Re: Guest column by Jorg Frieden ('Imagined communities', #260). While I agree with Frieden's assessment of the situation, I find his conclusions rather one-sided and unhelpful. There is no denying that well-functioning grassroots democracy stimulates the community development process. However, we can't agree with his conclusion that in the absence of grassroots democracy, community development efforts do not have any role. Self-help groups, community owned resource management initiatives and micro-enterprises play a big role in creating the framework for a peaceful society leading to well functioning grassroots democracy. When people learn how to resolve conflicts in local saving and credit groups or production cooperatives and how to elect representatives in these community level organisations, they will also learn how to tackle local Maoists commanders or elect responsible village level representatives once democratic institutions are in place.

Development is a complex and continuous process. It is not contingent upon a single precondition or premise. Yes, vibrant local democracy promotes community development efforts. However, in the absence of the first, we should not imagine that the second is invalid. In fact, the role of the community becomes even more important in the absence of democracy.

Frieden's suggestion to plan projects with VDCs and DDCs is not realistic. Given the conflict it could take decades to restore elected VDC level institutions. Does this mean that development agencies do nothing more than advocate a return to democracy? Democracy should be a local need not an externally-imposed phenomenon. For rural people caught in the crossfire, it is only community-based initiatives that can bring hope. And the role of development agencies to support meaningful community initiatives is ever more prominent.

GB Banjara,
Tinthana