PublicParticipation-A Case Study of Municipalities in Bihar-Shashi

8/8/2019 PublicParticipation-A Case Study of Municipalities in Bihar-Shashi

1/26

Municipal Budget and FinancialManagement Programme

Public Participation

A critical review of public participation indevelopment planning within Bihar local

governments

Shashikant Nishant Sharma [email protected] B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi

Shashikant Nishant Sharma

BP/461/2008 , B.Plan, 2nd year

School of Planning & ArchitectureNew Delhi-110001
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/26


Executive Summary

Seamless flow of information between communities in the broadestsense and formal local government and service provision structures isincreasingly a reality of modern governance. Technology, techniques

and mechanisms contribute to participation as never before. Thispaper contributes to the understanding of participation in two parts.The first part roots the debate in an exposition of the theoreticalconstruct behind the participation idea. The second part addressescurrent experience in Bihar local government by discussing andproviding a critique of current practice.

Shashikant Nishant Sharma [email protected] B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 2


3/26


Table of ContentPage

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 2

1. Background ...................................................................................................................... 4

2. Community Participation: Origins of the theory and practice in development thinking . 4

Context .........................................................................................................................42.2 The origins of participation in theory .................................................................... 7

2.3 Dominant patterns in participatory approaches ..................................................... 92.4 Towards a differentiated participation model ...................................................... 11

3. Current Municipal experience with participation in Bihar ............................................ 14

3.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................143.2 Experience with participatory mechanisms and processes .................................. 16

3.3 Towards a critique of current participation in practice ........................................ 17

4. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................25



4/26


1. Background

Contemporary developmental thinking tends to be in vehementagreement on the topic of public/community participation. Thenotion that communities should have a say and be empowered

to exert direct influence in decisions that would impact on theirsocial, material and environmental well-being is virtuallyundisputed in the development and democratisation debate tothe point of becoming accepted as a basic need and democraticright. No longer the sole domain of radical thinkers; publicparticipation, it would seem, has become off age. Yet, despitethe wide acceptance of the need for and benefits of participationin development, the going consensus becomes fuzzier withregard to the best way to achieve participatory governance inpractice. More often than not, despite good intentions, thepractise of participatory democracy still falls short of its ideals

and expectations. Why does the practical manifestation of publicparticipation processes so often falter?

A prodigious amount of literature on the theory and practice ofpublic participation currently exists, offering a plethora of casestudies, best practises and guidelines. This vast literature alsospawned a rich (and sometimes bewildering) lexicon oftheoretical concepts and terminology. This paper attempts toprovide a translation of the theory and praxis on participation topractitioners so as to built understanding in support of strongerpublic/community participation processes.

2. Community Participation: Origins of thetheory and practice in developmentthinking

Context

Community expectations from public sector organisations are

undergoing significant changes. In the 1950s people were moretolerant of poor services; more patiently waiting in long queuesand enduring inefficient public administration than they are now.Communities are expecting quality delivery of public servicesand are beginning to hold elected representatives increasinglyaccountable when their expectations are not met. Before the2000 municipal election NGO conducted a poll on publicperceptions of local government. This survey found declining



5/26


local government opinion levels with only 31% of peopleexpressing trust in and 30% giving approval of localperformance, with 44% perceiving corruption in theirmunicipalities. Only 36% of people thought that theirmunicipalities were responsive to their needs; down from 58% in

1995. The most worrying aspect of this and similar pollsconducted since, is that local government seems to scoreconsistently lower than provincial and national government,despite being closer to the people. The call is now for delivery,but more specifically delivery that is more responsive to andplaces greater focus on community satisfaction as communitiesbecome increasingly assertive in demanding and expecting arange of quality local services.

