Ishika Kumari

Roll No. 21/789

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOR DEVELOPMENT

Development can be defined as growth, progress or a positive change in quality. It is an ongoing

and dynamic process that can be perceived differently by different people. Through an economic

lens development can be described as increase in GDP and per-capita income and an inclusive

approach describes it as involvement of the marginalized.

Development can also be understood as well-informed and aware citizens participating in the

process and shaping ideas and policies through their knowledge. The decision making does not

need to be done in a room full of bureaucrats and politicians who are unaware of the ground

realities, that role needs to be assumed by the stakeholders, the people who are directly affected

by such policies and decisions. 1Reed (2008) describes participation as a process where public or

stakeholder individuals, groups and/or organization are involved in making decisions that affects

them1.

The decentralized model, where people are in charge of their resources, have better knowledge

and capability in using them in an efficient manner, is a better approach for development than the

traditional top-down approach of implementing reforms where the beneficiaries were never

consulted and acted as passive recipients of all governmental projects, and therefore led to weak

and unsustainable programs being made. When citizens are consulted and made a part of their

own developmental process it results in more inclusive, fault-free and sustainable outcomes.

The scholar, through participation, does not suggest a direct democracy with citizens having

complete control over decision making but a partnership model of development where
governments, agencies, departments and NGOs partner or collaborate with the citizens , value

their viewpoint, consult and involve them in the planning, implementation and decision making

process. In such a model citizens have more power than the traditional powerholders and this

would ultimately lead to better decision making and greater transparency as citizens then are

completely aware and cognizant of the planning and implementation of programs, and can hold

the officials accountable for any misconduct or mismanagement. It would also lead to less

corruption. Since these decisions are made through consensus of stakeholders it would ensure

wider acceptance and legitimacy. Citizen participation therefore ensures better governance and

practice of democracy which would result in overall development.

Participation can assume various forms in a democracy and can even be a formality on part of

officials for documentation purposes. Thus a concern arises that if methods adopted by the

governments or departments for citizens’ involvement are truly participative in nature or an

illusion, and how much scope for citizen engagement do such methods allow. The level of

citizen engagement in the decision making process is crucial to determine participation.

Sherry Arnstein in her work ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’ describes a ladder with 8 rungs

symbolizing varying degrees of participation through citizen power, control and

engagement.2The lowest rungs describe non-participation such as therapy or manipulation which

is substituted for genuine participation, middle rungs describe tokenism where citizens’ voices

are heard without any assurance of changing the status quo by powerholders, and the highest

rungs describe citizen power where people negotiate and engage in trade-offs and acquire

managerial power in decision making2.

Source: Arnstein, A Ladder of Citizen Participation;1969

Gaps in participation

There exists a gap in citizen awareness and lack of will to exercise their rights and realize their

capacities to full potential. In such scenarios awareness schemes or of any kind might only be a

formality as it reduces to citizens to a passive role of a beneficiary and leaves no scope for active

participation.

Another gap is created when citizens are aware and willing to participate, possibilities are that

the approach adopted by agencies or governments or NGOs might not allow for much

participation like a questionnaire or an interview which leaves little to no scope for individual

opinion and subjectivity of the issue at hand. Such approaches would assume the bottom rungs in

Arnstein’s ladder.
It is therefore imperative to develop a participatory approach that allows citizens to involve and

actively engage in negotiations regarding their welfare. In these instances the citizens who act as

stakeholders need to be consulted for everything that affects them.

