Zambezia (1980), VIII (i).ESSAY REVIEWBEYOND INDEPENDENCE : UNFETTERED COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTIT WAS IRONICAL that the most liberal and democratic policy to be evolved inthe history of administration in Rhodesia Š namely the policy of CommunityDevelopment and Local Government Š should have been initiated only sixmonths before the shock election results of December 1962, which installedthe most conservative and right-wing Government that the country had known.Equally, it was paradoxical that the Rhodesian Front Government shouldhave espoused Community Development as one of the main planks in itselection platform, and that this policy, promoting local representative insti-tutions, should have continued to be implemented into the 1970s, despitethe determination of that Government to concentrate authority in the here-ditary chieftainships. Thus Holleman has described 'the odd sensation ofwatching two currents moving in opposite directions' Š at the higher levelof Government and political decision-making a flow back towards the politicaland authoritarian right, leading to a polarization of White and Blackpolitical attitudes, and at the lower level the current of administrative andtechnical activity with deliberately non-authoritarian efforts towards a betterunderstanding and more effective promotion of African ambitions.1 But it wasmore than a dichotomy between the legislature and the administration thatwas involved. Whilst the responsible section of the administration under theoriginal civil servants continued along the substantive course of liberal policy,another element within the same ministry was being promoted to a positionof authority in which the opposite approach might steadily be implemented.Thus there was a schizoid division within the administration itself, in whichtwo opposing lines of action were pursued simultaneously, one promotingdemocratic institutions and the other the false notion of an all-powerfultraditional leadership.These fundamental distinctions have been ignored, however, in a recentpamphlet on Community Development by Michael Bratton.2 In the openingpages (p.6) he declares: 'Community development in Rhodesia vests statepower in the hands of white administrative officials and traditional chiefs'.This wrong assumption underlies much of the bia^and many of the inac-curacies in his work, the correction of which is the purpose of this essayreview.There is some justification, in view of the contradictions that existed,particularly after 1969, for Bratton's observation (p.35) that 'administrativepractices diverged widely from stated goals'. It is worthy of note from the1 J. F. Holleman, Chief, Council and Commissioner (London, Oxford Univ. Press, 1969),290. Holleman describes how Community Development was essentially the product of 'theadministrative mind' and never intended to be the subject of political decision-making. A non-racial policy, it was incorporated into the Rhodesian Front election platform as a result of themisplaced enthusiasm of Jack Howman, later Minister of Internal Affairs, who was the brotherof Roger Howman, architect of the African Councils Act of 1957 and main inspiration behindlocal government and community development policy. Thus elevated to the 'battlefield of nationalpolitics' the policy was unjustly stamped as apartheid and prematurely exposed to 'violentattacks of an emotional and politically prejudiced nature', ibid., 276.2 M. Bratton, Beyond Community Development (Gwelo, Mambo Press in associationwith the Catholic Institute for International Relations, From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe No. 6, 1978),62pp., Z$0,65.8586 ESSAY REVIEWoutset, however, that in spite of a cynical and inadequately researched account,the author of Beyond Community Development has to admit (p.22) that,at the lower level of community development, 'peasants undoubtedlyresponded in some parts of the country to new opportunities to obtaindesired social facilities by means of community action', whilst at the levelof local government, 'despite the uneven impact of community development... the settler state did succeed in establishing significant numbers of localgovernment institutions where none of national scope had existed before' (p.25).It is not possible to enter into a meaningful discussion of CommunityDevelopment and Local Government without some attempt to locate this !policy in its historical perspective. This task is attempted in Part III ofBratton's pamphlet; it is evident, however, that several notable facts have ibeen omitted, and that the valididity of others is highly debatable.A significant aspect not mentioned, for example, is the fact that theintroduction of Community Development policy in 1962, coincided with agenuine if short-lived trend towards greater liberalism in Rhodesian politics.It was a time when the country seemed close to legal independence from ,Great Britain, and the Prime Minister, Sir Edgar Whitehead, in an addressto the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations, announced the intention Ł*of his Government to end all racial discrimination, and in particular, torepeal the Land Apportionment Act of 1930, which had been the plinthstoneof segregation between the races.3 (It was this declared intention, accordingto Lord Malvern, which caused the backlash reaction of the White electorate 'and the victory of the Rhodesian Front.) This was also a period of heightenedpolitical tension engendered by the realization of nationalist aspirations toindependence in neighbouring territories. Above all it was a time of widespread ,dislocation and misery among the African population of Southern Rhodesia,brought to a head by the Land Husbandry Act (No. 52 of 1951) in the late1950s. Although Bratton's pamphlet pays some attention to this statute, itfails to appreciate its significance as a major precipitating factor in alteringthe direction of policy in favour of greater decentralization and local govern-ment.Based on the rising alarmist reports of the Natural Resources Board and fagricultural officials concerning destruction on the land over a decade or Ł,more, the Land Husbandry Act of 1951 had been an