The pattern of rising expectations of public sector delivery is notunique to Bihar and indeed strongly influenced domestic

municipal reform initiatives. An international discourse emergedduring the last two decades with regard to governmentefficiency, size and cost. A wave of reforms, with increasinglydistinctive styles, themes and interventions, were unleashedwhich gradually became collectively known as New PublicManagement. The reform agenda since the latter half of the1980s were popularised by the Thatcher and Major governmentsin the United Kingdom. It however rapidly spread into Australia,New Zealand, and Scandinavia which all introduced bold reformprogrammes. By the early 1990s the Clinton Administrationintroduced broadly similar initiatives in the United States to

address the domestic crisis in public services.

Although many public sector reforms have ideologicalunderpinnings they mostly respond to a legitimate crisis in thedelivery of public services; i.e. fiscal viability, large scaleinefficiency, societal changes and growing popular dissatisfactionwith bureaucracy. New Public Management type best practicesare now succeeding in large scale public sector improvementsacross the globe; from India to Finland, Columbia to Canada,North and South, Developed and Developing countries.

The main elements of the 1990s reform agenda can besummarised as:

o The introduction of quasi and real market competition into

public service delivery;o Increasing decentralisation in the management and

production of public services;o Emphasis on improving service quality;



6/26


o Reforms to reduce costs and increase efficiency;

o Increasing emphasis on benchmarking and measuring

performance ando Focus on increased responsiveness to individual needs of

the consumers/customers of public services.

The reforms in Bihar coincided with a public sector reform wavefanning out across the world. The ills of the state administrativesystem were similar to other stale bureaucracies;mismanagement of resources, outdated management,unresponsiveness to users, lack of accountability,poor labourrelations etc



7/26


Municipalities now are expected to roll out a clear reform agendain terms of a suite of municipal legislation addressing:

o Service delivery and clarity of purpose through a general

set of service delivery duties within the system ofgovernment (Constitution and Municipal Systems Act);

o Community participation and accountability (MunicipalSystems Act);

o Integrated planning (Municipal Systems Act); and

o Performance management (Municipal Systems Act).

Yet, almost all municipalities are faced with a dual challenge ofrising community expectations/needs and declining resources. Inmany cases cost cutting and revenue enhancing strategies havereached their limitations as communities increasingly struggle toafford municipal services and municipalities risking infrastructurefailure through simplistic cost cutting exercises. The time has

come to introduce more sophisticated strategies that aim tostrike a bargain/pact between municipalities and communities onwhat services are to be delivered against set standards andaffordable payments. Within such strategies municipalities canstrike a better balance between community expectations andservice affordability while still finding ways of improvingefficiencies and reducing costs. This dialogue will by enlargehappen through participation.

2.2 The origins of participation in theory

The origins of public participation within the local governmentsphere can probably be traced to three root sources:

o Participation as good development project practise:Participation was first used in the 1950s by social activistsand project field workers as a necessary dimension ofdevelopment. The World Bank, internationally, as well as theAsian Development Bank have since taken the notion ofparticipation as a prerequisite for successful projectimplementation to heart. It has now become common

practise to include some or the other form of publicparticipation in the implementation of infrastructure projectswithin the local government environment. A large amount ofcase studies tend to focus on project specific participation andit is arguably the most well known participation framework ofreference.



8/26


o Participation as good governance: Governance is a term

that refers to the nature of the relationship between the stateand civil society. Participation within the context of goodgovernance has its origins from within Western democraciessince the 1980s and 90s. Falling voter turn-out (the so-

called democratic deficit) and a general sense ofdisillusionment with particularly local government resulted ina rethink in the way civil society can be re-engaged. Apowerful late 1990s article in The Economist has shown howvoter turnout in almost all Western democracies areexperiencing rapid decline. Bihar, according to pre-electionpolls, experiencing the same perception trends, possiblyindicating that the healthy state of participation in localdemocracy after 1994 will decline in line with otherdemocratic societies. The thread presented to democracywhen few bother to vote is self evident. The causes of this

