POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE: BUILDING SYNERGY FOR DEVELOPMENT

Femi Aborisade

Labour Consultant and Attorney-At-Law

aborisadefemi@gmail.com

 

Outline

1.   Conceptual Clarifications:

·         Popular Participation

·         Development

·          

2.   CONTENDING POLITICAL VALUES ON ‘POPULAR PARTICIPATION’

3.   WHY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS DESIRABLE IN SPITE OF THE SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY?

4.   LEVELS/SPECTRUM/LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

5.   DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION

6.   Barriers to Popular participation in Nigeria.

7.   Conclusion.

 

 

1.0 Conceptual Clarifications

1.1.   What is ‘popular participation’?

The term, ‘participation’ means the involvement of persons in the process of determining decisions on matters that affect them.

Popular participation thus suggests a process of involving wider sections of people in decision making on issues that concern them.

Sherry Arnstein (1969) has defined political participation as the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens . . . to be deliberately included in determining and shaping their future through involvement in decision making processes.

 

1.2.   What is ‘Development’?

Rodney[2] opines that ‘development’ is, more often than not, used in the economic sense for the reason that the state of the economy is assumed to be an index of other social realities. He posits that economic development refers to the capacity of members of a society to jointly increase their control over the environment. This capacity to deal with the environment is in turn dependent on three elements, namely, the extent:

·         of the knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature (science),

·         to which the understanding is put into practice to develop technology (devising tools) and,

·         of effecting improvement in the method of work organisation.

 An example of the third element is the improvement, over the ages, in the character of work, ‘from being an individualistic activity towards an activity which assumes a social character through the participation of many[3]’.

 

To Rodney, the whole essence of economic development is the capacity of every people to independently increase ‘their ability to live a more satisfactory life through exploiting the resources of nature’[4] Rodney recognises that there could be ups and downs in the process of developing societal capacity for gaining control over the environment. As he puts it:

 

Of course, human history is not a record of advances and nothing else. There were periods in every part of the world when there were temporary setbacks and actual reduction of the capacity to produce basic necessities and other services for the population. But the overall tendency was towards increased production, and at given points of time the increase in the quantity of goods was associated with a change in the quality or character of society[5].

1.2.1 Economic Growth and Economic Development Distinguished

There is a need to distinguish what Rodney calls ‘increased production’ or ‘increase in the quantity of goods’, which may otherwise be called ‘economic growth’ from ‘economic development’.

The concept, ‘economic growth’ refers to an increase or growth in the national income or product, which is usually expressed in terms of per capita income. That is, the aggregate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or the aggregate Gross National Product (GNP, which includes net property income from abroad) divided by the total national population. There is ‘economic growth’ when there is a rise in the GDP/GNP or the per capita income. However, economists[6] point out that there is ‘economic development’ where there are certain fundamental structural changes to the national economy, including, but not limited to the following characteristics:

·         existence of economic growth or increase in real per capita income.

·         the increase in economic growth is reflected in improved material wellbeing of the majority.

·         an increase in the number of persons participating in the production process (i.e. economically engaged).

·         a change in consumption patterns, from majority of the people spending a large fraction of their income on food and other necessities of life to spending a small fraction of their income on necessities and a large fraction on consumer durables and leisure activity-related items.

·         a rising share of industry and a corresponding decrease in the share of the agricultural sector in the GNP.  

The foregoing characteristics of economic development mean that though there can be no economic development without economic growth, economic growth is merely a subset of economic development. While economic growth refers to a rise in the GDP/GNP, measured as per capita income, economic development suggests fundamental structural changes to the national economy, including a rise in GDP/GNP. Thus, Rodney’s[7] definition of economic development as:

·         ‘increase in the quantity of goods’ (economic growth), and

·         ‘a change in the quality or character of society’

aptly captures the economist’s conceptualisation of ‘economic development’.

 

Thus, where there is only economic growth without the presence of the other characteristics enumerated above, it would be said that there is growth without development. Such is the conclusion that arises where there is a rise in the per capita income (due to windfalls from sale of crude oil or any other natural resource) which is neither caused by the participation of the economically active population in the economic process nor accompanied by improvement in the material wellbeing of the majority.

1.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POPULAR PARTICIPATION, DEVELOPMENT AND PROSPERITY

From the definition of ‘development’ above, it has been established that an increase in the number of persons ‘participating’ in the production process is one of the indices of development. As we shall see below, the process of development should herald a prosperous society. One of the indices of a prosperous society is collective participation in determining the conditions of their existence.

