Introduction

In his 2020 article, Can the Anti-Politics Machine Be Dismantled?, Rajesh Venugopal addresses a long-contested and complex paradox within development theory and practice: Despite the promise of technocracy and technical expertise for improving quality of life (i.e., ‘development’) the anti-political nature of technocratic development, as he and other theorists like Ferguson (1994) assert, has consistently contributed to “the unsatisfactory track record” of development in the Global South. In other words, the depoliticized approach to development, which has been a standard in the Global South from development’s conceptualization in the postwar global order, actively ignores ‘politics’ as an aspect of social change and factor in cementing longevity-oriented, sustainable development practices. Venugopal’s proposition is one which denounces the anti-political nature of development and seeks to integrate a politicized, or even pro-political, approach to development which incorporates local, regional, and national politics into policy, theory, and practice. This reflection will critically examine this proposition from Venugopal, as well as examine how depoliticization functions and what its consequences are for well-intentioned ‘development’ initiatives. By examining these past failed initiatives, and the promises held in politicized development, I argue that a politicized approach is the solution to persistent failures in Global South development because it acknowledges and engages with the political nature of social change and development, challenges the technocratic high-horse of development thinking, and fosters more sustainable and inclusive development outcomes. 

The Anti-Politics Machine

Development, as it has been historically practiced since the beginning of the postwar period, is fundamentally anti-political (Ferguson, 1994; Venugopal, 2022). While some of this anti-political nature is derived from an infantilization of the Global South and its political systems–deeming them ‘unfit’ or ‘unadvanced’ enough to function effectively or productively, much of development’s anti-political agenda is due to an almost cultish reverence for and elevation of technocracy and technocratic solutions. These technocratic issues will be discussed later (see Challenging Technocracy). In the meantime, it’s worthwhile to evaluate the infantilization of Global South politics and the fundamental issues surrounding depoliticized development efforts. Ziai (2015) notes how perspectives and language surrounding the Global South, and particularly from outside of it, take on a “moral tone” which reduces people, culture, knowledge, and, especially, politics to an ‘us and them’ model; ‘Development’ and the Global North seem to be saying that the primary reason why the Global South is ‘undeveloped’ is simply because the South is not the North. Or, rather, the people and the politics there do not function like the people and politics here. Therefore, any solutions to lackluster quality of life or ‘underdevelopment’ cannot come from the people, and especially not the politics, which reside in the South–they must come from the North. This is the driving ideology behind the anti-political machine in modern, neoliberal development.

But, as Venugopal (2022) highlights, this ideology is not contained to individuals or scholars in development; this is why development actors like the World Bank also, whether vocally or silently, choose to detach themselves from politics and posture themselves as apolitical entities somehow “above” all the messy political dynamics of the States in the Global South. Venugopal adds also that this detachment is framed as an ethical one: These IOs and development actors use this imperative “to maintain neutrality and objectivity, but it comes at the cost of relevance.” By refusing to engage with local and State politics in the target regions of development efforts, organizations like the World Bank and other IOs fail to factor in underlying social and political structures–structures which shape the lives of the people who live in these regions, just as they do us in our region. So, in order to maintain this ethical boundary, development players erect distinct boundaries between “the technical” and “the political”, with the former seen as manageable and malleable, and the latter as unpredictable and corrupt (Venugopal, 2022). 

While this technical and ethical distinction might provide a sense of control and predictability for development planners, its unwavering place in development has led to the failure of many well-intentioned projects. For example, Venugopal references development projects in countries like Madagascar and Niger which failed due to their lack of political awareness and poor planning in relation to socio-political circumstances in each State. Ferguson (1994) echoes the same sort of fatalistic development project in his analysis of failed development initiatives in Lesotho, asserting that as long as development agencies “continue to see government as a machine for delivering services, and not as a political fact or a means … to control the behavior and choices of others”, they are doomed to fail.

A politicized approach, by contrast, insists on the centrality of politics in development: Politics is an unavoidable factor in development projects which must be measured and heavily considered when development planning. Rather than seeing politics as a hindrance to be managed, politicized development incorporates and manipulates (although this should not be in a malicious manner) the political complexities of a society or State to shape the conditions it seeks to address. By engaging with policy and political dynamics–and I argue particularly on a local governmental scale, although regional and national must also be considered–development practitioners can design projects which respond to the specific political realities of a State and its populace. I elaborate a bit more on the promises of a politicized approach later (see Fostering Sustainable Development).

