Abstract
In ‘traditional’ liberation theological discourse, especially the Latin American strand, the concept of development, desarrollismo, that is developmentalism, has been severely critiqued. In recent times, the interpretation of development shifted to a number of models, one of which has been the view of development as freedom, associated with Amartya Sen’s ‘capabilities theory’. While the capabilities theory ostensibly comes closer to the goals of the liberation paradigm in general, this article seeks to critically explore in dialogue with this theory of capabilities assumptions and implications of the concept of development for our national democratic revolution. A number of service delivery strikes in our land, with many poor people expecting government to ‘deliver’ for them, might suggest among other things that the state does ‘development’ for people, hence the designation of the post-1994 South African state as a ‘developmental state’. This article argues that, at foundational level, development understood as liberation could help alter the assumptions that held the national democratic revolution back.
Highlights
This article basically examines the relationship between the Dependency Theory and the liberation paradigm, especially the Latin American discourse of liberation and development
This article briefly engages Sen’s Theory of capabilities to establish a convergence between freedom as development and the quest for breaking with dependencies, a vision of liberation. In light of this discussion, the article broadly asks: Is there a relationship between the Constitution of South African and the concept of development? What constitutional obligation does the state have in the development of the country? What model of development would be appropriate for such a task? The article concludes by arguing that a constitutional democracy is arguably beneficial if it expands the freedom of the previously oppressed as agents to function and do valuable things
The centre-periphery model of development which led to the underdevelopment of other countries – rendering the socalled underdeveloped countries as stepping stones for the so-called developed others, is the epitome of the ethical question the liberation school has grappled with and the hermeneutics of suspicion to which the concept of development has been subjected and should continue to be subjected. It is the views expressed by Ramon Grosfoguel that we find helpful in deepening the thrust of our conversation in this regard, especially the critique of the Dependency Theory
Summary
This article basically examines the relationship between the Dependency Theory and the liberation paradigm, especially the Latin American discourse of liberation and development. This article briefly engages Sen’s Theory of capabilities to establish a convergence between freedom as development and the quest for breaking with dependencies, a vision of liberation.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