Though the term ‘prosperity’ partly includes having wealth, it is broader than wealth. Rather than simply being a state of having wealth, it actually means a desirable state of being, or desirable quality of existence.

A society is thus considered prosperous only if it is organised to ensure that:

·         each of its members is able to achieve his or her aspirations, and

·         members can collectively and genuinely participate in determining the conditions of their existence – taking fundamental economic and political decisions on matters that affect them.

1.3.1.          THREE INTRINSICALLY INTERCONNECTED DIMENSIONS OF              PROSPERITY

Scholars[8] have opined that three intrinsically interconnected dimensions are necessary for an individually and collectively prosperous life, in the sense of ‘emancipation of being':

·         the biological, environmental, and material dimension (a healthy physical life);

·         the cultural dimension (a good life, suggesting or inclusive of social prosperity); and

·         the political dimension (a just life, inclusive of collective participation in decision making).

A state of prosperity thus signifies the 'capacity to lead a fulfilling life on each of the above levels, conceived as intrinsically complementary.

In the foregoing context, prosperity actually means having an all round wellbeing.

 

2.0    CONTENDING POLITICAL VALUES ON ‘POPULAR PARTICIPATION’

Four main value systems contend on the desirability or otherwise of popular participation. These are:

1.   Citizens have rights to determine matters that affect them. Government should not direct public affairs without the involvement/cooperation/consent of the people. The have-nots in the society should be encouraged to develop confidence in themselves, their sense of self- worth, ability and power. Mass involvement is the only basis for sustaining and defending change. Ordinary people are subjects of development who are capable of building their own future. (Humanistic view of public participation).

2.   Top-down approach to development: The people do not know what is good for them. Leaders must decide. (Authoritarian view of leadership).

3.   Bottom-up approach to development: The people as beneficiaries of public policy may/can add value to the process of development, implementation, monitoring and review. Bringing many people together allows new ideas to develop. The ideas of the man on the street might not always be better but they are different and provide different points of view (Mechanistic or pragmatic view of participation).

4.   The drive to make a difference: from pervasive exclusivity to inclusivity. Use ADKAR[9] to manage change:

A – (Create) awareness of the need for change: the current losses and burdens.

D -  (Build) the Desire to participate and support change: Hope in the possibility for change, develop incentives or compensation for change; what do they stand to benefit?

K  - (Impart) Knowledge on how to bring about the change: provide education and development, access to information.

A  - (Make people) Acquire the ability implement required skills and  behaviour:  training, mentoring, removal of barriers to change; etc.

R – Reinforce the structure to sustain change: incentives and rewards for change, personal recognition for outstanding performance; celebrate achievers and role models.

3.0     WHY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS DESIRABLE IN SPITE OF THE SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY?

 

There tends to be tension between representative and participative democracy. However, mechanisms of popular participation are not strict alternatives to political representation. Rather, they complement political representation so as to produce more desirable practices and outcomes of collective decision making and action.

 

The principal reason, which justifies popular participation in spite of the existence of authorized decision making structure of representative democracy (Executive and Legislative organs in particular) is that the latter is or likely to be deficient or become deficient.

 

For example, they may:

·         be compromised or

·         become compromised, or

 

They may lack or later develop a lack of the requisite:

·         knowledge,

·         competence,

·         public interest,

·         credibility and integrity necessary to command compliance and cooperation.

 

 

4.0    LEVELS/SPECTRUM/LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

Levels of participation can be equated to different levels of a ladder.

There are various conceptions of levels of participation. I have adopted the category presented below, where the levels range from the lowest level (of informing) to the highest level (of empowerment), in an ascending order:

LEVELS/spectrum/Ladder OF PARTICIPATION

Levels of participation	Goal of public participation
5. Empower	Placing final decision-making in the hands of the public.
4. Collaborate	Working with the public to develop alternatives and identify the preferred solution.
3. Involve	Working directly with the public to ensure public concerns and aspirations are considered and understood.
2.Consult	Participants contribute views but cannot take decisions. The goal is to obtain public feedback on analysis of problems, alternatives and decisions taken.
1.Inform(ation)	To gather information about people’s interests and priorities  or inform the public with a view to raising awareness of certain issues. Objective information is gathered or communicated so that the people understand issues/problems, constraints, alternative solutions and the preferred or adopted solution.

 

 

5.   DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION

Three main dimensions of participation have been identified. They are:

1.   Scope of participation: who participates?

2.   Mode of communication and decision-making: how do participants exchange information and do they take decisions?

3.   Extent of authority: If the platform provided for participants allows them to make decisions, what is the extent or the kind of decisions that can be made?

