Drawing development as essentially a humanising process, it is imperative that it is not only participatory but, and quite significantly at that, based on people, their values, traditions, institutions, systems, processes, informed decisions and priorities.

Controversial modes of community and/or rural development, explicitly or implicitly, continue to treat people and their values, traditions, systems and procedures as objects of change and the relation between development agencies/agents and/or researchers and people often takes the form of subject acting upon object, subject asking object to act this or that way. Development practitioners, politicians, policy and decision-makers every so often take decisions of behalf of the people.

This paternalistic and often rent-seeking approach, invariably, translates into the delivery approach i.e. an attempt to bring development to the people through deliveries of knowledge, technologies, management and supervisory models and systems more often than not, wrapped in packages of exogenous resources which are often used as lubricants if not "incentives" not readily discernible to unsuspecting stakeholders.

A major collorary to people-centred nature of development is that it is based on systems and values of congruence and upon ready acceptance of the truism that local people's knowledge i.e. Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK) management systems and recourses are as good as those management philosophies, principles and systems brought in by professionals. For too long, external forces have not only controlled the means of material production, but also the means of knowledge production and, in particular, the power to determine what is valid and/or useful knowledge and technology.

People-centered development argues for the recognition of the positive integers and creative tension between two knowledge and management streams, i.e. rural people's experiential knowledge and management systems and the formal knowledge and management technology introduced from outside. In terms of management, it calls for specificity, adequate consideration of local factors in project identification, design and access to resources, decision-making and reflection.  

In terms of research, the challenge is to legitimize the participatory approach, which values the views, ITK, and institutions of the communities and the acceptance of the existence of different realities.  In revisiting current formal structures and management systems, for (rural) development, the challenge is both to provide for robust enough alternative approaches and the best amalgam of appropriate methodologies and systems.

The two main conceptual parameters that underpin the need to revisit the current development and management systems that form the thrust of our development policies, programmes and activities are as follows:

"Law of External Effects" diseconomy of scale ensues as a result of decisions taken at the highest level instead of the obverse or vice-versa. In such scenarios, optimization of resources deployment is impeded, if not made impossible. This means that decisions should be taken by the appropriate institution or stakeholder, at the right level and time.  This will ensure optimization and foster good governance based on inclusiveness and responsibility - two key considerations in sustainable human development and resources management.

"Principle of Subsidiarity - places accountability where stakeholders are.  This has direct implications for the principles of accountability, transparency, probity and equity considerations. Decisions and actions must be taken where and when they matter so that transparency (here meaning openness or the unobstructed access to and availability of data which is accurate, timely and comprehensive from public officials on all aspects of their activities but particularly in relation to their financial activities.

In this context, accountability here means that each level of management is held to account for its activities to a higher level or echelon of management lend themselves as orders of the day.

In the absence of the above two conceptual parameters, development management will remain elusive for some time to come.  It is the informed stand point of this Paper that, in part, current development management problems are the results of the introduction and institutionalization of alien and very often inappropriate development management philosophies, systems and tools on the one hand, and on the other, the stifling or our traditional management institutions, systems and processes that have robustly withstood the test of times and held our communities intact for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Inversely, it is the position of this Paper that the formal recognition, legitimization and integration of our Traditional Management Systems (TMS) within the current management technology for sustainable human, socio-economic and institutional development will not only invoke and ensure critical and informed mass participation in democratic good governance and allied development processes but will ensure innovation, foster success and sustainability of interventions precisely because, the concepts of management and development entail the processes of achieving desired results by the combined employment and/or integration of human effort and facilitation of resources.

This is the raison d'être of our TMS and their use will cover a wide spectrum of aggregation i.e. learnt beliefs, values, attitudes, habits and forms of conduct and behaviour that are shared by communities in the participatory identification, implementation and management of community undertakings and transmitted from generation to generation through specific transmission mechanisms peculiar to the cultures.

These values and transmission mechanisms are shaped by events of both the past and present and they constitute the critical dimensions to development in general and management development in particular where the type of work, required resources and the appropriate level of participation and invoked. By nature management practices or processes in a given society are products of the cultural variables that are determinants in shaping management practices in that society.

