How to boost citizens’ participation in decisions on projects that concern them

Sometime in early 2017, a friend who is also a scholar approached me to explain what I thought the drafters of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution meant by “public participation”.

He was worried that the drafters overreached themselves.

He was concerned that they provided for “small things” like values and principles of governance in which they included participation.

To him, these are so basic that they should not have found any place in a Constitution.

I listened to this friend explain his problem. I did not understand why he was full of bile and hatred on what I considered to be a “common sense” matter.

He finally let the cat out of the bag: Public participation was a blockage to implementing development.

RESIDENTS

He was mad that courts had blocked county governments and the national government ministries on many occasions from implementing projects simply because the courts thought there was no public participation.

The more this friend and scholar poured the bile and hatred on public participation the more it became clear what his problem was.

The man is an ethnic and a male chauvinist.

He could not understand why his friend, a governor in a county, was stopped from implementing a particular project because he had not consulted some local villagers.

He became quite “tribal” in his approach to the topic and at one time mentioned that public participation was just a heap of rubbish put in the Constitution by a group of activists.

WORKSHOPS
He was categorical that even if a meeting was convened to discuss a water project, very few people will bother to show up.

Also, when they show up, only a few of them – the most vocal – will speak up.

The rest will be passive. They will sit down to listen but not to ask any question.

To my surprise, he pointed out that there is no point of holding large meetings because they are costly.

He stated clearly that even if such meetings were called, there are “professional workshop attendees” who will never miss out.

These are the people he said that his friend the governor had consulted.

It was not necessary to invite others because they won't say anything.

GOVERNANCE
This is where the problem lies. Even some of the well-educated Kenyans fail to see things right when it concerns boys from the village.

There are many people – like this friend – who do not see the value in public participation if it prevents their friends in high offices from doing what should be done.

On a number of occasions, including in my writings, I have had an opportunity to clarify the purpose of public participation.

It is based on a simple principle of governance: To ensure people’s voice and desires are reflected in what is done.

Participation prevents local elites and opinion leaders from imposing their ideas and values on ordinary citizens.

Participation has the effect of preventing government officials from imposing their ideas on people.

DEVELOPMENT

In fact it prevents implementation of projects that concern the elites themselves.

It allows all the people to make decisions on what concerns everyone rather than a small group of people.

These are not abstract reasons. If elites are left to think about development, they will think only about what concerns them.

I have been an observer at public participation events concerning development projects.

Local elites will also talk about tarmacked roads, street lighting in market centres, and construction of police posts.

And when they mention security, it is only when it concerns complementing their own security that they hire for their homes.

PRIORITIES
Surprisingly, these are not the priorities of ordinary citizens.

Ordinary citizens are more concerned about village roads, better schools and teaching for their children, and drugs in local dispensaries.

They also plead to have government officials (national and county) who are responsive to their needs.

Their priorities include having government officials who are available in their offices. They want better access to services – and efficient services.

Public participation enables people to identify with projects that are in line with their needs.

It helps in creating a high sense of ownership among them.

It also makes public officials responsible and accountable for their actions because people scrutinise their behaviour regularly.

BUDGET MEETING
Public participation also helps in reducing conflicts between leaders and citizens.

It is the space on which disagreements between people and leaders are addressed.

In many instances, people also support leaders who listen to their views. They rally behind the leaders who have respect for their ideas.

Those that do not listen to them usually face a hostile citizen group.

The encounter with my friend led me to think hard about whether public participation was working.

All available data shows that many people are not involved in decision-making about what concerns them.

Afrobarometer Round 6 survey data proves this position.

The survey asked, “Thinking about public participation… how easy or difficult would you say it is to participate in county budgeting and planning; influence county decisions; access information on county budgets.?

DECISION-MAKING
The response to this survey was revealing.

About 80 per cent of Kenyans said that it is very difficult to be involved in decision-making on either of these issues.

About nine per cent said it is easy to be involved in county budgeting and planning.

And 11 per cent said they can access information on county budgets.

Other surveys revealed a similar pattern. People are not involved in making decisions that concern them.

Another survey conducted by a different organisation in the last half of 2017 had similar results.

Though questions were worded slightly different, the numbers that said there was insufficient involvement of the people in making decisions on development projects were shocking.

USE OF JARGON

Asked whether the youth were involved in making decisions on development projects, about 86 per cent said they were not.

And asked whether the county and national governments were involving people in decisions on development in their area, a similar number said they were not.

As many as 76 per cent of the respondents in this survey said that the citizens are not involved in making decisions.

What could be contributing to this shocking results?

A number of factors are preventing citizens from participating in making decisions that concern them.

First, information is presented in a technical language.

Sometimes this is done by some officials in a deliberate manner.

At other times, the officials do not know how to present technical information to ordinary people.

Indeed government officials are not trained to deliver information to adults.

LANGUAGE
My best example on this is laughable. I know of a particular incident when a particular organisation received a “qualified” auditor’s report.

The term qualified was interpreted by some to mean “good”.

There was a celebratory mood among supporters of the chief officer of this organisation.

The point here is that the language used prevents many people from using the information in an effective manner.

Secondly, public participation is done simply to show that it has happened. There is no meaning attached to it.

It is done for the sake of appearance – to show numbers rather than provide an opportunity for people to react to what is presented.

Tied to this is also the lack of training among people providing public participation.

Many government officials do not have experience in mobilising people or giving them the motivation to participate.

CIVIC EDUCATION
Fourth is the absence of relevant civic education to provide citizens with knowledge and skills to participate in public affairs.

There is an absence of a standardised and coordinated approach to civic education. This has led to poor coordination of efforts.

This has also made it difficult to ensure there is a standard approach to participation.

It is not clear, for instance, what is meant by adequate participation and what numbers are required to show in order for one to satisfy that public participation has taken place.

Some of these problems require policy solutions. But others require simple administrative interventions.

One, county and national governments can do better by collaborating in holding public participation events.

MOBILISATION

But the two operate parallel to each other. The chiefs and the ward administrators can provide synergies by working together in mobilising communities to events.

This is something that has worked in some places but not everywhere.

Making information available to citizens, in plain and simple language, is an easy intervention.

The county and national governments will have to invest in providing easily accessible information if they want citizens to give their voice on what concerns them.

This means that the governments at both levels will have to provide budgets for improving public participation and creating networks that are effective in reaching ordinary citizens.

Surprisingly civil society groups, including religious groups and networks of community groups, are the most effective bodies in reaching the local level.

But county governments and the national government ministries demonstrate poverty of ideas and knowledge in working with these groups yet this is where the solution lies.

In simple words, the two levels of government will have to reinvent new approaches to working with these groups in order to get people behind what the government is doing.

Prof. Karuti Kanyinga is based at the Institute for Development Studies (IDS), University of Nairobi; [email protected]