 

·         Scope of participation: who participates? Is participation open to everyone who wants to participate or is access restricted based on certain qualifications?

·         Mode of communication and decision-making: how do participants exchange information and do they take decisions? For example, do government officials merely announce and explain policies at public meetings or press conferences? Or are participants limited to just asking questions for clarification and making suggestions for consideration of the authorities? Or are participants allowed to express their views, deliberate and take binding decisions? Or do participants only have the right to express themselves while leaving final decisions to the authorities? For example, do you have a National Conference or a SNC?

·         Extent of authority: If the platform provided for participants allows them to make decisions, what is the extent or the kind of decisions that can be made? In other words, what is the relationship between participation in discussion and the emerging public policy? For example, are there ‘no go areas’ or issues that cannot be discussed as in a ‘National Conference’?

 

6.   BARRIERS TO POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN NIGERIA

Let us recall certain positions on which a consensus has been reached from the treatment of this topic:

·         The aspiration of the poor segments of society is to attain development and prosperity.

·         Experiences have shown that the formal structures of representative democracy tend to be incapacitated to lead society to the identified goal.

·         Therefore, there is a need to deliberately create rooms for participation of ordinary people in governance.

·         Since there are different levels of participation ranging from lower levels, almost insignificant levels of participation, to higher levels where people are empowered to make final decisions, it should now be possible to identify barriers to genuine popular participation in Nigeria.

The barriers to genuine popular participation discussed below include factors that hinder broad based representative governance. They include:

·         The nature of the economic system being operated.

·         Economic Policies As Barriers To Popular Participation

·         Illegitimate Government Actions/Decisions As Barriers To Popular Participation

·         Political Party Structure As Barrier To Popular Participation In Governance

·         Constitutional Resistance To Referendum And Overreliance On The Legislature As Barrier To Participatory Governance

·         Policy on sponsorship of candidates for election as barrier to direct citizens’ participation in governance

 

 

6.1.   THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM AS A FUNDAMENTAL BARRIER TO POPULAR PARTICIPATION

An economic system could either facilitate or hinder popular participation in a fundamental sense.

If it is established that the economic system run by Nigeria fundamentally undermines the prospects of popular participation, then we need to campaign for a change of the economic system.

The economic system is the process of taking three critical economic decisions:

1.   What goods and services should the society produce with its resources?

2.   How should the goods and services be produced?

3.   For whom should the society produce? (Distribution: who gets what?)

Examples of economic systems or processes of taking economic decisions include:

·         The market system: the market determines what is produced and who gets what. In other words, individual producers are allowed to produce goods and services based on the maximum profit they think they will earn. This is also otherwise called the capitalist system.

·         Mixed-economy: This is a variant of the market economy. The mixed economy is so-called because, in reality, there is no pure market economy, in which the market absolutely determines what is produced and who gets what. Thus, the mixed economy refers to the system in which a role is assigned for the government within the market-based economic system. In other words, the state takes certain key economic decisions while the individuals also do.

·         The planned system: the workers, collectively, or the state/government predominantly takes the economic decisions. This is also otherwise called the socialist system.

Key issues in the choice of economic system

·         Need v. Greed (Profit):  While the goal of production and distribution in the ideal socialist economy is satisfaction of the needs of ordinary people, profit consideration dominates the market or capitalist system.

·         Inclusivity v. Exclusivity: While the socialist economic system is programmed or designed to take care of the interests of all working people, and to necessarily include them in the process of decision-making, the market or capitalist system is programmed to exclude the poor.

Nigeria operates the capitalist or market system, which poses a fundamental barrier to popular participation.

In the market, certain products and participants are highly valued while others are valueless. In the market, it is not one person one vote, but one Naira one vote. The person with a million Naira has a million votes.

That is why all the three economic decisions are resolved against the developmental interests of the down-trodden.

6.2       ECONOMIC POLICIES AS BARRIERS TO POPULAR PARTICIPATION

The economic policies of SAP, privatisation, liberalisation, deregulation and so on have direct implications on popular participation. When public enterprises are privatised, it means responsibility for decisions affecting the enterprises is transferred from the public space to the private sphere.

Prior to 1986, there existed about 1,500 public enterprises in Nigeria. Swanson and Worlde-Semait[10] established that about 600 enterprises and 900 smaller ones were operating at the Federal and State/Local government levels, in the 1980s, respectively[11]. All that has changed with SAP and privatisation.   

