| Summary: | The magnitude of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the severity of its impact and the inadequacy of a purely medical-based response has prompted the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) for HIV/AIDS mitigation. MSPs utilise an appropriate mix of health and non-health based interventions and involve a broad array of stakeholders in their design and implementation, including faith based organisations (FBOs). MSP discourse commonly has goals related to local organisations’ empowerment and capacity building, yet attainment of these goals is often difficult and analysis of these MSPs shows that the complex micro-politics of development interventions is often neglected. This thesis investigates the local-level encounter and contestation of FBOs participation in MSPs based on research undertaken in the rural district of Ngamiland, Botswana. The theoretical framework is taken from a post-development perspective that sees discourses of development as pervasive forces that shape identities, knowledge and relations of power in much of the Global South. The focus of this thesis is on FBOs as specific ‘objects’ of development discourse. It argues that MSPs facilitate uniformity, impose a very specific language and envision highly prescriptive outcomes. In doing so, it suggests that MSPs frame the actions that produce and deploy a highly prescribed and increasingly globalised format for partnerships, and specifically here, for FBO participation within them. Yet, following the work of Foucault, it also argues these discourses of development are not monolithic or fixed, but rather remain critical sites of encounter where FBOs struggle and manoeuvre for political, social and economic advantage. The thesis emphasises the productive features of development discourse, their framing attributes, fragility and transformative potential, and achieves this by drawing on the activities and intentions of FBOs and their participation in MSPs. Attention is also drawn to the way ‘identities’ form and shape FBO participation. It is argued that FBOs are required to deliberately accommodate, resist, and/or construct their own particular ‘faith identities’
|
|---|
