CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES

1. Introduction
Traditionally, the participation of citizens is associated with forms of political activity and citizen
participation in political decision-making, while citizen participation in the administrative
processes is less analyzed, and in particular the direct participation of citizens in the
implementation of public policy issues, participating in public service delivery and quality
improvement processes. Public administration in the context of citizen participation is defined as
"interaction of citizens and administrators, concerned with public policy decisions and public
services" (Callahan, 2007). In this sense, citizen participation is understood as having a direct
impact on public policy creation and implementation, and citizens are regarded as an integral
part of governance process, significantly influencing important decisions affecting the
community (Roberts, 2004).

Participation of citizens and their engagement in the governance cycle in cities and towns has its
own set of challenges. Ground realities reflect that citizens in urban areas are rarely included or
involved in decision-making, especially the marginalized and vulnerable ones, who indeed are
the most effected by emerging crises of urbanization.

This near absence of citizen participation in urban governance can be attributed to numerous
factors that bring to light the weak interplay between policies and the way they are practiced on
one hand, and the resultant cynicism among citizens towards the entire governance system on the
other. In the three countries in focus in this policy brief i.e. India, Bangladesh and Cambodia, it
has been observed that though spaces and opportunities for citizen participation in urban areas
have been created through rules, policies and constitutional provisions, often they are not
implemented in letter and spirit and there is a huge gap in their execution.

The fact is that in most developing nations, the urban local bodies (ULBs) in themselves, which
have been entrusted with the task of managing towns and cities, are not adequately equipped to
ensure citizen participation, as decentralization and devolution reforms have not been rendered
fruitful. In addition to this, the growing thrust on economic growth and income generation
activities particularly for the poor and marginalized communities in order to earn a living and
survive in cities has further kept them away from engaging with governance institutions, as they
have not been able to see any quick tangible results. Thus it can be seen that the citizen-state
relationships in the cities are highly contested and there is a need to work towards strengthening
the same.

Five Reasons Why Citizens should participate in Urban Governance:

Citizen Participation….

• Helps municipal authorities understand the needs and requirements of communities, thus
helping them develop demand-based and inclusive governance systems/procedures

• Improves citizen-state (ULBs) relationship by reducing the gap between the demand and supply
side

• Enhances transparency and accountability of ULBs

• Creates a greater sense of agency, collective understanding and ownership among citizens on
the governance issues that affect their cities/towns

• Strengthens local democratic governance as citizens exercise their citizenship rights and engage
with local bodies
2. Citizen Participation and the Theory of Change

Strengthening democratic and participatory practices in local democratic governance gets

citizens closer to government, which helps them in guiding public institutions, policies and
programmes. Citizen participation expands public spaces, enhances the relationship between
society and government, gives greater legitimacy to democratically elected authorities, promotes
respect for citizenship rights, enhances the quality of politics, and strengthens solidarity and
cooperation. It is also the bearer of a new culture that expresses the defense of collective interests
and the search for collective solutions.

Past interventions and strategies on citizen participation rest on a theory of change that has been
based on the experiences through the years. This can be explained as follows:

When citizens’ groups and civil society are mobilised and organised in a systemic way, they are
in a better position to identify their issues and challenges and also assess gaps in the governance
system especially with regard to service delivery (through community monitoring and use of
social accountability tools). This results in an increased demand for a more accountable and
transparent delivery of services at the local level, which in the context of urban governance are
basic municipal services like water, sanitation, education, health etc. When the demand for
transparency and accountability increases, it improves the access of citizens to crucial
information as municipal authorities start opening up and sharing relevant information demanded
by the citizens. Gradually, this increased demand on the part of citizens for effective and
accountable municipal governance leads to the adoption or improvement of social accountability
mechanisms, like citizen charters, information disclosure and grievance redressal systems by the
municipalities. When municipalities adopt these mechanisms, they are better equipped to deal
with the increased demands of citizens and address the complaints/ issues raised by them. The
adoption of tools like citizen charters and information disclosure helps the municipalities in
communicating with the citizens about their services and standards, and the grievance redressal
system helps in resolving the problems faced by citizens. Thus, with the adoption of SAMs, the
municipalities become more responsive towards the citizens’ needs and are also able to improve
their performance and service delivery. When these experiences of the municipalities are shared
widely with multiple stakeholders at different levels, i.e. the policy makers, concerned ministries
and officials at the national level, other municipalities, practitioners, civil society at the sub-
national level, they initiate deliberations around the institutionalisation and adoption of these
mechanisms. This creates a ground for influencing national and sub-national governments to
bring about necessary changes and modifications in policies so that practices at the local level
could be improved.
Ee
xp
ato
csh
rin
vd
P
lti
u
m
w zO
gy&
C Skb
LB
U
ffD
fI
A