6.3.   ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS/DECISIONS AS BARRIERS TO POPULAR PARTICIPATION

Fung[12] maintains that a public policy or action is legitimate when citizens have good reasons to support or obey it. The standard poll question is: “Is government run for the benefit of all or for a few big interests?” Where the broad majority of the people perceive that certain policies are for the benefit of a few corporations, such policies and the government become illegitimate and it will be legitimate for the citizens to oppose the government and its policies. For a government that seeks to enjoy legitimacy, a likely optional approach where there appears a conflict between its policies/policy proposals and the perception of the people it claims to represent is to adopt ‘study circles’ and deliberative polls.

 

A deliberative decision making procedure refers to one in which voting by a legislature is preceded by grassroots discussions and resolutions. The discussions are facilitated by background educational materials, data, and so on, which are accessible to the public, and particularly Study groups composed of independent experts who enjoy credibility among the population.

 

Fung[13] refers to a practical example of a small American town (Idaho) where the officials adopt a two-track policy process in which they first seek wide public advice on controversial issues of fundamental importance before subjecting it to a vote among officials. This participatory decision-making process amounts to a rejection of the ordinary Public Hearing format in favor of a model involving Study Circles composed of participants with diverse backgrounds.

 

6.4.   POLITICAL PARTY STRUCTURE AS BARRIER TO POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE

In certain contexts, the political party on whose platform a person gets elected may pose challenges to implementing pro-poor policies. In situations where the interests of the party come in conflict with the interests of the electorate, mechanisms of direct citizen participation could be adopted to compel public officials to act justly.

Fung[14] again provides a celebrated example of the city of Pôrto Alegre in Brazil. In 1989, the left-wing Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party) was elected to the city executive The party initiated a  direct citizen participatory mechanism, called the Orçamento Participativo (participatory budgeting). The participatory mechanism shifts decisions about the capital portion of the city’s budget from the city council to a system of neighborhood and citywide popular assemblies. Through series of cycles of open meetings, citizens and civic associations in the city meet to determine local investment priorities. These priorities are then aggregated into the overall city budget to be implemented by the Council. In that context, the various individuals and associations will take interest in monitoring the execution of the budget, from the beginning to the end.

 

I strongly recommend that civil society organisations advocate participatory budgeting in Nigeria.

 

6.5. CONSTITUTIONAL RESISTANCE TO REFERENDUM AND OVERRELIANCE ON THE LEGISLATURE AS BARRIER TO PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE

The system of representative governance, which relies only on the legislature in the enactment of laws, without significant input from the citizenry through referendum tends to undermine the quality of legislation emanating from the legislature.

 

I support the proposal that the 1999 Constitution be amended such that on fundamental issues which bring the government in major conflict with the majority of the poor, the legislature is constitutionally required to rely on the result of referendum, which would determine the direction of legislation on such critical issues. I have in mind here, for example, the burning issue of perennial increases in the prices of petroleum products, arising from the looting of the oil wealth.

It is only[15] in respect of the creation of new states that S.8(1b) CFRN, 1999 states that an Act of the NASS for the purpose of creating a new State shall be passed if a proposal for the creation is approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the State originated. Unfortunately, Section 8(1c) CFRN subjects the result of the referendum to approval by NASS.

It is pertinent for the Constitution to be amended, providing for referendum on critical issues, including economic policies, and without subjecting the result of referendum to the whims and caprices of the legislature.

 

6.6.    POLICY ON SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION AS BARRIER TO DIRECT CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN)[16] provides that only a registered political party can sponsor candidates for election. I perceive this as one of the reasons why many Nigerians tend not to be involved in partisan electoral politics. The result is that only a tiny minority determines who rules. In the recent Governorship election in Ondo State, for example, Governor MImiko won the election by having 260, 199 votes out of a population of about 3.4million. Total registered voters were about 1.6m; only about 646000 were accredited to vote; only about 594000 were valid votes.

The import of the foregoing is that the civil society should strongly advocate the right of independent candidature so that those who are disenchanted with the major ruling political parties can be meaningfully involved.

6.7.    THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OF ‘NATIONAL PARTIES’ AS BARRIER TO POPULAR PARTICIPATION

The import of the constitutional requirements, which a party must fulfil to qualify for registration as a political party is that it must be a national party. S. 222(e) provides that a political party shall not be confined to only one geographical area of Nigeria. S. 222(f) prescribes that the headquarters office of the party must be in Abuja. S. 223(1)(b) stipulates that the national Executive Committee (NEC) of the Party shall reflect Federal Character. The party structure is thus conceived in the image of a Nigerian institution. What all the conditions imply is that it requires a lot of money to organise parties. Parties are not perceived as organisations of people who share similar ideas, programmes and perspectives as to the kind of society they want to build if they win. In the interest of popular participation in governance, the sections referred to above ought to be amended.

