P.S. I did leave the Nationals out deliberately because while I'm sure its name was also intended to appeal to a concept seemingly above reproach (patriotism etc.), Nationalism itself has quite a few negative connections and seems to belong to a different era.

Great post Weh.

I heard a comedian or commentator once say that the number of buzzwords in their title is directly proportional to the amount you should distrust a government/organisation. For example Democratic Republic of the Congo appears to be more brutal than Republic of the Congo; Democractic People's Republic of Korea (North) compared to Republic of Korea (South).

Similar innocuous labels in Australian politics include Labor, Liberal, Family First, Greens, Democrats and One Nation.
Who wouldn't want a united, democratic nation which supported workers' rights, allowed individuals their freedoms, supported families and cared for the environment. Obviously these parties have quite different agendas, though their names imply missions which are not mutually exclusive. Donors, like voters, should look beyond the spin of an agency before making an informed choice. Development workers should also question the driving forces of their work, especially where buzz words are involved - democracy, governance, "in Australia's national interest", for example.

Thanks for the post Alex.

It is an interesting starting point for people interested in working in development, but I would suggest also that readers take it also with a grain of salt and consider some of the comments. As you have stated here though, that was partly your intention.

My largest concern was with point #3 - again whether or not you intended for it to be taken to its logical extreme, this is often the biggest and most damaging mistake made by development workers, so I would exercise caution. Having spent two years in Bougainville and five more overseeing development volunteers, I would encourage readers to take this as a point of encouragement to not lose confidence rather than one to always trust one's own "better" judgment. We actually advise our volunteers not to do anything for the first six months (aside from work alongside their counterparts), as it takes at least that long to detach somewhat from cultural assumptions. Short-term placements are particularly dangerous when the expatriate feels they have to "achieve something" before they finish.

I would also like to add re: point 4b & 4c, expats should be aware of the artificial inflation their presence can produce. I agree that petty haggling over small prices is unbecoming and should be avoided, but short term economic stimulation may not be all good. Connected slightly to point 3, I would also recommend people resist seeing their own relative wealth in terms of opportunity and obligation to "do something". First and foremost, expatriates should focus on the job for which they have been employed. Side projects are more often about self-gratification than sustainable community development. It also sets a bad precedent of "foreigner as cash cow" which negates the ability of subsequent volunteers to build effective relationships.

Finally, on point 5 - Beware the expat in culture shock, the burnt-out expat or the insular expat community. They will appear to have expertise on local cultural matters but are often reflecting their own inability to work cross-culturally. It is not easy and does take a lot of patience (point 6) and especially the humility to take a back seat in community development.