democratic disengagement is varied but commonly based onperceptions of oppressive, unresponsive and inefficientbureaucracies, in addition to a sense of powerless andmarginalised local political structures within the state. Stronglinks also exist with the crisis of the welfare state in Westerndemocracies. A common feature of the dramatic public sectorreforms in the developed world in the last decades has beenserious attempts to address what has become known as thecrisis in local democracy. Widespread disengagement anddisinterest of key groups and social and economic exclusionprompted a range of initiatives to re-establish the legitimacy

of local councillors, combat social exclusion and improveparticipation in representative democracy. New forms ofdemocratic participation have been the result, e-governanceand real time polling mechanisms to name a few. It has alsogiven rise to completely new institutions of governance,illustrated by the rapid increase of the residential communityassociation phenomena, increases in community developmentcorporations and increasing complexity in service deliveryconfigurations.

o Participation as political empowerment: Originating from

economic development theory and theories of developmentthe empowerment approach to community participation islocated within the radical paradigm of alternativedevelopment and manifests itself in the mobilisation ofpopular political power. With intellectual origins in neo-Marxist writers this approach locates participation within awider political struggle that links the condition of under-development with access to political power. At the local



9/26


government and community interface participation within thisapproach manifested itself in dialogical forums wherestakeholder groups with a political empowerment agendaengages the local state in participation on a wide range ofdevelopment issues. The existence of dialogical forums is no

longer as prevalent and dominant as they were prior to 1994,but still forms the dominant mode of participation in thepreparation of development plans and provides the backdropfor some types of civic organisations.

These three dominant strands of thinking and approaches toparticipation intermingle and sometimes are getting confused inpractical engagement between communities and localgovernments. Municipalities, for example often interminglesparticipation on a project-based engagement in a similar manneras consultation in their PLAN IMPLEMENTATION process that falls

more within the good governance realm. The communities withwhich they engage often resembles empowerment; that is thatthey define the terms of engagement in terms of conflict andopposition to the local state or ward councillor; using theparticipation process as a proxy for political engagement. Atother times communities define their engagement in terms ofcooperation and community management. The key conclusion isthat there is no single universally applicable or perfect model ofparticipation. It is important to recognise differentcircumstances require a different style of participation fromauthorities. The trick is to understand the context within which

communities are engaged so as to design the most appropriateparticipative mechanism and process.

2.3 Dominant patterns in participatory approaches

A general differentiation can be made three dominant publicsector reform approaches; public choice, post-Fordist reform ofstate service delivery and neo-Marxist. Each one of these reformapproaches displays dominant, but not exclusive, characteristics.

Table 1: Dominant participatory approachesCharacteristic Dominant DifferentiationDominantpublicsectorreformparadigm

Public Choice(New public managementparadigm)

Neo-Marxist

Dominant Market reform introduction of

o Statist reform of traditional

bureaucracy

o Economic

developme



10/26


reformagenda

competition inservice provisionand consumerchoice

o Market reform

o Developmental local

government

nt modelo Developme

ntalgovernment

Role of

localgovernment

Enabler of

service provision

Pluralism spreading power

within the state (traditionalnormative view of the state)Service provider utilitarianrole

Local state as

manager ofunevendevelopmentand localdualism

Participation approach

Citizen ascustomer

o Citizen as subject

o Community benefit

o Community partnership

Popularmobilisation

Participatory mode

o Market

researcho Focus group

researcho Opinion polls

o Dialogical Forums

o Sector-based advisory

groupso Area-based/ constituency

based advisory structures

Communityactivation

Scale Service Provider Traditional

Emerging City/Regional/National

o Municip

alityo Public

actors

o City-wide

o Partnership

o NGO

o Private

sectoro Communit

y groups

Focus Individualconsumer

o Community beneficiary of

public serviceso Social development

stakeholders and partners

Human scaledevelopment

Outcome o Serviceefficiency

o Customer

satisfaction

o Good Governance

o Legitimacy

o Responsiveness

o Accountability

o Decentralisation

o Effectiveness

o Social sustainability

Social equitySocial justice

PlanningProduct

o Sector

strategieso Service plans

o Business

Plans

Traditional Emerging

o Structure

planso 5-year planso MTIEF

o CapitalProgrammes

o Integrated

DevelopmentPlan

o City

DevelopmentStrategy

Discourse Narrow focus Traditional Emerging GlobalisationCapitalismNeeds based Priority

driven



11/26


2.4 Towards a differentiated participation model

The characteristics of the most appropriate models aresummarised below:

ModelCharacteristic Community

DevelopmentEmpowerment Negotiated

developmentRole ofGovernment

Open Closed Open

Nature ofdecision-making

Smallprogrammes andprojects withclearlydefined/concreteand singleoutputs

Political/economictargetedprogrammes withclearly definedagenda/outputs

Complex multivariable andmulti-facetedprogrammes.High level ofcomplexity

Communitydynamic

Focuses throughproject selection

Focussed throughstrength ofneeds/issue

Diffuse,heterogeneousand require levelof moderation

Primarypurpose ofparticipativeprocess

Limited Centred around adispute betweencommunity andgovernment

Integratedsystemsapproach, wideranginginteraction

Adapted from Abbot 1996

Surrounds

Source: Abbot 1996



12/26


Abbot outlines four types of surrounds or contexts, along two

variable

Arena of

exclusion

Appropriate

Source: Abbot 1996

If one takes Abbots framework a bit further, by locating typicalparticipation examples within each approach, the value of hiscontribution becomes clearer.

Arena ofexclusion

Illustrative

The next layer of sophistication of the framework developed byAbbot is to establish a link with the kind of participation



13/26


mechanisms and processes that one would expect within eachparticipatory approach.

Typical m

within

Different approaches to participation therefore exist and areappropriate for different contexts. Not all participatorymechanisms serve the reform agendas and desired outcomes ofmunicipalities equally well. If, for example, the public reform

agenda is to pursue market driven service delivery options, thendialogical forums are not particularly useful. On the other hand,if new housing options are considered, affecting specificstakeholder groupings, dialogical forums may work well.Environmental policy, again, has a strong sectoral stakeholderimpact. It is of little use to generalize it in a dialogical forumunless also supported by participation from an environmentalfocus group. The point is that there are different approaches toparticipation that tend to work; one size does not fit all.



14/26


3. Current Municipal experience withparticipation in Bihar

3.1 Introduction

Public participation is considered one of the key tenets ofdemocratic governance in Bihar. Municipal councils are obligedto develop a culture of municipal governance that shifts fromstrict representative government to participatory governance,and must for this purpose, encourage, and create conditions forresidents, communities and other stakeholders in themunicipality to participate in local affairs. In addition, the WhitePaper on Local Government states that Local governmentstructures must develop strategies and mechanisms to

continuously engage with citizens, business and communitygroups and offers the following options amongst others; focusgroup participatory action research to generate detailedinformation about a wide range of specific needs and values; andparticipatory budget initiatives aimed at linking communitypriorities to capital investment programmes.

The deepening of local democracy in Bihar embedded in wide-ranging regulative provisions that oblige organs of the state ingeneral and municipalities in particular to establish mechanismsand processes for public participation. Municipal legislation

(Municipal Systems and Structures Acts) lays down formalmeasures to establish a coherent system of developmental localgovernance resting on pillars of community participation,integrated development planning (plan implementation),budgeting; and performance management. The preparation ofplan implementation, in particular, has become a mantra tocommunities, managers and political representatives at all levelsof government as an all-embracing planning tool which will allowmunicipalities to address wide ranging developmentalchallenges, through public participation, in a systematic andsustainable manner. In addition to general provisions for

participation municipalities are also given specific obligations toconsult in a prescribed manner through legislation. Theadvertising of the annual tariffs and rates, forming part of thebudget is prescribed. When municipalities are consideringalternative service delivery mechanisms they must consult thecommunity. Land use planning decisions are commonlyadvertised in the press in a prescribed manner. Some decisionsmust be advertised for comment and be made available in public



15/26


places; etc. In addition extensive use are made of wardparticipatory systems in terms of municipal by-laws andmandated by notices published by the PRDA for localgovernment.