Challenging Technocracy

Venugopal’s (2022) overall analysis points to a broader and even more contested (although intimately related) development practice than depoliticization: the reliance on technocratic solutions which reduce complex social realities to measurable, manageable tasks that solely rely on expertise and time-effective solution implementation. This reductionist approach is not totally dissimilar to the infantilizing approach; both function to oversimplify complex issues and assign them a non-nuanced, streamlined solution. This is the ‘real’ machine of anti-politics in development. Development practitioners and IOs would sooner trust their Western-derived education and expertise than mold their knowledge around the existing political, social, and indigenous systems in their target development regions (Hartwick & Peet, 2015). In doing so, not only does the development narrative which Ziai (2015) warns us of strengthen and continue to cement itself, but also the very same ‘expert projects’ superimposed on communities and cities in the Global South are left vulnerable and ill-fated when the uncontrollable elements of politics and sociopolitical realities of the State inevitably arise (Venugopal, 2022).

The major criticism of the technocratic approach, as just discussed, is its failure to capture the full scope of development challenges. Venugopal (2022) asserts that development planners “see like a state”, thereby reducing political and social dynamics into technical, bureaucratic checklists. In many ways, they are more concerned with upholding the reputation and inner workings of their “development bureaucracy” and therein create an internal structure which prioritizes “predictability, depersonalization, procedure, rule-based projects, and robustness” over all else (Venugopal, 2022). This internal structure then, unsurprisingly, inevitably reflects itself in their external projects and initiatives. An unforeseen consequence of this, besides the obvious bureaucratic and technocratic red tape and inconsiderations it creates, is a reduction in local participation, governance, and sustainability. A productive question to ask prior to introducing esoteric expertise into development might be poised in the form of: Will this initiative/project require an expert to run it? Will it require a Western-derived development expert to maintain its complex parts and resist potential political pressure? Unfortunately, it seems this is a question too often forgotten by prominent development agencies.

A politicized approach rejects this techno-bureaucratic model by challenging the idea that development problems can be universally understood or addressed through technical solutions alone. Instead, politicization emphasizes the need for context-specific interventions that are attuned to the unique political, social, and cultural landscapes of each community. This approach requires development practitioners to move beyond the managerial mindset of problem-solving and toward a deeper engagement with the power structures and political forces that shape development outcomes. It also requires a shift in the way development knowledge is produced—away from the assumption that all problems can be made technical or solved through a Euro- or Americentric lens. Instead, there is more room–and could always be more room–for incorporating local and indigenous knowledge systems, and relying more heavily on local community-oriented social change and innovation.

Fostering Sustainable Development

The most promising aspect of a development approach grounded in politicization and community-centered innovation is its potential to foster contextually-grounded and inclusive development and quality of life outcomes. By actively engaging with local political dynamics and challenging the aforementioned technocratic mindset, the politicized approach allows development practitioners to design interventions that are not only more effective but also more inclusive of local voices and needs. Rather than imposing top-down solutions that ignore the realities of the communities they seek to serve and uphold techno-bureaucracy, a politicized approach emphasizes collaboration, participation, and the co-production of knowledge between development actors and local community leaders/innovators.

That said, one of the key variables to achieving this level of inclusivity is what Venugopal (2022) calls “participatory development”. When done correctly, he argues, participatory development approaches politicize initiatives by ensuring that local communities are involved in the decision-making process, and that the knowledge, experiences, aspirations, and realities of a community and society are actualized in the initiative’s rollout. And, while Venugopal warns that this participatory approach can also fall victim to depoliticization (e.g., what he calls “formulaic participation” in which projects become checkboxes), he also offers the remedy to this danger in the form of “meaningful engagement” and elevation of local actors to the forefront of development decision-making power. Many of these same sentiments are echoed in Escobar’s 2004 Beyond the Third World… where arguments against globalization are centered around community engagement and local/indigenous knowledge systems, much the same as participatory development theory. 

Ultimately, I argue that a politicized approach offers the possibility of increased sustainable development. By grounding development projects in the specific political and social realities of each context, practitioners can create solutions that are more likely to endure beyond the life of a project. This sustainability comes from the fact that these solutions are derived from the target community, and can therefore be sustained by and beyond the current community. Politicized, participatory development is adaptive, responsive, and grounded in the realities of those it seeks to serve, making it far more likely to succeed in the long term.

Conclusion

In conclusion, politicization of development might just hold the potential for solutions to the failures that have plagued development efforts in the Global South for decades. By acknowledging and engaging with political complexities, challenging the technocratic reduction of development issues, and fostering more inclusive practices, this approach offers a more holistic and responsive framework for addressing the needs of these vulnerable, yet wildly capable, regions. The people and the resources of the Global South have always been capable of and geared towards productivity and quality of life; politicizing our approaches to development is also an acknowledgment of this intrinsic capability and capacity for preparedness. Venugopal (2022) understands this capability and capacity: Only by embracing the inherently political nature of development (and every aspect of the social and economic) can development practitioners hope to design initiatives that are truly effective, inclusive, and sustainable.