The purpose of this study was to examine the comparative difference among Literate andrnIlliterate Farmers in participation and implementation of Rural Development Programs, likerneducation, health, agriculture and use of micro finance institutions. To this end, a descriptivernsurvey design was applied. Quantitative information were gathered by using structuredrnquestionnaire whereas the qualitative information collected by using open ended questions, focusrngroup di scuss ions and document analysis. The sample respondents included in the study were 4rnwereda officials and 40 illiterate and literate farmers (20 from each category). Accordingly, therntotal number of respondents participated in the study were 44, from which 28 are males and 16rnare females. The results from the study revealed that the participation and the advantage gainrnfrom rural development programs like education, health, agricultural productivity and use ofrnmicrofinance institutions is much in favor of literate respondents than the illiterate counter parts.rnFor instance, only 65 percent of the illiterate respondents are willing to send some of theirrnchildren to school, 90 percent of the illiterate respondents confirmed as their children's droppedrnout of their education because of different social and economic problems. On contrary, however,rnmore than 95 percent of the literate respondents are assured that even if various challengingrnconditions may appear, they are not preferred and accept their children's dropout from schoolrnengagements. Furthermore, 85 percent of the literate children are attending anti-six vaccinationsrnfrom begirU1ing to the end. Regarding farming inputs, literate farmers are more advantageousrnthan illiterate farmers because the study showed that only 50 percent of the illiterate respondentsrnst ill use local seeds with chemical fertilizers, about 30 percent of them use both improved andrnlocal seeds with chemical fertilizers and 20 percent of them are using improved seeds withrnchemical fertilizers. Moreover, 65 percent of the illiterate respondents did not have previousrnexperience of using local micro finance institutions as alternative sources of money. In light ofrnthese findings, the recommendations forwarded include: intervention programs should bernundertaken to increase school enrolment and level of children's retention in school; programrnevaluation are required to assess for the right implementation of the 16 major pillars stated underrnthe rural health extension programs; continuous education and awareness creation programsrnshould be given by the local development agents (DAs); government officials and experts arernrequired to work on increasing the use of modern farm inputs by illiterates; micro financerninstitutions have to do more on awareness creation programs and finally, proper attention shouldrnbe given by government officials to educate the illiterates how they could actively be involvedrnin local administration and enjoy their full rights in the building of democratic systems