Empowering destitute people towards transforming communities

3Underlying principles for a model of missions with the destitute

Manstratt Development (Manstratt Report, 2003:38), in a report compiled for government in November 2003, proposed a “best practice model” for shelters in the Tshwane area. This model was helpful, but incomplete. It proposes a good “procedural” model for destitute people in shelters, moving from intake, assessment and treatment to skills development and job placement. However, if we are to meet the destitute “where they are at”, then a purely procedural approach is not the best option. Added to this, not all destitute people end up in shelters. We need a model that engages the destitute outside of shelters as well. In addition, this model is not holistic enough.
The danger of any model is always that helpers may use it in a way that places people in boxes, or that will “forcefeed” them through “our program”. Needless to say, such an approach will not only defy the object, but will actually be detrimental to our efforts. How then do we guard against such misuse?
Wagers (1998:2) argues for a model that facilitates mobilization, that is orientated towards direct action, is rooted in the Gospel ethic of prophetic, non-violent transformation and agape, that combines theory and practice, and that includes critical reflection. This reflection must guide helpers and allow them to change their consciousness, regarding involvement, engendered through this process. Using this heightened awareness, structural change can be sought.
From work undertaken in the previous chapters I suggest the use of a number of underlying principles that govern the use of a model. Although every helper, church or CBO organization that becomes involved with the destitute in any way must determine their own governing principles, these principles should include (among others) the following:

1. 
   They must address the needs of destitute people from a strength-based approach (Chapter 4).
   
2. 
   They must promote dignity, where we respect people’s own choices and goals (Chapter 4).
   
3. 
   They must be grounded in a biblical unction for action based on God’s preferential option for the poor (Chapter 3).
   
4. 
   They must promote belonging and relatedness, therefore displaying intentionality toward reconnecting people to communities, whether the existing community of the church, or newly formed ones (Chapter 4).
   
5. 
   They must enable the church or other helpers to meet the destitute where they are, in the process enabling the church and helpers to become more “public”, to become the “church of the market plain” again. In this way these principles must work from the “underside” (Chapter 3).
   
6. 
   They must address the range of factors involved in causing destitution (Chapter 2).
   
7. 
   They must be dynamically interactive, where helpers and the destitute interact, grow together, discover God together; causing conversion in a reciprocal way (Chapter 3).
   
8. 
   They must strive to discover SHALOM (Chapter 3).
   
9. 
   They must include continuous reflection and evaluation, so that a model of missions with the destitute can be changed and improved.
   
10. 
    They must be comprehensive and holistic,thereby enabling the helper to understand the scope of the problem of destitution, in order to enable her or him to define both the limits and extent of involvement in terms of missions with the destitute.
    
11. 
    They must empower people (this includes both the destitute as well as helpers involved in missions with the destitute)
    
12. 
    They must enable different helpers to take each other’s hands in a complementary fashion, where one helper focuses on specific aspects of missions with the destitute, while other helpers deal with other aspects. In this way our combined efforts can aim at addressing the whole problem of destitution.
    

The last number of principles necessitates further explanation.

3.1They must include continuous reflection and evaluation…

…so that a model of missions with the destitute can be challenged, changed and improved.

A model that is rigid will be “forced” upon people seen as the “have nots” by people who view themselves as the “haves”. In contrast to this, a model that is constantly reflected upon by all parties involved so that it can be changed and improved will become the property of all together. Such a “fluid” model can be updated, changed, improved or even discarded and remade as we learn from one another. This is only possible if helpers consciously open themselves up to learn and be converted by the very people they try to help.

3.2They must be comprehensive and holistic…

…thereby enabling the helper to understand the scope of the problem of destitution, in order to enable the helper to define both the limits and extent of involvement in terms of missions with the destitute.
This simply indicates that destitution is a complex problem; therefore, assisting the destitute is a complex, multifaceted effort. In the light of this complexity, helpers should try to focus their effort, and then collaborate with others, so that together we can empower destitute people across the complexities of the problems they face.

3.3They must empower people

Empowerment is a central theme in missions with the destitute. It has many faces, but basically concerns enabling the destitute to understand and subsequently control the mechanisms which affect their lives. A conventional understanding of the verb “to empower” would be to invest a person or authority with the ability to do something. According to Strachan & Peters (1997:131) people acquire power for themselves through a complex process involving organization, participation, consciousness-raising and mobilization. The essential feature to note is that empowerment is essentially a process of self-acquisition. Power, in this context, refers to the ability of people to exercise choice in the political, economic, social and cultural and spiritual decisions which affect their lives.
Kellor and Mbwewe (1991:78) define the empowerment of women as:

A process whereby women become able to organise themselves to increase

their own self reliance, to assert their independent right to make choices and to

control resources which will assist in challenging and eliminating their own

subordination.
Although drawn from the women's context, this definition could be applied to any group – structured by class, caste, religion, language, regional identity, culture or race – which experiences exclusion from the benefits of society. However, empowerment goes beyond the widening of economic opportunities for marginalised people. It embraces a range of dynamics including confidence-building, analysis and mobilization for political and social action. Kellor and Mbwewe's definition contains a clearly political dimension emphasizing women's right to independence and control. Their definition crucially describes empowerment as a process of self organisation and self assertion.
A dilemma is evident here. A process which engages the poor in taking control of their own development cannot be imposed by outsiders. Although it can perhaps be encouraged through external support, by definition it stands opposed to “top-down” approaches in which professionals tell others what they should do. Therefore approaches which are labelled “empowering”, especially those which are externally funded, contain an inner contradiction which requires critical examination. True empowerment is based on the belief that ordinary people are capable of critical reflection and analysis and that their own experience is an essential resource in the process.
True empowerment will imply “participation”, a term derived from development theory: the active involvement of the people to be empowered. Participation in this sense uses “awareness-raising” to involve local people in defining the problem, collecting information, analyzing it and then deciding on their next step. Such an integration of personal experience with analysis can assist people “to organise and influence change on the basis of their access to knowledge, to political processes and to financial, social and natural resources” (Slocum et al., 1995:45). Such participation would also engender “ownership”, where people take personal ownership of the processes in which they are involved.
In the context of the present study, empowerment refers to the enabling of people, so that they can change, grow, transform, become connected, gain a voice, discover SHALOM. Coleridge (1993:52) furnishes an interesting and valid comparison of “empowered vs. non-empowered” persons that illustrates some of the ways in which people become enabled when they are empowered:

Empowered	Non-empowered
Open to change Assertive Proactive Self-accountable Self-directed Uses feelings Learns from mistakes Confronts Lives in the present Realistic Thinks relatively Has high self-esteem	Closed to change Aggressive Reactive Blames others Directed by others Overwhelmed by feelings Defeated by mistakes Avoids Lives in the past or the future Unrealistic Thinks in absolutes Has low self-esteem

For helpers, empowerment as an approach implies changes in their role from that of service-deliverer and funder of projects to that of facilitator, catalyst and advocate of processes of transformation. This causes missions with the destitute to happen, instead of missions to the destitute. It is based on the simple but attractive principle that addressing the symptoms of poverty and destitution is not enough: the underlying causes must be tackled. In this process, the poor become agents of their own development (Korten, 1987:147-149). Helpers are often quite content to deliver services which are both needed and appreciated. However, if they do this without reference to the structures which produce or maintain the problem, their impact is severely limited. Only if they address the underlying social, political economic and cultural systems which cause poverty can they be said to be empowering.