However, it is only when all the statutory provisions are strippedaway, and the underlying public participation processes andmechanisms are exposed, that a good impression emerges of thehealth of participation.



16/26


3.2 Experience with participatory mechanisms and processes

The most common mechanisms in Bihar municipalities relating toparticipation are:

o Dialogical forums, plan implementation forums, sectorforums and/or area-based forums. Experience with forumsindicates a variety of organisational set-ups, ranging fromsophisticated constitutions, organised into complexcommittee structures and having clear accreditation criteriafor membership; to simple equivalents of town-hall meetingsthat is called occasionally;

o Ad hoc meetings, almost all municipalities make use of ad

hoc meetings around specific issues, for example acontroversial town planning application.

o Market research and opinion polls, still somewhat in its

infancy, some of the larger municipalities have conductedproper stratified and diversified market research oncommunity priorities;

o Ward participatory structures ,set up through formal state

notices and requiring by-laws, ward participatory systemsexist in many municipalities. In other municipalities informalversions and configurations of ward participatory systemsfunctions.

o e-Government, although larger municipalities are actively

beginning to provide on-line service options, very few if anyprovides real time on-line voting to gain a measure of public

opinion on issues yet;o Communication, many municipalities have created

communication capacity within the administration, oftenlinked to the Mayors office, to provide a press liaison andcorporate communication service. Almost all municipalitiesmake use of the occasional news letter, sometimes producingglossy publications to reach communities. The use ofcommunity radio and community news paper media are fairlywidespread and even television, on occasion.

o Customer relations and Citizen Charters, driven by the

need to manage expectations and reflect service deliveryaccountability municipalities increasingly establish ongoingcustomer relations measures. Typical strategies employed bymunicipalities include:o Single window principles (also called one-stop-shops)

where a range of services are combined in one area formaximum convenience;



17/26


o Introduction ofself-service facilities and electronic services

such as payment of accounts through the internet;o Providing e-government services, such as on-line rezonings

and building plan approvals;o Establishment of help desks where all inquiries can be

lodged through a single portal;o Increasing the number of service points to maximum

convenience, either by literally locating facilities in moreareas or simply using shops as additional pay points formunicipal accounts;

o Simplification of procedures (Red Tape initiatives) and

supporting people making use of municipal servicesthrough pamphlets and help desks;

o Creating call centres through which inquiries and

complaints can be lodged;o Introducing single number facilities for emergency

services;

3.3 Towards a critique of current participation in practice

3.3.1Is participation too strongly associated with thedevelopment planning process?

Participation, in order to properly reflect its good governanceintentions, is not only something that should be associated withplan implementation. Almost all municipalities associateparticipation too strongly with their corporate planninginitiatives. This trend is exacerbated by the tendency of NGOsand development academics to fixate on the application ofparticipation within the development planning environment.However, in practice municipalities often have a surprisinglywide array of participatory structures, initiatives andmechanisms in place. On the one hand municipalities underselltheir commitment to participation while overemphasising its rolein development planning, while on the other hand participationcan suffer when exclusively being conducted through the planimplementation.

3.3.2A too narrow emphasis upon creating participatorystructures?

A plethora of organisations emerged during the late 1980s and1990s to challenge the legitimacy of the local state by engagingit on issues such as rent boycotts, land release, housingdevelopments, infrastructure provision and politicalrepresentation in a variety of forums. In lieu of legitimate local



18/26


government, civics, and the forums through which they startedto engage the state, emerged as proxy representative bodiesand successfully occupied political space prior to the 1994election. During the run-up to the lection and immediatelythereafter after, a fierce debate was sparked around the future

of civics.

Yet, the notion that participatory structures needs to beestablished whenever an plan implementation process needs tobe rolled out dies hard. The creation of structures as a centralapproach to participation remains strong, despite evidence thatthis type of mechanism may not be an appropriate response inall contexts.