attempt to re-deploy *the peasant population by re-allocating land holdings according to strictlyscientific criteria of conservation and husbandry. Its implementation involvedthe removal and re-settlement of thousands of families, as well as vigorousdestocking measures. A consequence of the Act was extensive landlessness,exacerbated by heightened unemployment as the Central African Federation vfaltered. In a situation of threatened if not actual unrest, the need for a moreliberal policy allowing of democratic participation in future administration ,.became an urgent requirement. In this context the African CouncDs Act(No. 19 of 1957), which provided for the first time a representative systemfor elective local government in African rural areas, acquired a new signifi-cance.Paradoxically the crisis of the early 1960s also heightened the anxiety ofopponents of local government policy, and their determination to entrenchthe chiefs as sole recognized local authorities in Tribal Trust Lands. Thecompromise solution adopted was to follow a concept of institution-buildingput forward in the Howman Report years before, which would retain the3 United Nations General Assembly, 17th Session, Official Records, 30 October l%2Fourth Committee, 1366th Meeting.GLORIA C. PASSMORE 87functions of the chiefs in their purely traditional role, namely in the allocationof land and judicial matters, whilst leaving secular development in the handsof elective local government.4 Whilst considerable progress was made towardsachieving this compromise, it will be seen that it was eventually submergedby Rhodesian Front policy to vest the final local authority in the chieftainship.The African Councils Act of 1957, based on further extensive researchby H. R. G. Howman (later Deputy Secretary for Internal Affairs until 1969and awarded the M.B.E. for this work), provided for a modified form oflocal government modelled on the Westminster pattern. The object of theAct stated in the House was to provide education 'in the important respon-sibilities of citizenship by creating an environment in which democratic values,social responsibility, collective self-help and progressive leadership canemerge'.5 This Act had special features in that the legislation was not to beimposed on African communities, for 'they must grow up to it and ask forit'.6 Communities were tohave freedom of choice ln^he purposes for whichcouncils were established and 'freedom to develop at their own pace' (withina wide range of powers available to municipal, town and village authoritiesunder sister legislation in other areas).7 Out of respect to the remaininginfluence of traditional leaders in the tribal areas, the chiefs in any council'sarea was to be accorded nominal position of status (but not authority) asvice-president, whilst a headman was an ex officio member. The council'swarrant could specifically exclude a chief or headman from the councils ifthis was indicated by local circumstances.8Therefore the statement made by Bratton (pp.15 - 16) that 'the AfricanCouncils Act crowned for the colonial period a general trend in settlerpolicy to reinvest traditional chiefs with lost authority', is not valid. Similarlyinaccurate is his comparison of the African Councils Act of 1957 with itspredecessor the Native Councils Act (No. 38 of 1937). Bratton claims (p. 17)that, 'the composition of the councils and the role of the native commissioner,unchanged from previous years, revealed the consistent underlying pre-occupation of colonial administrators with the problem of political andadministrative control', whereas in fact the 1957 Act differed materiallyfrom that of 1937, both in regard to the composition of the councils and therole of the Native Commissioner, as well as in other major respects. Underthe earlier Act councils consisted of chiefs and headmen and such otherindigenous persons as might be appointed by the Governor. Under the laterAct councils were primarily elected. Whereas the Native Commissioner hadformerly occupied the key position of chairman on a permanent basis, underthe later Act councils were encouraged to elect their own chairmen and theNative Commissioner was made President with advisory powers only.In the second place the Act of 1957 was designed to provide a mediumthrough which democratic leadership might be evolved Š the opposite of4 R. Howman, Report on African Local Government for Southern Rhodesia (Salisbury,Ministry of Native Affairs, mimeo, 1953).5 Southern Rhodesia, Debates ... 1957, XXXIX, 23 Apr., 1017, quoted in G. C. Passmore,The National Policy of Community Development in Rhodesia (Salisbury, Univ. of Rhodesia,1972), 58.6 Southern Rhodesia, Report of the Secretary for Native Affairs, Chief Native Commissionerand Director of Native Development for the Year 1957 (Sess[ionalJ Pap[er]s, C.S.R. 11, 1958),7, quoted in Passmore, The National Policy of Community Development, 59.7 Southern Rhodesia, Debates ... 1957, XXXIX, 23 Apr., 1017, quoted in Passmore, TheNational Policy of Community Development, 58.* G. C. Passmore, Local Government Legislation in Southern Rhodesia (Salisbury, Univ.Coll. of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, 1966), 39.88 ESSAY REVIEW'political and administrative control' suggested by Bratton (p.17) when hecites out of context Roger Howman who, he claims, had argued quite bluntlythat 'if we can foster the corporate life of the African and design wiselythe devices whereby leaders emerge, we may influence very greatly the kindof leaders we shall have to face in the future'. The full context in whichHowman wrote was as follows:African leadership is becoming a crucial problem. As weturn slowly away from the paternalism of the past we are facedwith a new era in Native Administration, a time offered to us inwhich to lay the foundations of future African leadership. Soundadministrative planning now can determine to a large extent thequalities of Leaders, for leaders are moulded by the groups outof which they emerge and take on the attributes and roles expectedof them by their followers ...How to ensure that methods of selection do produce leaderswho are genuinely representative of the people is, therefore, theroot of the problem ...Thus it was intended that the 1957 Act, providing for elective representationin local government, would enable leaders to arise from the democraticprocess. The ultimate aim as reported by the Paterson Commission, quotingfrom an official memorandum, was to provide 'a widespread democraticsocial structure on the ground ... to serve as a foundation and training ground,of the whole political structure of the State, for such a State can only besustained and nourished by a responsible and informed electorate'.10 Howmansaw the African Councils Act as the first in a triad of statutes which wouldfulfil his concept of institution-building Š the remaining two being the TribalTrust Land Act (No. 9 of 1967) and the African Law and Courts Act (No.9 of 1969). Thus in 1961 the Mangwende Commission described the AfricanCouncils Act of 1957 as:a rare and outstanding document ... it interprets change as a humanproblem and it seeks to meet this problem by the mobilization ofhuman resources and ambitions within the African communitiesthemselves ...The Act recognizes that the process of transition involves both thetraditional and the modern ... It embodies the essential administra-tive approach that might save rural African society."Whilst the African Councils Act had only been in application since 1958and it was early to judge, councils had not been going so well. Apart from itsunfortunate timing alongside the Land Husbandry scheme, the Act hadsuffered other disadvantages. More specifically, the Government had retainedin its own hands most of the major local services, so that councils hadlittle to offer that was of value in the peasants' eyes. It was urged thatresponsibility for primary education, health and other services should be9 R. Howman, 'African leadership in transition Š an outline', NADA (1956), XXXIII, 13 - 14.10 Southern Rhodesia, Second Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Organizationand Development of the Southern Rhodesia Public Services (Sess. Paps, C.S.R. 35, 1962), para.1.26.11 Southern Rhodesia, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Discontent in the MangwendeReserve (Sess. Paps, 1961), paras 109, 119.GLORIA C. PASSMORE 89devolved to local government. Also the councils were seen by the rural peopleas hostile Government agencies rather than as their own representative bodies.There was a need for intermediary organizations which would bring councilscloser to the communities they served and provide a two-way means ofcommunication.Bratton makes no mention of the important commissions and inquiriesbrought into being in 1961 and 1962, at the height of the crisis following theLand Husbandry scheme, whose recommendations played a major role indetermining later policy. The list includes not only the Mangwende Commissionwhich inquired into unrest and other questions in the Reserve of that name,and the Paterson Commission which inquired into the organization of thePublic Services, but the Robinson Commission which inquired into thefunctions of the District Administration and Courts Departments,12 the JudgesCommission which inquired into Education,13 the Select Committee whichinquired into Resettlement on the Land,14 the Agency for InternationalDevelopment which advised on Community Development,15 and five CabinetWorking Parties which correlated the findings of all these bodies and madefinal recommendations to the Government.16The findings of each of these agencies, arriving at its conclusionsseparately, helped to emphasize the need for greater decentralization andpromotion of local government as a top priority of administration. Thedecision was placed on record on 14 May 1962 that: 'It is the policy of theGovernment of Southern Rhodesia to accept the philosophy, principles andpractices of community development as the basis of district administration,local government and technical development.' n It might therefore have beenuseful if an attempt had been made by Bratton to clarify the relationshipbetween community development and local government in the policy underdiscussion. The Project Agreement entered into by the Government with theUnited States Agency for International Development, for technical assistance,referred to community development as being based upon 'democratic pro-gramme planning and action and acceptance of responsibility at the communityand local government levels'.18 If, in a nutshell, the processes of communitydevelopment might be described as organized self-help, local government wasstatutory organized self-help. James Green, Advisor on Community Develop-ment, described community development and local government as being twosides of the same coin:19 Through community development people mightlearn the rudiments of democratic planning and management, forming groupswhich in turn could act as a link between the community and local govern-ment, helping to make the latter more effective. Some groups might become,or combine to form, local government bodies. Local government in its turncould materially help community agencies by providing funds and concreteassistance.12 Southern Rhodesia, Report of the Commission Appointed to Inquire and Report on theAdministrative and Judicial Functions in the Native Affairs and District Courts Departments(Sess. Paps, C.S.R. 22, 1961).13 Southern Rhodesia, Report of the Southern Rhodesia Education Commission (Sess. Paps,C.S.R. 37, 1963).14 Southern Rhodesia, Report of the Select Committee on Resettlement of Natives (Sess.Paps, S.C. 3, 1960).15 See Passmore, The National Policy of Community Development, 84 -103.16 See ibid., 116.17 Ibid., 120.18 Quoted in ibid., 314.19 Ibid., 97.90 ESSAY REVIEWIn its emphasis on expressed need, responsibility, collective action, self-help and freedom of choice, the African Councils Act embodied many of theprinciples inherent in community development. However, it is evident thatthe policy of community development and local government, though abbre-viated to 'the policy of Community Development', was in fact a policy inwhich the greater emphasis was centred on local government. Thus in Rhodesiathe Prime Minister's Directive stated that, 'at the district level Government'sprimary purpose is local self-government. The