One of the techniques is Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), a methodology suggested by

Robert Chambers which aims for participatory development in rural areas. According to PRA, a

group of individuals called facilitators trained by an NGO, or government departments or any

agency works with locals in identification of issues, evaluation process and planning. It is not an

interview of the locals but a process that values people initiative by allowing them to investigate,

research, observe, and analyze data and present results.3 The role of outsiders or the facilitators

in this interaction is minimal and can be described as ‘handing over the stick’ to the people or the

participants. Chambers describes this as a reversal of power from the facilitators to the people,

who decide the discourse of the discussion, recognize issues and explain it to the facilitator

through mapping or any other tool, evaluate and analyze, and suggest solutions all by themselves

without any interference from the facilitator3. This is a reversal of learning where outsiders learn

from the villagers who are better aware about the resources and problems of the village and can

suggest sustainable and effective solutions, which might have taken years for governments or

agencies to plan without input from the stakeholders. In a similar way, the government too learns

from the people about their issues and possible solutions, as the findings of the facilitators are

reported back to the government.

PRA produces more reliable information than any survey as the locals participate in the activities

as a group and any false claims or misinformation can be immediately corrected by others in the

same group. This would result in efficient decision making and since participation is the core of

PRA it leads to practice of good governance and democracy in true forms.

Citizen empowerment can also be linked to PRA as it develops capability in the citizens to

actively participate in the decision making process through various opportunities of public

engagement allowed by it.

PRA comes with its own set of challenges. In a facilitator-participants setup, the facilitator is

usually an outsider and unaware of the local power dynamics, where voice of one or a few

powerful participants may suppress others’. Another challenge is proper representation of all

communities, women and marginalized sections of the population, in the process of PRA.

To elaborate on participatory appraisal, the scholar refers to the case study of El Monte,

California where researchers of the study collaborate with Park El Monte Improvement

Association (PEMIA), a local group which works with the mission of improving the quality of

life of in El Monte.4 PRA techniques were carried out in partnership with PEMIA in El Monte to

involve community members to evaluate its efficacy4.

5
Researches were carried out in two phases i.e. community based like Strength, Weakness,

Opportunity, Threats (SWOT) analysis in large groups and field based activities in smaller

groups like in a neighborhood or a block. It was found out that community based activities which

included large groups didn’t represent the entire spectrum of community of El Monte. Field

based activities proved to be more representative in terms of inclusion of marginalized sections

and sharing opinions about the state of their city, which may be more challenging to accomplish

in large formal setting5. PRA techniques when applied in smaller groups are therefore more

inclusive and representative of the marginalized, and empower the ‘powerless’, and the

facilitator can then communicate their opinions to the powerholders.

The case study above offers a viable solution for proper representation of all communities in the

participatory appraisal methods. This can also break the local power dynamics as people in

smaller groups are more forthcoming with information in absence of the powerholders. Women

and marginalized sections are included in these groups and their opinions heard, ensuring a

comprehensive view of all citizens.

There can be a variety of arenas where citizen participation can bring a significant change

especially the social sectors like education, health, agriculture, water supply, etc. One of the

areas where citizen participation along with partnership with the government can produce

exemplary outcomes is healthcare. The Kerala model of Palliative Care (PC) is one such

example. A community based project called Neighborhood Network in Palliative Care (NNPC)

was launched in Kerala in early 1990s where volunteers i.e. people in the neighborhood that

could spare one to two hours per week were enrolled in the structure. They were trained and

encouraged to form small groups to identify problems of the ill people and find solutions. These

volunteers visited the chronically ill patients at their home and identified non-medical issues

such as financial problems, and organized awareness programs and raised funds. The resources

for execution and maintenance of this program were raised locally through donations.

6
The program was highly successful as within less than five years, 68 community-based PC

initiatives in northern and mid-Kerala, covering a population of more than 12 million6. The

success of this initiative can be attributed to the fact that chronically ill patients didn’t always

need medical care, but often required emotional and psychological support which could not be

provided by medical professionals. Patients were much more familiar with the volunteers from

their neighborhood and therefore these problems could be best solved at community level.
Since the program is community-owned and community-led, it creates a sense of responsibility

for the citizens and the community at large to work for their own development. It also generates

confidence in the community to lead more such initiatives which empower them, as the decision-

making and implementation power resides solely in the citizens’ hand.