What then are the problems associated with participatory

structures/forums? The creation of forums creates five importantrisks:

o Firstly, forums allows elites and special interest

groups which have neither been mandated by election orother means nor having accountability to the broadercommunity, to exert disproportionate influence indecision making. The risk is that forums acquiredisproportional powers of decision making similar to andsometimes in addition to elected representatives. Wardcommittees can indeed take delegated decisions, despitetheir unelected status. Political parties can thus use

participation structures as a crude mechanism tolegitimise their actions.

o Secondly, forums run the risk of by-passing and

short circuiting the political system. The risk is thata strong relationship develops between the bureaucracyand forum leadership through placing issues tomanagement and not councillors. This, indeed, was oftenthe situation prior to the first democratic local elections.

o Thirdly, forums can very easily become an arena for

opposition political mobilisation.1 The risks are two-fold; firstly a municipally sponsored organisation can

provide a false legitimacy to leadership figures outsidecouncil to undermine elected councillors. This situationsometimes happen subtly, but often is expressed quiteaggressively (and occasionally physically!) by attackingcouncillors for not accepting forum recommendations outrightly or for not participating in forum activities creating

1 Friedman & Reitze.



19/26


the impression that councils decisions are subject toforum endorsement. Popcorn civics are a common pre-election occurrence; they pop up before the election todisappear shortly thereafter. People use the nature ofcivic organisations to position themselves for

candidateship and election (in one famous incident apolitical party discovered that the leader of the civic itelected onto its candidate list represented a civic that wasentirely made up of family members). Forums are politicalplatforms and they do engage elected councillors betweenelections in power struggles. Secondly, the power offorums and community organisations for that matter isoften not in what they can achieve, but in what they canstop. Forums and other organisations often useparticipation to frustrate development, partly to displaypower and partly to undermine elected councils. The

often experienced risk is that developments can beseriously delayed without sound reason simply becauseorganisations mobilise opposition.

o Fourthly, forums do not guarantee social inclusivityand consensus. Forums cannot, by definition, begatekeepers of public opinion. The risk is that socialexclusion of marginalised groups can be exacerbated byforums; a problematic notion in all societies but broughtinto stark perspective when also confronted by the needto conduct nation building. It follows that participativestructures cannot be the only mechanism facilitating

participation.o Lastly, participative strictures are incredibly

resource, time and energy sapping. Communityempowerment depends for its success on the existence ofthe state-community duality and is based on theassumption that a healthy, mutually beneficial relationshipexists between the state and the community. Ideally thiswould imply knowledge of agreed roles andresponsibilities, adequate resourcing, sufficientadministrative and logistical support, institutionalarrangements conducive to participation and a myriad

other elements to sustain public participation processes.It is reported in the plan implementation Guide Packs thatmany municipalities fail in their participation effort simplybecause they stand helpless to formulate a processcorresponding to their administrative capability. The riskis that participatory structures demand and receive somany resources that development becomes impeded.There is a widely held view that at government level that



20/26


too much participation may be considered to underminethe capacity for development by putting too much strainon resources and institutions, particularly wheremechanisms and structures are not sufficientlyinstitutionalised. This perspective then argues that there

might be too much participation i.e. a point beyond whichcommunity participation becomes self-defeating and failsto meet broad objectives. A call has been made that thishas indeed been the case in the most recent round of planimplementation.

3.3.3Is participation adequately executed?

It is expected that effective public participation includes at leastthe following elements:

o allocation of adequate resources to the community

participation programme, and meaningful use of these

resources;o promotion of legitimacy of and public support for policies and

programmes of the local authority; ando appropriate mechanisms and training to enable members of

communities to contribute meaningfully to the planimplementation.

The central feature of the participation process in a multi-sectoral, project-based perspective is a duality between thecommunity and the state, as earlier discussed. Within thisapproach, the definition becomes community participation is aprocess designed to increase control over resources and

regulative institutions, on the part of groups and movements ofthose hitherto excluded from such control. Stated in anotherway, participation as an active process by whichbeneficiary/client groups influence the direction and execution ofa development project with a view to enhancing their well beingin terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other valuesthey cherish. In the Bihar context, this would be seen as one ofthe primary objectives of the plan implementation process.However, its success has been variable due to a number ofreasons.