means or process wherebythis purpose is to be promoted is community development.'20 The policyrequired implementation on three planes:At the level of the central Government, ministries were requiredto reorganize their functions and finances with a view to devolvingsuch local services as possible to local governments.At the level of local government, councils were to be promotedby District Commissioners to allow the maximum responsibleparticipation of peasants in local affairs.Finally, at the level of the grass-roots communities village-levelworkers known as community advisers were to assist the peasantsto form community organizations for local action.It is not true, as Bratton claims (p.21) that 'few powers of importancewere devolved even then to African councils ... due in part to the protective-ness of white civil servants over departmental prerogatives'. In the earlystages of implementation arguments primarily over the racial application ofthe policy as well as inter-departmental rivalries (notably between InternalAffairs and Agriculture) were responsible for holding up the all-importantPrime Minister's Directive setting out the necessary instructions to ministries.Once this had been issued in July 1965, however, action for devolution wentahead in the fields of primary education, preventive health, veterinaryservices, road building, water supplies and other services.21 The Directivewhich was published as a Government White Paper, instructed every ministryto:address itself to the tasks of defining its role in relation tocommunity development, of planning the necessary changes in itsorganization, of ensuring co-ordination of its efforts with those ofall other ministries and arranging that its officers are fully in-structed in the new approach.22Devolution commenced in 1966 with the vesting of responsibility forpreventive health services in African councils. By 1969 there were 66 council-run outpatient clinics, 16 councils running inpatient clinics, 26 council-runRed Cross posts, and 11 councils running ambulance services. In addition,councils participated in vaccination, anti-malarial and anti-bilharzial campaignsand made grants to hospitals, clinics and other medical services.23 By 197220 Rhodesia, Statement of Policy and Directive by the Prime Minister: Local Governmentand Community Development. The Role of Ministries and Co-ordination (Sess. Paps, C S R44, 1965), para. 16 (a).21 Passmore, The National Policy of Community Development, 189 - 241.22 Statement of Policy and Directive by the Prime Minister, para. 6.23 Passmore, The National Policy of Community Development, 236.GLORIA C. PASSMORE 91there were 97 clinics being operated by African councils.24 The services pro-vided included treatment for minor illnesses and injuries, outpatient treatmentfor diseases of public health importance such as eye infections and malaria,provision for accommodation on an emergency basis for sick and injuredawaiting removal to hospital, maternity care with short-term maternitybeds and facilities for normal midwifery, and the provision of mother andchild welfare services in the form of ante-natal clinics, well-baby clinics andfamily planning services.In the light of these functions, it can be seen that Bratton's statement(p.31) that, 'as for health, only preventive services, notably family planning,were devolved', is inadequate if not mischievous. At several points, in fact,Bratton reveals not only an ignorance of actual policy and developments inRhodesia concerning local government and community development, but ofcommon practice in these fields elsewhere. For example, his point that onlypreventive health services were devolved and curative services retained (p.31),ignores the fact that in the field of local government at large this is usualpractice: curative services in the form of large-scale, expensive hospital andspecialized care is regarded as beyond the capacity of local governments tomaintain except where very high concentrations of population exist. A furtherinstance is his reference (p.32) to cost cutbacks 'in the face of internationaleconomic sanctions', reducing primary education from eight to seven years.Bratton is obviously unaware of the widespread application of this change,for example in England and in many parts of Africa to the north of Rhodesia,where it has been recognized that, by utilizing more modern methods andimproved teacher training, a better syllabus can be provided in a seven-yearthan in the former eight-year course.In 1967 the decision to transfer responsibility for primary education tolocal councils was put into operation. The decision had been announced inthe Governor's Speech from the Throne in June 1965.25 It formed part of anew Education Plan to be implemented over the succeeding ten years, andphase one, allowing schools a clear academic year's notice, was due tocommence on 1 January 1967. Therefore it is not only inaccurate but ludicrousfor Bratton to state (p.22) that:Problems of implementation within the state apparatus wereaddressed in the long-delayed Prime Minister's directive . . . In anattempt to quell outside doubts, formal responsibility for Africanprimary education . . . was transferred from the State to AfricanCouncils in 1966 [emphasis is mine].Equally misleading is Bratton's description (p.32) of the process oftransfer:By 1973 fewer than half of the African primary schools slatedfor transfer were actually under the control of local authorities.1,655 of 3,147 schools remained under the control of either thestate or of religious organizations. The 'interim measure' wherebythe Division of African Education assumed management of primaryschools until local authorities were financially capable had about24 G. C. Passmore, 'Evolution of CD in Rhodesia", The Rhodesian Community DevelopmentReview (1973), III, iv, 7.25 Passmore, The National Policy of Community Development, 195.92 ESSAY REVIEWit, after a decade of community development, an air of permanency.The Division of Education, in fact, took over the schools in 1971 Š hardly adecade before as implied Š and the reason for this emergency step was therelinquishing of responsibility for their management by certain missions