CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.2 CONCEPTUALISING RURAL DEVELOPMENT
2.4.2 Different Approaches to Public Participation
63 - Reduces levels of misconception and misinformation about development projects.
- Creates a better understanding of a project and its objectives.
- Enhances transparency and accountability at local government level.
The benefits of public participation make it a favourable approach to the implementation of rural development policies. Apart from empowering and building capacities in rural communities, it provides a platform for the rural people and public officials to form partnerships and collaborate in policy implementation processes. In additional, public participation indicates that public policy implementation is not the preserve of public officials alone, but that citizens at the local level, especially in rural contexts have a role to play in their own development. In other words, it provides people at the grass-root level, especially the poor and the marginalised with the opportunity to be involved in the governance of their affairs. To this end, Imparato and Ruster (2003:20) define public participation as “a process in which people, and especially disadvantaged people, influence resource allocation, and policy and programme formulation and implementation”. A common feature of public participation is the involvement of people in the governance of issues which affect their lives. For example, Imperato and Ruster (2003:20) point out that, the public could be involved at “different levels and degrees of intensity in the identification, timing, planning, design, implementation, evaluation and post-implementation stages of development projects”. To this end, Naidoo and Ramphal (2018:83) define public participation “as a process by which potential interested and affected particies are given an opportunity to comment on, or raise issues relevant to, an application”. However, researchers (Theron, 2012; Meyer and Theron, 2008; Theron and Ceasar, 2008; Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002) warn that, the concept of public participation can be misused by politicians and public officials to manipulate citizens or exclude those considered ineligible or undesirable. Wherever it is purported to be practiced therefore, it must be critically analysed to determine whether citizens participate meaningfully or the concept is being used as a political gimmick.
64 involved in public participation processes at the local level. Their argument is that there is no government that has successfully implemented development policies without bringing citizens on board. They argue that failure by government to engage citizens in development praxis creates a rift between government and citizens. The gap between the government and citizens at the grass-roots level is one of the reasons for implementation failure, especially in rural contexts. The rift between government and rural communities can be reduced through the local government leadership’s designing of pragmatic ways of engaging citizens in decision-making and policy implementation processes. As a result, Glaser, Yeager and Parker (2006) identify two basic approaches of public participation and these are: neighbourhood-based participation and government-based citizen engagement.
The notion of neighbourhood-based participation is focused on various organisations that are community based. These organisations are autonomous and independent of government. They are part of the broad civil society family of organisations, which are well positioned to promote cooperation in local communities. The assumption is that neighbourhood-based organisations have a better understanding of the reality and concerns of communities on the ground.
Anderson (2011), notes that, these organisations promote participatory democracy and have considerable influence and support over development programmes at the grass-root level. The advocates of neighbourhood-based participation (Glaser, Yeager and Parker, 2006; Glaser, Jacob and Lank, 2005) point out that it is extremely difficult for government to have or mobilise enough resources to meet the challenges of policy implementation, especially in rural communities. However, the existence of neighbourhood-based organisations and private businesses provide the resource base that can be harnessed to supplement local government’s efforts to deliver services and improve the living conditions of the rural poor.
In addition, the approach clearly articulates the potential of grassroots organisations to spearhead and lead development initiatives at grass-roots level. Glaser, Yeager and Parker (2006:182) note that, “Neighbourhoods and NBOs are potentially powerful forces for organizing and applying the resources of community through coproduction”. Glaser, Yeager and Parker (2006:179) note further that, NBOs have “the ability to bring community resources to the table that are generally not available through agencies that are extensions of the arms of government”. Non-Benefit Organisations (NBOs) occupy the vacant space in the micro- implementation environment and need to be recognised as agents of change in their own right.
Their proximity to local communities gives them a unique advantage to play a major role in
65 the implementation of development policies, especially in rural areas. The absence of NBOs in rural areas, therefore, is a huge deficiency for rural development, especially when it comes to mobilising resources which are often scarce.
The other approach is largely driven by government. Glaser, Yeager and Parker (2006), describe it as the extension of the arms of local government.10 Here public participation is controlled and organised within the parameters of a defined framework. This means that citizens only participate under certain conditions defined in a policy document. Thus, Glaser, Yeager and Parker (2006:179) argue that, “[A]ccordingly, citizen participation is organised around vehicles that maximize efficiency in information exchange by placing limits on agenda setting and the degree of influence that citizens can have on any particular decision”. The model is prescriptive and only provides limited space for robust citizen participation in the local context. The exponents of government-based citizen engagement argue that citizens elect public officials to represent them and promote public interests. A broader engagement from the grassroots is therefore not necessary. This suggests that broader citizen engagement is viewed as time wasting and costly, unlikely to improve the quality of decisions or service delivery.
This attitude towards public participation can lead to situations where the concept gets thrown around by public officials for public relations purposes or simply as a political gimmick (Theron, 2012).
The citizen participation organisations (CPOs) model is anchored on the top-down approach.
It also prioritises the investment of public resources in ways consistent with the judgement of professionals rather than meaningful participation at grass-root level. The approach considers public officials and professionals (government workers) as the key players who possess sufficient power to make decisions. Public officials believe that it is their mandate “to make the best use of public funds and to protect public interest” (Glaser, Yeager and Parker, 2006:179). It is doubtful that public officials and professionals can sincerely engage citizens in a meaningful way through organisations that are controlled by government (Glaser, Yeager, and Parker, 2006; Majer and Nachmias, 1990; Crosby, Kelly and Scjaefer, 1986). The approach is prescriptive, paternalistic, restricts the level of citizen participation and gives limited power to citizens to influence decisions and determine their destiny. In addition, it creates the impression that the organisations that act as the arms of local government are not designed to
10 The organisations that are the extensions of the arms of local government are referred to by Glaser, Yeager and Parker (2006) as Citizens Participation Organisations (CPOs).
66 empower local people through participation but that local situations have to be acted upon by government with public organisations taking the centre stage. In this respect, the aim of public organisations, viewed as the arms of government, is to manipulate ordinary people, especially the rural poor who lack sophistication, into believing that they are genuinely participating in decision-making and implementation processes while in reality they are not.
The two approaches described above provide a framework to understand public participation through grass-roots organisations and agencies that are community based and independent, and through organisations that are extensions of local government. Notwithstanding the obvious strengths and limitations of both approaches, citizens and their organisations cannot participate meaningfully without power to influence decisions and actions. Power is defined here as the ability to direct or prevent the current or future actions of individuals or other groups.
Therefore, participation without power to influence decisions or change the state of affairs would be meaningless or non-participation. This indicates that meaningful participation is determined by the degree of power that the poor have to influence policy decisions and their implementation, and to hold public officials accountable. Rural development, which is the subject of this study, involves the empowerment of rural people so that they can engage in collective action to transform their situation. De Beer and Swanepoel (1998:24) note that,
“…empowerment releases people from the poverty trap. Release comes about not through conformation, but through transformation”. Furthermore, De Beer and Swanepoel (1998:28) state that “[T]ransformation efforts do not aim to bring relief to people in the trap, but to free them from the trap so that they can gradually improve the situation themselves as free and self- reliant individuals”. This indicates that rural development is not limited to the development of physical infrastructure as it also includes the non-material aspects such as empowerment of rural people to believe in themselves and act as free agents to improve their conditions. Rural development is multi-dimensional, hence empowerment is an integral part of it.