sogavare appointing cronies and fought tooth-and-nail to keep them then we have a base a forgotten base. And when they rose up, Chinatown burned down! So who are we to blame? the leaders of course.
So yeah, the only thing I agree with as far as Dr. Tara's article is concerned is the fact that many people, prospective MPs esp, don't understand this concept and have been misusing this term for campaign purposes it simply sounds better. Some people would try the term out there and hope that the local people wouldn't ask "wat nao BUA ya ba?" and even if this terms aren't effective in the campaign roads, BUA remains a very important leadership model.
He who has never learned to obey...cannot be a good commander.
Aristotle
Post new comment