Abstract
Since the advent of modern capitalism, the idea of development has uprooted millions of people around the world, particularly those who are heavily dependent on natural resources such as land, rivers and forests. The broad question this study poses is; is public participation an effective strategy of eliminating adverse consequences of new ‘development-induced displacement and resettlement’ (DIDR)? I think that participation in DIDR projects is not capable of resolving the problems associated with displacement and dispossession. Through analysis of the concept, practice, and strategies of participation in development-induced displacement, I interrogate the different relationships and transformations that emerge. I then assess why protests and resistance still characterise development-induced displacement despite public participation. Finally, I evaluate the benefits accruing from these development projects especially to the people most affected. Inspired by post-development theories on participation and development this study interrogates the place of participation in the socio-economic transformation brought by development-induced displacement. I compare two cases of displacement in Kenya. First is the Dominion Farms Ltd commercial agriculture venture in Yala Swamp and the second is the Olkaria geothermal power producing plant in Kenya. Using stakeholder purposive sampling strategy and snowballing sampling, the study draws from oral interviews, focus group discussions, observations to collect and triangulate data from the two sites. I posit that one of the strategies to entrench participation as a tool of dispossession is widespread neoliberal formalization and institutionalization, which sanitises and normalises displacement. However, participation does not stop the fundamental problem of DIDR that is, the widespread dispossession of victims of displacement and the subsequent imposition of capitalist modes of production. I conclude that participation in DIDR has become a neoliberal tool for dispossession of peasants and primitive accumulation of capital. First, participation does not always fundamentally alter decisions favoured by project proponent and governments. Secondly, unlike participatory rural development approaches, participation in DIDR does not seek to empower local communities; instead, it seeks their orderly exit from project areas. Third participation does not address the complex question of changing property rights, benefits sharing and access to proceeds of the new projects. This results in widespread resistance against development projects. In this sense, resistance by PAPs becomes participation by other means where new rules of engagement emerge and other actors join for support or interventions.