3. Deepening Local Democratic Governance through Social Accountability in Asia: An

initiative to Enhance Citizen Participation
Deepening Local Democratic Governance through Social Accountability initiative was
implemented by PRIA in partnership with local partners in Bangladesh (PRIP Trust) and
Cambodia (SILAKA) from 2011 to 2013. The initiative was supported by the United Nations
Democracy Fund. The following interventions were implemented in both the countries to
enhance citizen participation:

a) Community mobilization and awareness generation (with identified citizen leaders comprising
youth, women, and marginalized sections from the communities)

b) Training and capacity building

c) Formation of neighborhood committees

d) Use of social accountability tools by citizens (like Citizen Report Cards and community
monitoring)

e) Organizing interface dialogues

As a result of these interventions, a number of changes could be observed in both the countries.
These can be listed as follows:

a) Enhanced awareness and capacities of citizens

b) Emergence of new spaces for citizen participation

c) Greater interface between citizens and ULBs

d) Enhanced responsiveness and improved service delivery from ULBs

The following paragraphs present a brief description of the institutional arrangements like laws,
policies etc. that promote citizen participation in India, Bangladesh and Cambodia:

India

In India, the 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts (CAAs) passed in 1992 were breakthrough
reforms that bestowed constitutional powers to institutions of local self-governance like
municipalities and provided space for citizens’ participation. In the case of urban areas they
provided for setting up of ward committees having a population of 300,000 or more, consisting
of one or more wards, through which citizens could participate and put forward their concerns.

Citizen participation at ward and neighbourhood levels was further institutionalised and
promoted by the government in 2005 with the launch of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban
Renewal Mission (JNNURM). Along with other significant reforms brought through the mission,
it required State Governments to:

a) Enact Community Participation Law (CPL) with a purpose to establish appropriate

accountability relationship between ULBs and the citizens;

b) Enable constitution of Area Sabhas (Neighbourhood Committees) within municipal wards;

c) Enact a Public Disclosure Law mandating ULBs to periodically disclose information to its
citizens;

d) Developing City Development Plans are prepared in consultations with stakeholders at the
grassroots level;

e) A Community Participation Fund (CPF) is established to catalyse the process of community

participation.

Civil society participation was thought to be enhanced with the provisioning of structures like the
Technical Advisory Group (TAG-national level), City Technical Advisory Groups (CTAGs) and
the City Volunteer Technical Corps (CVTCs) under JNNURM. Both the CTAG and CVTC at
the city level were supposed to guide and support the municipalities in ensuring transparency and
accountability. The CVTCs were to be formed in the seven areas of urban engineering, urban
planning, urban poverty, urban governance, heritage, urban environment and urban financial
services.

Thus, there are a number of efforts that have been made by the government to enhance
participation of citizens, however, the enactment and execution of these laws, provisions and
policies has been dismal and slow. Although the CPL explicitly entitles residents in wards and
neighbourhood to participate and contains some provisions with regard to the formation of the
Ward Committees and the conduct of Ward Committee meetings, it does not offer much
guidance on the actual functioning of Ward Committees or the Area Sabhas.