It should also be noted that managerial effectiveness within a culture can only be achieved through clear understanding of the behaviour of others, the behaviour, which is to a large extent determined by the cultural environment and its impact on individual personality and character development.  

Cultural values have great influence upon the pace and pattern of development, the emergence of managerial and supervisory entrepreneurship and systems as well as the varieties and intensities of motivation for attitudes towards work ("TESTO") and alienation from work (dis-empowerment). There are no universal laws as such applicable to management in all cultures, all the time, as management principles are highly culture bound.  

Ipso facto, this calls for a shift in emphasis from acceptance of monolithic management cures to a resource, study and revitalization of our traditional structures and systems. This requires fundamental changes in our hardened mind sets and negative attitudes in down grading them as "second-best" thus pushing them into the muddy waters of development management. Management processes must be congruent with the environmental factors within which the processes operate if objectives are to be accomplished.

Two fundamental factors influence the management process:-
*Management philosophy
*Cultural environment
While the former directly and essentially shapes management processes, the extent to which those processes blend with cultural environment determines the degree of success or otherwise in accomplishing the goal of management. 

Two options are open:-
*Either development agencies/agents adapt their management philosophy and technology to suit the environment and culture in which they operate, or
*They  attempt to change the environment

Each option amounts to a position on the continuum in the controversy on the universality or otherwise of management processes.  The latter option assumes the universality to resolve the problem of what may be contrived as incongruence in the interplay of culture and management theory and praxis. Such an approach is not only alienating, but can be expensive and likely to arouse the familiar nationalistic accusations of cultural and economic neo-colonialism as hidden agenda and desiderata.

The former option recognizes management as culture specific and posits that leaning on and learning from the management culture of organizations is imperative and should be treated as fertile ground.  It is less expensive, more flexible and appropriate.

ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Since management is highly culture-bound, this Paper advances the plausibility and imperative in blending, if not exclusive use of our traditional management and monitoring systems that exist at community level for the participatory identification, proper and effective targeting, implementation, monitoring and management of development programmes, be they POP/FLE, health, nutrition, education, environment, agriculture as well as cross-cutting issues including gender.

The rationale is predicated on the following truisms:-
* Ideas ultimately come from individuals.
* People are responsible, motivated and capable of governing themselves.
* The procedures for roles e.g. who does what, when, how and to whom to report are well established, understood and verily used.
* Procedures, mechanisms and methodologies for communication are well established, clearly understood and respected.
* Rules for settlement of disputes are established and that appeal to the various and higher echelons are entertained, and
* The existence of coordinating mechanisms as well as for sanctions and rewards (both tangible and intangible) obtain.

The Paper advances that use of the Kundaa, Kaabiloo, Sutiyoolu, Kaafoo/Kompin or similar structures in existence for not only management and coordination of community projects, but also, and importantly at that, in encouraging Participatory Research (PR) and empowerment of communities in the identification of priorities, constraints, opportunities and options, will constitute a meaningful way ahead.

I am quite aware that the structures mentioned above are specifically related to the ?Mandinka? ethnic group and may not necessarily correspond to other ethnic group' structures par excellence, but indeed, the roles, responsibilities and expectations from as well as the dual communication systems entrenched in all ethnic groups run as common threads in the running and impartial management of community interests.

The common denominator is that ethnic groups' administrative, communal, communication and mobilization systems and networks are functions of the elaborate management and monitoring systems. In addition, all the cultural milieux share the following common characteristics:-
* The cultures are 'Task Cultures'
* They are task (work) oriented
* The emphasis of the cultures is to "get the job done", and therefore, they all strive to bring together the appropriate resources and the right people at the right level of the structures for action at the right time
*    All the cultures use the unifying power of the groups to improve efficiency and to identify the individual with the objective of the "Kundaa", Kaabiloo, Kaafoo or Kompin

* All the cultures are extremely adaptable and 'Task Forces' can be formed for a specific purpose or purposes, abandoned, continued or reformed
* Influence is based more on "expert" (at their level) than on position and personal power, and
* All the processes and procedures involved in the collective decision-making approach are truly democratic
The Model above captures the intricate and very fine networks of institutions, functional lines and dual communication systems as well as the inter and intra institutional networks and cyclical dynamics at community level.