 

6.8.    REMUNERATION OF POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDERS AS DISINCENTIVE TO POPULAR PARTICIPATION

The fifth Schedule to the Constitution contains the Code of Conduct for Public Officers. It is recommended that the Code should stipulate that political officer holders shall earn the average salary of career public officers and that they shall not be entitled to take contracts or award contracts to members of their families, relations and friends. When political public officers take remunerations that are disproportionate to the income of the ordinary person, they tend not to feel what the masses feel and tend not to understand the reasons why the masses oppose certain economic policies. That is why many former social crusaders who get elected or appointed into public office tend to be compromised after such absorption or incorporation. The likelihood is that the commitment of some people to public good could be sustained if the regulations prevent overnight transformation of their economic status.

6.9.    Appointment of Judges and Electoral Commissioners As Barrier To Popular           Participation

Some judges and electoral commissioners tend to be compromised by virtue of the fact that they feel responsible only to the political forces that play some role in their appointment. It is suggested that subjecting positions of judges and electoral commissioners to election just as other political offices could generate greater confidence in the system and motivate others who feel disinterested to get involved. In the USA, in most of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, voters elect judges for a stated term.

6.10.   NON-JUSTICIABILITY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS AS BARRIER TO POPULAR PARTICIPATION  

I perceive that some categories of persons are disinterested in the governance process in Nigeria because they can hardly find any major difference between the programmes of the ruling parties and candidates. There is a tendency to see involvement in politics as a mere means of enriching some individuals, without any benefit to the ordinary people in terms of their welfare.

It is suggested that to make people more interested in political participation, the CFRN, 1999 should be amended such that socio-economic rights are made justiciable. Chapter II of the South African Constitution makes socio-economic rights justiciable. It does not distinguish between fundamental rights and socio-economic rights.

Conclusion

The mechanisms for popular participation, just as the barriers to popular participation, are legion. I have only mentioned a few. It is my conviction that direct citizenship participation in the governance process will be enhanced if advocacy is built around removing the identified barriers to popular participation.

I thank you for your attention.

 

Femi Aborisade

7     November 2012.

 

 

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Charter_for_Popular_Participation_in_Development_and_Transformation (Retrieved 6/11/12).

http://www.peopleandparticipation.net/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=22413376 (Retrieved 6/11/12).

http://www.archonfung.net/papers/FungVarietiesPAR.pdf

(Retrieved 6/11/12)

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTIMORLESTE/Resources/Strengthening-Institutions-Introduction&Ex-Summary-1.pdf (Retrieved 6/11/12)

http://www.sp.gov.tr/documents/People-and-Participation.pdf (Retrieved 6/11/12).

http://www.academia.edu/296297/Deepening_Democracy_and_Increasing_Popular_Participation_In_Vietnam (Retrieved 6/11/12).

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/Outputs/CentreOnCitizenship/JGNRU.pdf (Retrieved 6/11/12).

http://www.kus.uu.se/SAdelstudie.pdf (Retrieved 6/11/12)

 

 

 

---

[1] Being paper delivered on Thursday, 8 November 2012 at the Seminar organised by the Directorate for Social Mobilization and Guidance (DSMG) of the Ministry of Information and Strategy, the State of Osun on 8 - 9 November 2012 at Kings Event Centre and Suites, Opposite Schools’ Board, Ilesha-Ife Road, GRA, Ilesha, State of Osun.

[2] W. Rodney. (1973). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Dar-Es-Salaam: London and Tanzanian Publishing House. Available online at http://www.blackherbals.com/walter_rodney.pdf as at 10/05/12, p. 8.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Eco-Ent/Economic-Development.html as at 11/5/2012.

 

[7] Rodney, Op.cit.

[8] Source: http://www.wikiprogress.org/index.php/Redefining_Prosperity retrieved 11/10/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[9] www.change-management.com/tutorial-ADKAR-series-1.htm (retrieved on 6/11/12).

[10] Swanson, D. and Worlde-Semait T. (1989). Africa’s PEs Sector and Evidence of Reforms. World Bank Technical Paper No. 95.

[11] Similar findings were made by (UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New York and Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf (at p. 3) and accessed on 20 May 2012.

 

[12] Fung (2006). Varieties of popular participation. Public Administration Review. 66.  Available online at http://www.archonfung.net/papers/FungVarietiesPAR.pdf

Retrieved 6 November 2012.

 

[13] Fung (2006), ibid.

[14]  Fung (2006), ibid.

[15] C. N. Ajie (Email opinion on NBA v. NASS, 5 November 2011).

[16] S. 22, CFRN, 1999.