Citizen participation in cities in India has also witnessed in the recent years, the growth of
Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) in the metropolitan cities. RWAs are not official organs
of government, and even slums and unauthorised housing localities in India can form RWAs to
represent citizen interests. They are typically registered through Co-operative Societies’ Acts,
which require groups to have a minimum of fifteen members from a given area. A number of
RWAs have come into prominence primarily with the objective of addressing issues of basic
services and creating space for interaction among the residents. Although the RWAs are an
innovative means of enhancing citizen participation, they have their own sets of challenges. Most
of them have been criticised of being centred on and comprising of middle-income households
and working for a closed locality, not really taking into consideration larger development issues.
In most cases, RWAs have been focused on development of parks in the locality and organising
small cultural events and functions. There are instances when the government has tried to join
hands with these RWAs (e.g. Bhagidari Scheme in Delhi), however, this has been limited to only
planned neighbourhoods.

Bangladesh

Bangladesh has democratic and unitary forms of governance, though democracy is at a “teething
stage”, and is still growing. The constitution provides for many fundamental rights including the
rights of equality before law and freedom of movement, assembly, association, thought-
conscience-speech and profession or occupation. The Right to Information (RTI) Act 2009 was
enacted with the aim of empowering the citizens through the promotion of transparency and
accountability in the working of the public, autonomous and statutory organisations/ other
private organisations constituted/ run by the government/ foreign financing.

In 2009 the Local Government (Pourashava) Act was also enacted to further strengthen local
governance institutions. The provision recognised the concept of participation by citizens and
communities through the Town Level Coordination committee (TLCC) and the Ward Level
Coordination Committee (WLCC). The history of Bangladesh shows that each government’s
stated objective was to establish decentralised local governance and ensure people’s participation
in the local development. Nevertheless, the two crucial elements of self-governance, that is,
devolution of power and the expansion of financial boundaries of local institutions have not been
initiated in the locally elected bodies. Therefore, the issue of people’s participation remained
limited to theory only.

Cambodia
The Rectangular Strategy, 2004 of the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) acknowledged
good governance to be the most important precondition to economic development which
required wide participation, enhanced sharing of information, accountability, transparency,
equality, inclusiveness and the rule of law. The RGC also adopted the strategic framework on
Decentralisation and De-concentration reform (D&D) in June 2005. One of the long-term reform
objectives of D&D was to provide equitable opportunity for all citizens to participate in
community development and improve public service delivery in response to people’s needs and
alleviate poverty with a special emphasis on vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities, women
and children. The Law on Administrative Management of the Capital, Provinces, Municipalities,
Districts and Khans enacted in 2008, further creates space for citizen participation and
democratic governance in the country. Article 38 says that in the formulation and
implementation of its development plan, the council shall consult with the citizens within its
jurisdiction, other categories of council within its jurisdiction, relevant ministries, institutions
and units of the government and relevant stakeholders. In spite of the above mentioned
provisions for citizen participation through various institutional mechanisms, democracy and
citizen participation in reality is still in its infancy in Cambodia.

4. Learnings on Citizen Engagement

Initiatives across the world on civic engagement and enhancing citizen participation have
showcased that consistent and planned efforts towards organizing and mobilizing citizens can
lead to substantial improvements in their capacities to negotiate and interact with the authorities.
These processes have also brought to light some critical lessons for the future.

Values and principles of citizen participation

In promoting and implementing initiatives on citizen participation, it is crucial to keep in mind a

few principles and values of participation. These are:

a) Acknowledging multiple meanings and expressions of citizen participation based on the

interests of collective actors: The history of citizen participation, over the decades, has been the
history of struggles and movements over how it is to be defined, who should define it, and
deciding whose participation is crucial. Although some of these struggles and movements have
been able to create ‘new spaces’ for citizen participation, they often do not include the issues,
views and perspectives of a large section of excluded citizens in all societies. In order to exert
their rights, these excluded groups innovate new meanings, new mechanisms and new spaces for
citizen participation. Local governance institutions must acknowledge and embrace them to
pursue the overall goal of an inclusive society.

b) Acknowledging multiple outcomes of citizen participation: Participation of citizen in local

democratic governance should be considered as both a means and an end. The overall universal
purposes of local democratic governance are (i) to deepen the roots of democracy, (ii) to ensure
justice and equity, (iii) to make the development process more inclusive, and (iv) to ensure
effective service delivery. Citizen participation in local democratic governance is to be
interpreted, promoted and evaluated in light of both democratic and developmental outcomes.