The Model obeys the Laws of Social Dynamics in as far as entry and exit to institutions are concerned. Each echelon and/or institution has an inbuilt hierarchy, dual communication and well-respected management and supervisory systems that allow for reciprocity, dissent and recourse to hearing if aggrieved.

 In the Model, the Kaabilaa Kebaalu or sometimes dubbed as Kaabilaa Alfaalu (Council of Elders), chaired by the "Alkaalo" (Village Head) constitutes the pinnacle of authority, power and are primarily responsible for the following salient components of public/social administration and arbitration:-
* Participatory village policy generation and review
* Ensuring the greater interest and benefit as regards innovations, etc.
* Setting of social standards and behaviours
* Marriages
* Maintenance of social order  
* Resource mobilization
* Land allocation
* Liaison
Emanating from and a composite of the various Kaabila Kebaalu  (extended Family Head), meetings of the Kaabilaa Kebaalu (KK)  are based on popular demand from the Kaabiloolu (K) either for policy generation, review and/or renunciation or in response to an emergency or innovation, including development programmes, projects and activities.

The main feature in the deliberations of the KK is its democratic and all-inclusive nature. Everyone is given the opportunity to air his or her views and generally contribute to the proceedings.  More often than not, representatives are called by name to partake in the deliberations.

True to the democratic nature of the deliberations, dissent is treated with respect and agreements, renunciations, policy decisions, proclamations, etcetera, are largely reached through consensus.  Outcomes of the meetings are fed back to the K by the KK representatives through the jaliba or fino dubbed as griot or town crier. Once the information reaches the Kundaalu (Ward), it becomes binding and operative until such time that it becomes necessary to revisit it, again based on public demand.  

It must be remembered that the KK both in its function as an institution and composition, is dynamic and kept vibrant by the exit of elderly KK through incapacitation or otherwise and ascension by new entrants.  An important and Omni-present feature between the KK and other institutions and individuals is the dual communication link. This provides for both feed forward and feed back such that information flow is constant allowing for rational decision-making.

This clockwise entry and exit mechanism imbues the institution with new blood and dynamism with huge potential for embracing innovations and fundamental positive changes in mindsets, behavioural patterns, concepts and values thus avoiding being seen or conceived, more often than not, as being static, 'traditional' and undemocratic. However, if there is any seemingly static about the system is the absence of women on the KK.

This is easily dealt with and results thereto accepted at community level especially given the entry and exit mechanism and the ever-increasing gender sensitive environment in which we find ourselves.  As a matter of fact, there are some KK Headed by female Alkaaloolu. Good examples are Tendaba village in Kiang Central District, Juffureh in Lower Nuimi District and Kaaba Kama in Basse.

The K or wards are responsible for enforcement of regulations, discipline, and translation of policies into programmes, community mobilization, communal project implementation, monitoring and entry into social contract. Like the K, the KK constitutes dynamic institutions subject to the same exit and entry mechanisms as the Kaabilaa Faalifoolu. They transmit and remit (feed forward and feed back) information from the K to the Kundaalu or Wards.

The K, responsible for reciprocity, enforcement and implementation of decisions from the K, send information to and receive feed back from the Kaafoolu (Age/Social groups, often called CBO) regarding decisions reached by the KK. Since the Kaafoolu largely comprise youth, both male and female, they constitute the bulk of the labour force and the economically active populations are, ipso facto, charged with implementation of projects and programmes.  

They also contribute in cash to most, if not all, development projects at community level. Sutiyoolu (Compound Heads) get and send information back and forth to the Dabaadalu (Households).  Ultimate micro-decisions are made at this level based on values shaped by both the events of the past and of the present.  Sometimes decisions are challenged, but by and large, respected and adhered to.

The author is the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Local Government and Lands.