Kerala model of healthcare is an example of how decentralized decision making and citizen

involvement works best for achieving development. This model assumes the highest rung of

Arnstein’s ladder of participation i.e. citizen control where citizens govern a program and are in

charge of the managerial aspects, and have complete control over the allocation of funding.

Although citizen control might seem the best solution to ensure participatory development, it is

not free of faults either. Communities are different in different regions of the world and the same

model might not have the same results throughout the world. The state cannot afford to adopt a

participatory model from a country where it was successful and hope to see similar outcomes. In

such scenarios, the community or the citizens have to be trusted to guide the state to a

participatory model that works best for them. Again, the government becomes a learner and

citizens the instructor of the development process.

It is imperative for governments to give up control and managerial powers to the citizens to

allow for participatory development. It allows for good governance as it would lead to efficient

decision making and democratic legitimacy as it is participatory, transparency as citizens, who

are a part of decision making process can hold public bodies accountable, and inclusivity as

fields researches conducted in smaller groups ensured greater representation of the marginalized.

Through this paper, the scholar wants to emphasize the usage of methodologies like PRA to

initiate a movement of citizen participation and empowerment, where citizens develop

capabilities to effectively engage in discussions and propose solutions. The aware, informed and

vocal citizen then does not need participatory appraisal techniques or a facilitator to

communicate their issues to the government, the citizen becomes empowered enough to do so on

her own. The PRA is therefore a means to an end, the end being a participative and rational

citizen who is capable of being a confident decision maker. The citizen moves from a state of

decision-influencer to decision-maker which is described as citizen control, the highest rung of

Arnstein’s participation ladder.

The empowered citizens can lead initiatives, use local resources and start their own development

process the way they want, as was seen in NNPC initiative in Kerala. However, everything needs

to be supervised by the government in a passive role so that complete citizen control doesn’t lead

to majoritarian actions or exclusion of minorities and the marginalized in the process.

Citizen participation prevents the state from being authoritative as governments have to give up

their power to allow for citizen involvement, and the empowered citizens actively engage in the

areas of development the way they want, leading to public welfare. Therefore, participatory

development ensures well-being of all.

References

1. Reed, Mark & Vella, Steven & Challies, Edward & de Vente, Joris & Frewer, Lynne &
Hohenwallner‐Ries, Daniela & Huber, Tobias & Neumann, Rosmarie & Oughton, Elizabeth &
Sidoli del Ceno, Julian & van Delden, Hedwig. (2017). “A theory of participation: What makes
stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work?”. Restoration Ecology,
2017, p.p.3
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319210815_A_theory_of_participation_What_makes_s
takeholder_and_public_engagement_in_environmental_management_work (last accessed on 2nd
March 2022)

2.Sherry R. Arnstein’s “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Planning

Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224.

https://www.nebraskachildren.org/file_download/872e8b2f-826f-4eb8-94e4-0aa3ca7efc49 ( last

accessed on March 2, 2022 )

3. Chambers, R.,Participatory Appraisal and Reversal of Power, Cambridge Anthropology,1996

19(1),pp. 5–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23818769

( last accessed on March 2, 2022 )

4. Juarez, Jeffrey A., and Kyle D. Brown. “Extracting or Empowering? A Critique of

Participatory Methods for Marginalized Populations.” Landscape Journal, vol. 27, no. 2,
Temporary Publisher, 2008, pp. 190–204, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43332448.
(last accessed on March 2, 2022)

5. ibid 201

6. Kumar, Suresh K., “Kerala, India: A Regional Community-Based Palliative Care Model” ,
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Volume 33, Issue 5, 2007, p.p. 623-627,
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0885392407001078?token=A528F2C10D9E2F991A9
EAFE7586576950E359418661D9809FE5CFD1ABD5FA8219F3F6ECB0C76235DAC366D915
98B5F72&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20220227081428
( last accessed on March 2, 2022 )