c) Shared control and influence over decision-making processes: The overall purpose of citizen
participation is to enhance the degree of shared control and influence of citizens on key decisions
related to public policies, institutions and resources. It broadens the bases of decision making,
instead of keeping decision making as an exclusive domain of a handful of experts. As
participation enhances inclusivity in society, the final outcome must produce just and equitable
governance in society.

d) Participation in governance is an innate human right: Citizen Participation in local democratic

governance must be considered as an innate human right and this must be respected, protected,
nurtured and continuously enhanced. This understanding of citizen participation as an innate
human right holds governance institutions squarely responsible and accountable to the citizens
for fulfilment of such rights and also obligates citizens to participate actively and responsibly.

e) Participation is a political process of developing and enriching collective citizenship: Citizen

Participation is a political process of the people directly engaging governance institutions where
demands and agenda are presented through collective action with collective interests. It requires
a process that builds common objectives and joint strategies for action. It allows for reviving the
idea of collectivization in its multiple meanings, such as social movements, political parties or
other collective manifestations that seek social and political transformation.

Pre-conditions of Participation
Over the decades, the practice of participation has revealed that in order to make it effective and
transformative certain pre-conditions are necessary. These can be elaborated as follows:

a) Facilitating access to information: Citizens can exercise their right to participate only when
they also have the right and access to information. Quality of participation is directly
proportionate to access to quality of information.

b) Generating awareness and sensitization: The degree of awareness among citizens about their
rights and entitlements as well as responsibilities vis-à-vis local democratic governance is crucial
for exercising the right to participation. An aware and sensitized citizenry about local governance
processes and structures is an important precursor to effective participation.

c) Creating universalized spaces through collectivization and mobilization: Organized citizenry

stands a better chance of exercising their right to participation when faced with unresponsive
governance institutions. Even in cases where governance institutions are responsive, collective
bargaining produces more just outcomes as compared to individual engagement.

d) Creating particularized spaces through building organization of the excluded and

marginalized: Organization building of hitherto excluded marginalized citizens – women,
indigenous people, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, young and elderly, and other special
interest groups whose issues and interests are yet to find a place in mainstream policy discourse –
is crucially important for ensuring their participation. In particular, these citizen organizations
must be promoted, supported and strengthened, in addition to universalization of a citizen’s right
to participation through universal collectivization and mobilization.

e) Enhancing citizen capacities to engage with local governance institutions: The capacities,
skills and confidence of citizens and their organizations must be strengthened to promote
constructive engagement and negotiation with local governance institutions. In doing so, while
existing spaces and mechanisms of participation should be harnessed and utilized, opportunities
and support must be provided for continuous facilitation and capacity development to social
movements and critical voices as alternative forms of checks and balances in a democracy as
well as forms of social accountability and participation.

f) Promoting mechanisms for transparency and accountability in local governance institutions:

The capacity and willingness of these institutions to promote and institutionalize various social
accountability approaches, methods and tools are crucially important. The ability of local
governance institutions to design mechanisms for seeking citizen feedback about their conduct
and performance on a regular basis, ability to act upon the feedback with urgency and
communicate the results in a transparent manner are important capacities that these institutions
must acquire.

g) Promoting multi-stakeholder engagement: The developmental problems that most local

governance institutions need to address are complex and interconnected, the resolution of which
requires engagement of multiple stakeholders. In an increasingly complex environment, it is
neither possible nor desirable that only local governance institutions make decisions on behalf of
all citizens and provide solutions that work for all. Local governance institutions must also be
able to engage other stakeholders, including market and business organizations, to pursue the
goal of sustainable, equitable and just development and governance.

h) Active and responsible civil society: It is ultimately the responsibility of citizens and civil
society to ensure their own participation in local democratic governance. This responsibility
cannot be off-loaded or left to local governance institutions alone. While local governance
institutions must enable the environment to ensure the right of citizens to participate, citizens and
their organizations alone with civil society must participate in the affairs of the local governance
institutions.