inprotest against Government policy.The majority of primary schools in African rural areas had been ad-ministered by missions under Government subsidy, and their transfer toAfrican councils commenced in 1967 on a voluntary basis. In September1969, in further keeping with the policy to devolve financial responsibilityfrom central to local government, it was announced in the LegislativeAssembly that as from January 1971 the grants for teachers' salaries wouldbe 95 in place of 100 per cent as previously, the difference going towardsexpanded secondary education. The missions reacted strongly to this an-nouncement, presenting a statement to the Ministry for African Educationin November 1969, to the effect that they found it impossible to make up theadditional 5 per cent either from church resources or by imposing extra feeson the parents. Further enquiries revealed that the. missions wished to relin-quish control over some 2,308 primary schools for which they had beenresponsible, leaving 640 in church hands.26 Not all of the schools, to beabandoned were in areas served by African councils willing and able to takethem over. In many areas no council had yet been established. The netresult was that some 1,312 primary schools were in danger of being left'shepherdless'. To meet the situation interim legislation was passed enablingthe affected schools to become 'sponsored schools' under the control of theMinistry, assisted by parent-teachers associations who were given guidancefrom specially mobilized corps of schools supervisors. This was intended asa temporary arrangement to continue up to the end of 1975, when it washoped there would be sufficient councils to assume final responsibility.27 Bythe end of 1973 in addition to the 1,111 primary schools already adminis-tered by councils, a further 1,093 still awaited takeover. Missions retainedcontrol of 562 primary schools.28It will be seen that Bratton's claim (p. 19) that 'the administrative reformsthat accompanied the adoption of the policy of community development wereof form rather than substance' does not seem to be borne out by the facts.In 1973 there were 159 African councils in existence out of 260 estimated asthe total required to blanket the country. They were responsible for an infra-structure which included the maintenance not only of 1,111 primary schoolsand 97 (in 1972) rural clinics, but 485 dips and 8,052 kilometres of roads.Councils also provided bridges, dams, weirs and piped water supplies; ranbusiness centres, beerhalls, timber and grinding mills; and operated school-furniture and clothing factories, as well as other services. The council centreswere acting as the focii of growth in the rural areas.29 Councils employedthousands of persons and the foundations of a local government service hadbeen laid, with provision for pensions and minimum standards of qualificationtied to salary scales and subsidies. Their combined annual revenue expendedon local government services amounted to approximately Z$8.5 million.3026 Southern Rhodesia, Annual Report of the Secretary for African Education 1973 (SessPaps. Cmd R.R. 8), 42.27 The outcome of the Sponsored Schools scheme is reported in Teachers Forum (1976), 111ix, 8.28 Annual Report of the Secretary for African Education 1973, 42.29 Passmore, 'Evolution of CD in Rhodesia', 7.30 Information from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 1973.GLORIA C. PASSMORE 93Roughly 50 per cent of the revenue of the councils, about Z$4 million,was derived from Government subsidies. They included initial grants given tocouncils in the first year to help them establish themselves, block grants ona formula basis varying with the amount of rates collected (this formuladiminished after a figure of Z$10,000 had been raised in rates, to allow ofincreasing autonomy to councils that were reliably established); salary grants;percentage grants for expenditure on agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry,water supplies, roads and bridges; and finally ad hoc assistance.31 ThusBratton's statement (p.32) that 'the government has endeavoured to absolvethe state at the centre of a responsibility for social services at the periphery'and the oblique comment (p.55) that 'administrative decentralization andcommunity development have been used in the past as a means of absolvingthe state of responsibility for assisting the rural poor' seem to be ill-founded.The Prime Minister's Directive stated that Community Development:may be summed up, in so far as central Government's role isconcerned, as an active, planned and organized effort to placeresponsibility for decision-making in local affairs on the freelychosen representatives of responsible people at the community andlocal government levels, and to assist people to acquire the attitudes,knowledge, skills, and resources required to solve, through com-munal self-help and organization, as wide a range of local problemsas possible in their own order of priority.32Published figures for 1969 33 indicate what progress has been made towardsthe ideal of decision-making placed in the hands of freely chosen represen-tatives of people in local government areas:Council MembersChiefs (ex officio Vice-Presidents) 96Headmen (ex officio Members) 171Elected Members 1 099Council ChairmenChiefs 6Headmen 3Elected Members 81District Commissioners (non-Members) 8Bratton makes much of instances reported by Dr A. K. H. Weinrieh(Sister Mary Aquina) in the Victoria Province where in seven cases of pro-posed council formation, five evidenced strong local oppostion.34 He reachesthe astonishing conclusion (p.24) from these cases that 'the proportion ofsuccessful to unsuccessful instances of project initiation found by Weinriehis probably generalizable to the rest of the country for the decade up to 1972'.This conclusion mirrors Weinrich's own tendency to over-generalize from a31 Passmore, The National Policy of Community Development, 329.32 Statement of Policy and Directive by the Prime Minister, para. 7.33 Passmore, The National Policy of Community Development, 234.34 Bratton, Beyond Community Development, 24; A. K. H. Weinrieh, Chiefs and Councilsin Rhodesia (London, Heinemann, 1971).94 ESSAY