Communities can become involved in decision-making processesin the following ways:

o Information-sharing

o Consultation

o Decision-making

o Initiating action



21/26


Thus far, there has arguably been an overemphasis oninformation-sharing and consultation as the most suitable formsof public participation and a lack of understanding of theelements needed to engage communities in decision-making andinitiating action as forms of public participation.

It is vital to recognize that by involving communities in thedecision-making process around a project, and giving themresponsibility for the ongoing management of the project, asense of ownership is instilled, opportunities for widercommunity contributions are opened up and the likelihood oflong term success for the project is enhanced. Given theimportance of the plan implementation process, the decision-making component of participation should not be under-estimated and certainly should not be an add-on but rather beintegrated into the entire participation process.

A major requirement of the participation process is that publicparticipation has to be coupled with the ability to implement theprojects arising from the process. Lack of financial resourcesoften prevent implementation of the objectives of planimplementation, resulting in a failure to meet the expectations ofmany communities. Again, this relates to a lack of transparencyin the participation process due to inadequate involvement ofcommunities in decision-making processes.

It has long been known that allowing communities to participate

in decision-making processes, especially in relation to budgetallocation and prioritisation, requires a focussed, structuredapproach. Despite the developmental value embedded incommunity centred resource allocation processes, it cannot beassumed to result in more efficient decisions, rational outcomesand increased development.

From this perspective, public participation is seen as animportant tool to facilitate democratic activities. Ideally, it isused to enhance understanding of the impact of policy andprogrammes and promote the development of priorities.

However, the use of public participation in an ad hoc andunstructured fashion often does not lead to the achievement ofthese objectives.

3.3.4Is there too much emphasis on participation?

Because of its political legacy, public participation has been aprominent feature of Bihari society for quite some time. But



22/26


given the nature of current society, there is a widely held viewthat at government level too much participation may beconsidered to undermine the capacity for development byputting too much strain on national resources and institutions,particularly where mechanisms and structures are not

sufficiently institutionalised. This perspective then argues thatthere might be too much participation i.e. a point beyond whichcommunity participation becomes self-defeating and fails tomeet broad objectives; participation fatigue sets in. A call hasbeen made that this has indeed been the case in the most recentround of plan implementations. An evaluation of participationprocesses will shed light on this situation, although this is notappropriate for the purposes of this paper.

3.3.5Who gets to set the agenda?One strong remnant of the project-based participatory tradition is

that communities should take over control at the project level. AWorld Bank officials quote articulates this view fairly well bystating: Through participation we lost control over the project,and in doing so gained ownership and sustainability, preciousthings in our business. The need to play a neutral or value freepart in facilitation follows strongly in this tradition. The questionis, acknowledging the need for community control within theproject environment, does high level participatory processesrequire the same degree of community control? Should electedrepresentatives not be allowed to articulate and push theirelectoral mandate by setting the parameters of the participation

process?

In many participation exercises around plan implementationcommunities are engaged without setting a strategic agenda; inother words, articulating what communities are being consultedabout. As a result a common question is to tell us your needswithout the moderation of explicit resource constraints. Theimplicit assumption is that communities can make a long list andthat the Council will be able to deliver on those demands. One orboth of two types of participative results emerge from this kindof process. Firstly, the community wish-list becomes so

extensive and unrealistic that the council disengage the processand effectively determine set the strategic agenda through thebudget with scant notice to the plan implementation. A crisis ofexpectation then requires management. It is interesting to notethat the City of Cape Town, in a paid radio advertisement, listednot a single issue for which it is functionally responsible. Theentire add, and the expectations it articulated, was depended onNational and Provincial Departments for delivery. Secondly, plan



