How many times in recent history have we had this:

from Dayuhan
Many years ago on Mindanao (the eastern side, not the Muslim area) a foreign aid agency funded a road, which was intended to traverse a quite remote area. The project was sold as a farm-to-market road, though it was generally understood that it would also make it easier for the military to gain access and deny the area to the NPA.

The farmers in the area opposed the road vigorously, sabotaging equipment, shooting at workers, causing all kinds of problems and eventually stalling the project. The foreigners involved couldn't understand it. One of them, almost in tears at the collapse of his project, moaned to me at length over how the farmers were such fools to fall for the commie propaganda, how the road would benefit them, etc etc... it took some doing to get it through his damn fool head that none of those farmers had legal title to the land they were tilling, that they'd been left alone because their land was remote and inaccessible, and that when that road was complete their land would become valuable, and when it became valuable men with guns would come and drive them off it so somebody with money and power could take over. This was the conclusion the farmers had reached, and they were absolutely right.
Serious question. Perhaps, some road examples could be found in Vietnam - many general examples exist where farmers with shaky or no legal title joined or at least supported the VM or VC out of fear of land possession loss.

What has been the reaction to improvement of Highway 1 in Astan ?

The military road tradition goes back to Rome where it certainly had an impact on the local populations - as in Rutherfurd's novel Sarum for a more fun read than the more scholarly works on the same topic.

So, agreed as to this:

from Dayuhan

It pays to be very careful when proposing solutions to other people's problems.

A few things to remember...

Never assume a village to be homogenous, and never ask what "the people" want. They want different things. There are factions and there are rivalries, and all of them will want to get the inside track on working benefits out of the naive outsider who offers assistance. The articulate guy who speaks development jargon and tells us what we like to hear does not necessarily speak for the community.

Villages tend to be conservative places. Change can be perceived as a threat, especially if one faction is perceived to be working the situation to drive changes that benefit them. Aid that is delivered without full awareness of internal rivalries and issues can destabilize a situation and provoke conflict.

People generally don't insurge because the government isn't providing services. In most insurgency environments the idea of a government providing services would be considered absurd; many have never seen or known a functional government. People who insurge are more likely to do so because they are or believe themselves to be threatened.
In effect, are the "masses" "voting" for the insecurity they know and have adapted to; as opposed to what is thought by developers to bring more stability, whereas to the "masses" it represents greater insecurity ?

Regards

Mike