REVIEWstudy of nine Karanga-speaking communities centred on land shrines or localschools, and situated in three Tribal Trust Lands and two Purchase Areas.These she claims to be 'sample communities', without indicating the methodby which the 'sample' had been arrived at or on what grounds it might betaken as representative of the country as a whole. In Rhodesia at the timethere were seven main African language divisions, and 248 chiefdoms spreadover 167 Tribal Trust Lands and 66 Purchase Areas, evidencing considerabledifferences in ethnicity, religion and other features. No less than 45 per centof the people in her 'sample' studied were stated to be Roman Catholics, ascontrasted with the Census figure of 10 per cent among Rhodesian Africansgenerally. Since the communities, according to Weinrich, had been specificallywarned by Catholic missionaries against community development, because, itwas thought, the Government was using it for political ends, it is hardlysurprising that the result of the study revealed a negative response to projectedcouncils. Bratton's conclusions in this context would seem, therefore, toillustrate the way in which biased results from unscientific research in therelatively little-studied Rhodesian situation may tend to become perpetuated,unless corrected, and to be passed on until they cease to be questioned.It is necessary to correct Bratton's statement (p.23 footnote) that only14 per cent of community boards were composed purely of elected members,59 per cent of mixed elected and traditional members, and 20 per cent of tra-ditional members, comprising councils of elders. The actual figures were 14 percent composed of purely elected members, 67 per cent composed of mixedelected and traditional members Š giving a total of 81 per cent containingelected members (in more than eight out of ten of these cases elected memberswere in the majority)Šand only 13 per cent made up of purely traditionalmembers. Thus it is not correct, as Bratton states (p.23), that 'communityboards followed the same mixed structure which incorporated a strongtendency to reinforce traditional forms' (i.e. as the appointed councils from1973 onwards, after the policy had been transmogrified). The interesting thingwas that the community boards, although in a traditional society, did preciselythe opposite, and revealed the interest of the peasants in forming structureswith a democratic representative element.36There was further indication of the response of the rural people to theopportunity afforded by the policy of community development for exercisingself-determination in local matters: a University Survey, conducted two yearsafter completion of training by community advisers and their placement in thefield, discovered the notable fact that 84 per cent of these workers by thenhad functioning community action groups in their areas, whereas experienceelsewhere has shown that it often takes up to two years for a communityworker to become accepted in a conservative community. It is all the moreironical to note that already the number of community advisers had been reduced,from an original 252 selected to 226 (losses due to normal wastage from retire-ment, transfer, or other causes having not been made up). 37 Indeed only 252workers had originally been selected in place of 300, who in turn were to havebeen the first out of a total of 600 ultimately projected. This was because ofstrenuous resistance put forward by the Secretary for Agriculture towardsremoving the cream of the agricultural demonstrators, from whom community35 Passmore, The National Policy of Community Development, 247 - 30536 Ibid., 280.37 Ibid., 250.GLORIA C. PASSMORE 95advisers were recruited.38 Thus almost before Community Development hadbegun to be implemented, its ground workers were virtually being phased out.(They were partly replaced by a corps of women advisers whose task was topromote development through women in the villages.)Bratton asserts (p.24) that 16 per cent of the community advisers 'werewilling to admit "no action" as a result of their efforts and at least some ofthose who claimed action may have done so simply for self-protection'. Itis necessary to contradict the second part of this statement, since the surveyquestionnaires were compiled by community advisers under the direct super-vision of the District Officers to whom they were responsible in the normalcourse of their work. These officials were fully aware of the local situation,and in turn were answerable to the District Commissioners concerned, by whomthe questionnaires had finally to be certified. This part of the survey wasconducted as a semi-official exercise under circular instruction from the headoffice of the ministry, to which questionnaires were returned. The argumentmight further be adduced that officials at these higher levels had a vestedinterest in returning figures that seemed favourable. Such a notion wouldserve to overlook, however, the fact that there were a number of officials inthe Ministry, supporters of rival policy promoting the chieftainship, who wouldhave welcomed 'proof that Community Development, which they either didnot understand or trust, was unworkable.The bias and inaccuracy with which Bratton approaches the administrativepolicy of Community Development and Local Government is revealed in manyparagraphs, too numerous to be dealt with individually. An example, wherean extract from an official document has been quoted out of context (p.29),is the statement concerning the functions of District Commissioners:Above all, the District Commissioner's role included the brief 'toinculcate a proper understanding of the disciplinary and penalizinginfluences of Government in regard to national matters' includingeducation, human and animal health, natural resources and publicadministration.In fact, this function related to the need to help peasants to appreciate thereasons for certain compulsory measures and the consequences of infringingthem, ranking eighth in a list of ten functions in which the prime emphasis wasnot, as Bratton would imply, on the disciplinary role of the district adminis-trator but on his non-authoritarian functions. It is worthwhile to quote theinstructions concerned (taken from the Prime Minister's Directive of July1965), which appear to have been drawn up in a genuine attempt to carry thepolicy into effect in the spirit in which it was intended (item (viii) is quoted infull for purposes of comparison):(i) to bring before the district conference ... all matters wherehe considers plans or actions are inhibiting or underminingthe process of community development;(ii) to encourage people to act collectively as communities, toassist continuously councils and their committees (and com-munity boards ... ) to reach sound and useful conclusions,to give guidance in resolving difficulties, to place all theknown facts before them, to stimulate discussion ...38 Southern Rhodesia, Debates ... 