23/26


implementation managers tend to capture the results ofparticipation process in vague terms and statements of intentwithout making explicit budget and without programme links.Typical of the genre are vision and mission statements aboutquality of life, safe and quality environments, economic growth

and job creation, being nice place to work, stay and play etc.; butwithout a single substantive implementation link. The result laysthe foundation of disengagement and community perceptions ofcouncillor powerlessness that only serves to undermine localdemocracy. In some Restructuring Grant processes Councilscame to the conclusion that their plan implementation does notactually articulate their municipal strategies at all; it simplyarticulated the outcome of some participative process. Allowingcontrol over the participatory agenda to slip away from electedrepresentatives can easily turn the process of participation into amechanistic exercise.

An alternative approach is to recognise that locally electedpolitical representatives have a legitimate mandate. The processof participation is therefore not value free, but informed by thepolicy agenda of the party in power. Participation is then aboutthe best way to implement such a mandate within theconfinement of resource constraints. The operating question isthus about determining the priorities within the broad strategicagenda and resource constraints. The strategic agenda ofcouncil should thus shape the participative agenda. Thisapproach breaks the traditional mould of value free deductive

participation and calls for a more inductive consultative method.The agenda should be set by strategy; the strategy would beweakened if it is expected to emerge from an unfocusedparticipation processes.

3.3.6Is participation dealing adequately with increasinginstitutional complexity?

The notion that the local state only consists of and is responsibleto influence matters under the control of the municipality isunder pressure. In realty municipalities influence decisions and

priorities through its own service delivery, but also through armslength organisations, municipal entities, multi-jurisdictionalservice structures, utility companies, section 21 companies andthrough participation on boards; to name a few. The institutionalenvironment interfacing with communities at the local level israpidly becoming more complex. Do municipal participatoryresponses adequately reflect this complexity in creating aconduit for community participation?



24/26




25/26


3.3.7Are social exclusion and nation building being addressed?

The most important aspect pertaining to participation is arguablythe role of the local state in legitimising itself. On a practicallevel municipalities have an incredibly important part to play in

creating robust communities as part of the development process.This requires municipalities to engage head-on with issues ofsocial exclusion

The outcome of the municipal demarcation process created farmore complex local government communities than previouslyexisted. Municipalities now presides over larger areas withcomplex rural/urban interfaces, combining several urban nodesin many places and integrating historically segregatedcommunities, language groups and cultures. The context withinwhich participation has to play itself out has never been more

complex. Do participative processes adequately address thesechallenges?

Arguably participation practice still over-emphasizes thelegitimization of the local state and neglect to address issues ofsocial exclusion adequately. In time one would begin to expectparticipation to explicitly become more nuanced in dealing withissues of youth, the aged, women; but also with racial, politicaland language minorities. Bihar is apoly-cultural society. Nowthe need to reflect a wider emphasis on inclusiveness thatextend beyond the majority constituencies of the ruling parties

to also cover opposition supporters, immigrants and other groupswithout a voice in formal government. This will be the challengefor the future.

The current emphasis on a basic needs approach in municipaldevelopments may result in avoidance of the community buildingaspect of participation. Often programmes are turned into aseries of physical development projects with a quantifiableoutput which may lose sight of the softer issues and otherexternal forces . It has been argued that this has been a featureof the plan implementation process. Given the need for

adequate conditions to facilitate public participation, it isimportant to note that the approach must be appropriate forspecific situations if it is to succeed.

4. Conclusion



26/26


Participation is a simple concept, but on closer analysis candrown in complexity. In this paper awareness of some of thecomplexity in participation is exposed without loosing sight ofthe practicality. Participation is rapidly becoming embedded inthe culture of local government and local political engagement.

It is therefore to be expected that the implementation ofparticipation is set to improve and become increasingly moresophisticated. Awareness of pitfalls, current weaknesses andbest practices can only help.

PublicParticipation-A Case Study of Municipalities in Bihar-Shashi

Documents

Transcript of PublicParticipation-A Case Study of Municipalities in Bihar-Shashi