Resetting Our Goals?

Development is a word that signifies moving on, making advancements, and overall change. Often when used in relation to developing nations it suggests nations where money and resources are in limited supply in relation to the population. At least, that is how ‘development’ was presented to me prior to reading Gilbert Rist’s “Development as a Buzzword” which critiques the way the term development has been used as a tool. According to Rist the word development once carried the weight of promising universal happiness. It was a term that people equated with upward mobility, and an end to poor conditions. It was a word that symbolized hope for a lot of people. However, after years of use with no real benefits to the people it has promised a brighter future to, the word has lost truth. The meaning has stayed the same; people see it the same way; however that doesn’t change the fact that it is now used as a way to justify almost any behavior. Anything that is done in the name of development—done in the name of the original promise of happiness to all—becomes, as Rist argues, beyond reproach. People are meant to accept that what is being equated with development is a good thing and if they fight it they are somehow standing in the way of this promise for a brighter tomorrow.
Prior to reading this article I had always looked at development as a positive thing. It hadn’t occurred to me that the term had the potential to be oppressive but now that I am looking at it through a new lens it has occurred to me that promising certain things can lead to development can have potentially devastating effects. 

On May 7^th England will be holding general elections and at present that country officials are doing everything they can to encourage people to register to vote. The upcoming election could change the party in power and lead to new ideals and goals being upheld and fought for in the government. Throughout the course of my term here I have seen debates, heard my peers vying for their political parties, and have had professors remind everyone to register to vote. Despite the vast differences between parties and the things they want for the nation, they all promise the same thing: development. Each party claims to be the one that will lead to brighter tomorrow. Each party will be the one that makes things easier for the oppressed, the one that will allow everyone the same chance at wealth and comfort. This of course isn’t unusual in elections—American politicians use the same rhetoric—however the fact that this mode of ensuring votes is so commonly used is problematic in that it continues to exploit the idea of development. It makes it hard to determine who actually wants the best for the majority of the country when each group is promising the better tomorrow Rist wrote about.