1963, LIII, 21 June, 169.96 ESSAY REVIEW(iii) to examine and report on the extent of progress achieved inthe various schemes of councils and the attainment ofreasonable standards of efficiency;(iv) to communicate the intentions of Government to the peopleof his district ... and to remind people of their responsi-bilities and the financial and technical assistance availableto them ...(v) to expose councils and community boards to situations andresponsibilities which will elicit the maximum degree ofdecision, self-help, self-determination and public interest;and, at the same time, to ensure that outside technical andfinancial aid is promptly forthcoming ...(vi) to make recommendations on grants-in-aid to councils andcommunity boards ... [relating] the reward, in the form ofgrants-in-aid to the effort and performance of the councilsand community boards;(vii) to forge effective links between the specialist committeesof councils and advisory personnel of all ministries ...(viii) to issue appropriate warning about possible repercussionsfrom and to take steps to inculcate a proper understandingof, the disciplinary and penalizing influences of Governmentin regard to national matters concerned with human labour,social services and standards of public administration andfinance (audit);(ix) to inculcate at every opportunity an appreciation by councilsof their full responsibilities to the communities they serveand to their officers who serve the local government bodyas a whole, not individual members nor chiefs;( x ) to expose any matters of corruption or improper influenceby members of staff of councils and community boardsseeking personal gain or nepotism.39How far district administrators were able in the circumstances to match upto the high demands made upon them by these requirements was largelygoverned by the staffing and training facilities available, and officials' ownphilosophy and attitudes. Staff shortages were chronic and increasingly acute.Extra district positions envisaged for Community Development and LocalGovernment never materialized. Several approaches made to the UniversityCollege of Rhodesia from 1962, to set up a degree course which would helpmeet the needs of district administrators, were unsuccessful. In 1964 briefassistance with training was provided by Advisors from the Agency for Inter-national Development. However, bizarre methods of sensitivity training em-ployed by one expatriate trainer, led to all further training for officers inCommunity Development being discontinued.In 1968 the Branch of Community Development Training was set upunder the former Chief Training Officer of the Department of Conservationand Extension and four provincial training institutes formerly under thatDepartment (a section of the Ministry of Agriculture) were transferred to theBranch a year later. Its brief was to provide 'awareness training' in the pro-visions of the Prime Minister's Directive for all echelons of the public service.39 Statement of Policy and Directive by the Prime Minister, para. 29.GLORIA C. PASSMORE 97The work of the Branch increasingly became concerned with the adult edu-cation input necessary to back up the work of councils and other organizations,including the training of council secretaries, treasurers, clerks, works super-visors and other operatives. The Branch also undertook in large measure thetraining of chiefs and headmen in conservation and development. In the laterstages it began to specialize in more sophisticated training in methodologyfor extension workers. The changing pattern of training, the early disap-pearance of instruction in Community Development processes, the shift totraining for Local Government, emphasis on training for chiefs and headmenand on conservation and extension, was a reflection of wider changes in policy.The pursuit of Community Development at the grass-roots level hadbegun to be overtaken towards the end of the 1960s by events following theTribal Trust Land Authorities legislation of 1967. Agriculturists of the Depart-ment of Conservation and Extension who had originally opposed CommunityDevelopment as an obstruction to their work, had seized on the opportunityafforded by recognition of Tribal Land Authorities to use these bodies asagencies through which to promote modernized land use practices. Theseauthorities, at first concentrating on agriculture and conservation, became thefocus of 'tribal group development', through which development areas, in-tended from 1970 to embrace ultimately all aspects of rural growth werepromoted, bypassing community boards and councils.Within two weeks of the retirement of Roger Howman in July 1969,moves had been renewed towards giving local government councils 'a tribalnucleus'. Councils became known first as Tribal Councils and then Chiefs'Councils, and proposals to subordinate them to decisions of the dare began tobe put into gradual effect. It was some time before the prostitution ofrepresentative local government reflected itself in the legislation. Short amend-ments to the African Councils Act made in 1971 and 1973, and selectiverepeal of subsidiary regulations, however, finally paved legal way for thetransmogrification of the councils system. The 1971 Amendment Act (No.57) gave chiefs a delaying power and virtual veto over council decisions,authorized council revenues to be used for the purposes of Tribal LandAuthorities, Tribal Courts and chiefs and headmen, and excluded formerrestrictees