Community-Based Institutions (CBIs)

Empowerment is ultimately aimed at changing the social, economic and political decision-making structures—assuming that, as they are, these structures are the root causes of all human suffering. Such change in turn requires the existence of a community organisation that can bargain on behalf of its constituency for due transfer of power.

The prevailing non-formal structures in the country are grassroots-oriented, maintain cohesive social bonds; they are also trusted by the members that constitute them, and have a permanent nature (Shifferaw, 2003). Some of these structures—for instance, Idirs—are often used by some NGOs to cater to communities’ economic and social development agendas.

ASE, nevertheless, has reservations about using idirs and the like, as it holds the view that Idirs have been able to exist for so long and to be so popular mainly because they emanated from the true needs of the communities—with no outside interference by NGOs, GOs, donors, etc. ASE, in fact, balks at the idea of making them undertake its rural development agenda, afraid that burdening them so would make it difficult for them to properly play their traditional roles, and that it would entail for them conflicts of interest that may eventually force them to deviate from their raison d’etre (Amanuel 2006). ASE’s leave-idirs-alone attitude has, however, the support of most of the social anthropologists in the country.

Actually, ASE has an additional reason for not being enthusiastic about working with idirs: studies indicate that idirs flout certain democratic principles like universal franchise and gender equity and equality. In other words, their leaders are seldom elected in fair, free and periodic elections; women are rarely recognised as bona fide members, unless their husbands are deceased; nor can they be leaders of idirs.  Moreover, ASE was established to respond to the development needs of the poor, women and other marginalised social groups—all of which are issues not adequately addressed by idirs.

These reservations and fears led ASE to initiate the establishment of development-oriented, democratic, non-sectarian CBIs that will not discriminate against anyone because of one’s gender, occupation, wealth status, age, etc. True to form, the CBIs established in some of ASE’s operational areas have proven that they are accommodative, that they treat all community members equally, and that they are dependable to ensure sustainability (Amanuel May 2006). ASE, therefore, considers the establishment of these CBIs to be its entry and exit strategy. What is more, a few of its partners have said that these structures are development-endeavour-friendly. More