LIST FIGURES
3. Community Participation
3.3. Citizen participation in local governance
A number of writers have pointed out that a key factor in the global emphasis on increasing the participation of citizens in local governance is the recognition of the growing crisis of legitimacy that presently characterises the relationship between citizens and the (state) institutions that play such an important role in their everyday lives (Cornwall and Gaventa: 2001:1; Tandon: 2000:1; Michels: 2003;). As Tandon points out, in India this situation has led to citizens becoming mistrustful of public institutions and government agencies while at the same time developing an apathetic attitude towards governance which in turn is resulting in increasing levels of dependency on the state for their welfare (Tandon:2000:1). However, a groundbreaking study of citizen attitudes towards participation in 47 Commonwealth countries has also discovered that while there is indeed a growing process of alienation and disaffection between citizens and their representative institutions, there is a simultaneous and almost paradoxical demand by citizens in these countries that they be treated neither as beneficiaries of government program and schemes, nor as voters occasionally electing their representatives - but as citizens.
This crisis of legitimacy of traditional forms of governance holds for all three levels of governance but has led particularly to a rash of new thinking of how to deal with this issue at the level of local governance in particular. Why is local governance identified as the key arena to develop new thinking around citizen participation? To understand that we need to conceive local government in relation to three key organising concepts - that of democracy, governance and democratic decentralisation
3.3.1. Governance
In general terms the notion of governance refers to a concept which is broader than the narrow term of government and refers to the whole variety of governmental institutions and non governmental (civil society, private sector and public sphere institutions) and the interactions between them that make up the process of governing. Hirst defines governance as ' the means by which an activity or ensemble of activities is controlled or directed, such that it delivers an acceptable range of outcomes according to some established social standard' (Hirst: 2000:24, quoted in Somerville: 2003:1).
Central to the concept of governance is the notion of power and how it is distributed throughout the formal political system and society as a whole- a process that therefore encompasses the entire process whereby political, social and economic power is configured and distributed across the social field and how the power relations that emanate there is managed.
3.3.2. Decentralisation:
Decentralisation refers to the process in which authority and responsibility for public functions are transferred from central government to subordinate levels of government.
Local governance therefore is a form of decentralisation in which certain clearly delineated and specified responsibilities for decision making has been decentralised from central government. Turner; 1996; Johnson and Minis: 1994:5, identify three forms of decentralisation- devolution, deconcentration, and privatisation. Conyers (1990, cited in Nierras
et al.
2002: 15) defines decentralisation 'the transfer of power and/or authority to plan, make decisions and/or manage public functions from a higher level of government to a lower one'. Democratic decentralisation also refers to situations where the local authorities in question are democratically elected and wholly or largely independent of central government (Manor1997, cited in Nierraset al.
2002: 15).In this regard Johnson and Minis (1994:5) lists issues such as greater levels of accountability, problem solvinq, citizen participation and access to decision- making at a local level as the key benefits of decentralisation.
However, in my review I follow the definition of Blair (2002) that describes democratic decentralised local governance as that of a situation where 'meaningful authority is devolved to local units of governance that are accessible and accountable to the local citizenry, who enjoy full political rights and liberty'.
3.3.3. Direct Democracy
In terms of the relationship between citizens and the local state, direct democracy could give the space for traditionally excluded groups to gain access to the state and to make decisions affecting their Iives- decisions that would normally be made by their political representative.
Direct democracy increases the control citizens have over government (Abers, 2000: 5) and is as such often considered the purest form of democracy. There is very little evidence if at all of examples throughout the world where such 'pure' forms of direct democracy exist.
Cornwall and Gaventa (2001) argue that creative applications of the principles of direct democracy can allow more direct forms of democratic engagement between citizens and local authorities and critically, entails the conceptualisation of citizenship in very different ways to the norm- where citizens become' makers and shapers'.
3.3.4. Representative Democracy
This type of democracy is often contrasted with direct democracy. Representative democracy and its many variants is the most favoured form of democracy at a local level It is defined as 'the form of government in which legislation is enacted by representatives who are elected by the citizenry'. In contrast to direct democracy, the majority delegate power to a minority nominated to act in their interest. The minority is mandated to do this either in response to the majority's express wishes or according to the representatives' own judgement.
Representative democracy is thus an indirect way for citizens to exert power, and their satisfaction with it will depend on the effectiveness, probity and degree of accountability of the representatives chosen. The reliance on selection of representatives by majority election means that even with low levels of citizens' involvement in the only activity open to them, the electoral process, and this model satisfies its-rather restricted-purpose.
3.3.5. Participatory Democracy
Participatory democracy is used more as a way of going about direct democracy, rather than a third variant of democracy. Each form-direct and participatory-implies participation. Some writers recognize that the distinction between them 'is an overlapping distinction continually in transition in societal praxis. Direct and participatory democracy both concern non-elected citizens' involvement in decision-making, or their participation in
Participatory democracy, as well as breaking this mould, can offer scope for fundamentally redressing these inequities through the participatory and deliberative process itself.
Cornwall and Gaventa (2001: 32) centre their definition of participatory democracy on poor people exercising voice 'through new forms of inclusion, consultation and/or mobilization designed to inform and to influence larger institutions and policies'.
Fung and Wright (2001: 6-7) argue for empowered participatory democracy which they define as 'the redesigning of democratic institutions so as to incorporate innovations that elicit the energy and influence of ordinary people, often drawn from the lowest strata of society in the solution of problems that plague them'.
Entangled in these definitions above is the concept of 'deliberation' as a mechanism that enriches participatory democracy. The promotion of deliberation arises from concerns both with citizens' rights to participate and with what democracy can do for people, as well as what people can do for democracy.
3.3.6. Deliberative Democracy
Deliberate democracy emphasizes 'eliciting broad public participation in a process which provides citizens an opportunity to consider the issues, weigh alternatives, and express a judgement about which policy or candidate is preferred. It is distinguished from ordinary, thin modes of public involvement by the breadth and quality of participation'.
In arguing that deliberative participation moves beyond tokenistic notions of participation, Fung and Wright (2001: 6-7) define deliberation as the instituting of 'reason-based decision-making'. Abers' assertions (2000: 5-6) that 'participatory forums provide an environment in which people can gain skills, knowledge and organizing capabilities that help them both to control the state more effectively and to respond to problems themselves without the state's interference', and that participation can foster 'social consciousness and political community', also resonate with these notions of deliberation.
4. The Debate Around Citizen Participation, Local Governance and Service