and detainees from voting and election. The 1973 Amendment Act(No. 53) empowered chiefs to perform functions as administrative and execu-tive officers of councils and to give approval for candidates for election. By afinal amendment to the regulations and administrative action involvingchanges to individual warrants, councils ceased to be elective. From July1973, all new councils were appointed on chiefs' nominations by the ProvincialCommissioners. Other councils were converted to an appointed basis as retire-ment of members fell due by rotation. Thus legal provision was completedfor the conversion of elected councils to appointed tribal bodies, underminingand destroying the efforts of more than a decade in attempting to encouragedemocratic local government. Yet Bratton fails even to take note of the 1971Amendment and (p.26) actually observes of the amendments made in 1973that: 'These administrative arrangements were aimed at sustaining communitydevelopment and local government policy'. Finally with the acceleration ofthe guerrilla war, the infrastructure which had been built up in council areasbecame the object of arson and destruction along with other symbols of theold order.Any achievements which resulted from the policy of Community Develop-ment and Local Government, notably in the councils' sphere, tend to havebeen overshadowed by its persistence under the Rhodesian Front regime.Thus the policy is wrongly debited with illiberal precepts for which it was notresponsible. Provincialization, for example, first introduced under the RegionalAuthorities Act (No. 50 of 1972), is described by Bratton (p.29) as 'no more98 ESSAY REVIEWthan the extension from local to national level of the philosphy of communitydevelopment ... a Rhodesian version of balkanization by Bantustan'. Thecloser emulation of South African apartheid might have been the aim of theRhodesian Front Government, but to attribute provincialization to CommunityDevelopment, which in any event had been virtually phased out by that time,is incorrect. Community Development was suspected from the outset as being'apartheid in disguise', not the least due to election and other Party state-ments. Segregation on the land, however, had already been in effect for morethan thirty years under the Land Apportionment Act as amended. To attributethis policy to Community Development which had, on the contrary, beenlaunched alongside the declared intention to repeal land apportionment andother discriminatory legislation is not justified.In the effort to rectify defects in Bratton's exposition, the impressionshould not be conveyed that no faults existed either in the system of Com-munity Development and Local Government as implemented, or in the widergovernmental and political structure of Rhodesia. There is much to be learnedfrom a study of the bureaucratic, procedural, and ideological constraintsunder which the policy was attempted. Attention should not, however, be dis-tracted from more immediate issues: what were the problems of local adminis-tration which the policy aimed to resolve and to what extent are they likelyto persist under majority rule? What pointers, if any, did the policy have tooffer for the benefit of future planners? The Land Husbandry scheme hadshown the folly of vigorous application of agricultural and conservationreforms without due regard to human considerations. The policy of Com-munity Development and Local Government had attempted to encourage thegrowth of democratic institutions through which peasants might participatein rural development. It had been undermined first, by the separatist aspira-tions of specialists unable to see beyond their own technical targets, andfinally by vested political interests inimical to the democratic process.In the final pages, Bratton attempts to outline some of the requirementsfor reconstruction and development facing the first independent Governmentof Zimbabwe. Just because self-help did not constitute an effective strategyfor rural development in the context of settler colonialism, Bratton (p.54)suggests, this is no reason why it should not be effective strategy for ruraldevelopment in the future. Does he then propose a new look at CommunityDevelopment? Further, Bratton deplores the fact (p.51) that 'Zimbabwewill be decolonized without an adequate framework of local governmentinstitutions', and advocates (p.51) priority to 'the reconstruction of localgovernment councils'. He suggests that attention should be given to theconversion of African Councils into District Councils *° and the replacing ofappointed councillors with elected councillors: that provision might be madefor the honorary minority representation of chiefs; that the councils shouldhave many of the same functions as African councils had before; and thatthey should be given State subsidization. It will be noted that none of theseideas are new, that provision, in fact, exists for most of these things underthe African Councils Act of 1957, if the amendments of 1971 and 1973 areeliminated.4140 Bratton, Beyond Community Development, 51. The suggestion that the number of councilsshould be reduced by nearly 80 per cent, from 260 to 54, one for each of the vast Districts of thecountry for purposes of administrative economy and convenience, overlooks the first requirementfor the purposes of effective participation in local government, namely that it should be local.41 A Draft Local Government Bill was prepared in 1964, consolidating local governmenithroughout the country. It eliminated the vulnerable warrant system and made other changes,but never reached the Legislative Assembly.GLORIA C. PASSMORE 99The concluding sentence of the pamphlet observes (p.62) that, 'just asthe prospects for national liberation came to hinge on the participation ofpeasants, so, in all likelihood, will the prospects for national reconstruction'.Nationalists attacked the policy in the 1960s as unworkable except under asystem of majority rule. Now that this has become a reality, will therebe an initiative to revive Community Development and Local Government notmerely as workable but also as offering scope for development in Zimbabwe inthe 1980s?Wivenhoe GLORIA C. PASSMORE