Deccan
Herald: New Delhi: Tuesday, January 23,
2018.
The lukewarm response of the citizens to an
opportunity to offer their comments to the BDA's master plan 2031 for the city
is attributed to lack of interest and apathy in civic matters. But the master
plan is not an isolated case. Voter apathy is well known.
Increase in the tariff for electricity, water,
transport, milk and other public utilities does not evoke much response from
the public. Proposed laws go unnoticed, except by a section of the society whom
it effects badly, like the private medical healthcare Bill. There are very few
instances where citizens have participated in shaping public policy. The
reasons are many and citizens alone are not to be blamed.
Public participation in our country is in its
infancy and the State believes that the general public has little interest in
policy deliberations and even lesser ability to provide useful inputs on
policy. As a result, laws and policies are framed, and projects are implemented
with least regard to public concern.
The existing convention envisages publishing the
proposed law in the gazette, provide 30 days' time for the public to offer
comments and suggestions. This system is working fairly well at the central
level, but not so at the state level. The public is kept in dark about the
draft law and its publication in the gazette. By the time a few concerned
citizens get to know about the law, the last date for submitting their views
would be over.
The Right to Information (RTI) Act's Section 4
[1][b] mandates all public authorities to pro-actively disclose all matters of
proposed policies and programmes, besides providing the reasons for taking up
these projects to those who would be affected.
Public authorities are supposed to place them in
the website and use other forms of media to disseminate the contents. But it is
alleged that both the BBMP and BDA are worst performers as far as their
obligations under the RTI Act are concerned. It was reported that applications
from the public seeking information about the steel flyover project were
rejected by the BDA.
Providing information by itself will not ensure
citizen participation as it will be only tokenism, as Sherry R Arnstein, the
late American public policy researcher, called it. She recommended an 8-step
"ladder of citizen participation" which includes manipulation,
therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, designated power and
citizen control.
Effective public participation requires much more
than information dissemination. State agencies need to have a public disclosure
and participation policy. In some countries, there is the concept of 'civic
engagement', which ensures transparency and accountability.
Such a policy should ensure that public agencies
collect people's opinions, use public knowledge internally, and communicate
back to the public as to how public knowledge has been used in decision-making
processes. For this to happen, public authorities should realise that the role
of citizens as receivers of state services is undergoing a massive change and
authorities have to tune their functioning accordingly.
According to researchers John Gaventa and Camilo
Valderrama, there is a shift from beneficiary to citizen, project to policy,
consultation to decision-making, appraisal to implementation and micro to
macro. The conflict between the State and the citizen needs to be resolved.
The State-centred conception of social policy
often views citizens as beneficiaries or recipients of State-delivered services
and programmes, whereas the market-led version focuses on the clients of social
welfare as consumers. Citizens are questioning how much of their money is spent
and for what purpose. Concerned citizens have approached courts with public
interest litigations to question wasteful expenditure and many of them have
been successful.
Democratic governance requires state support to
citizens for effective participation. Citizens need capacity-building to
comment on the proposed projects and policies. Public agencies need to come out
with information leaflets, frequently asked questions, explanations of critical
terms, etc. They need to organise public meetings and consultations to debrief
the proposed policies.
Unless citizens are provided with proper
information about the project or policy, how can they comment? This newspaper's
campaign 'Citizens for Change' is an example of ensuring citizen participation.
There are various forms of civic engagement, like citizens' juries, citizens'
panels, focus group discussions, surveys, citizen advisory committees, public
hearings, etc. Since each form has its own limitations, a judicious mix of
these methods will be useful.
Citizen participation is not without pitfalls.
There are certain difficulties that need to be addressed. For instance, public
agencies and their staff may not be ready to share information as it may weaken
their power and authority. Secondly, civic engagements are costly and time
consuming. Third, a handful of citizens or civic groups may hijack the
proceedings to their advantage. Despite these disadvantages, civic engagement
in public policy needs to be structured and made mandatory.
(The writer is a member of the Central Consumer
Protection Council)