The politics of participation

Community Participation

Examining & Weighing Community Participation

Community means more than people who live in proximity and occupy the same relative environment. Community, when in reference to terms such as community participation and community engagement, means several orders of interaction and motivation. People who participate in their communities are internally motivated. They care about the community socially, culturally, environmentally, economically, and otherwise; their motivation extends into action that supports their belief in their community. Community participation in many parts of the world may be the best and fastest ways for communities to rectify their own problems and establish firm ties with public administration and government.

Bureaucracy, administration, politics, and other factors often interfere with communities receiving the assistance or allocation of resources necessary to solve a problem. They may be issues, sociological ones for example, that may only find firm resolution if it is generated and executed by the community itself. In countries where there is a clear and apparent history of poor leadership and great disregard for the needs of communities, community participation can serve as a bridge between communities, and between governments and communities if the leadership and/or attitude has changed.

Community participation, that is, the direct involvement/engagement of ordinary people in the affairs of planning, governance and overall development programmes at local or grassroots level, has become an integral part of democratic practice in recent years (see Jayal, 2001). In the case of post-apartheid South Africa, community participation has literally become synonymous with legitimate governance. (Williams, 2006)

Community participation can involve community members in more ways or at least serve as more accurate representatives of a community in government affairs. Community participation as the potential to make citizens feel much more connected with their community as a place and as a group of people who share the same space. Community participation requires the cooperation and fairness of government officials and community representatives in order to maximize the potential for positive change and efficacy. Cooperation and equity are not always the case in community participation, unfortunately.

In short, it would seem that the bureaucratic elites of officials and councilors are determined to impose their own truncated version and understanding of 'community participation' on particular communities. This highly atrophied form of 'participation' seems to be working precisely... (Williams, 2006)

Government officials may be opposed conceptually to community participation because it removes the power from government and puts the power over the community in the hands of those who live there. Government officials may additionally not sincerely participate in community engagement because they are illiterate to the needs of the community and do not endeavor to acquire more accurate information about the community they are helping. Government officials may furthermore not fully go along with community participation because it is a strategy to keep a community from progressing in another direction contrary to a government plan, operation, agenda, etc. Such officials may present danger to citizens in the community who go against them or are too eager, intelligent, and qualified for their own good.

Community participation is a great idea in theory, yet it is not always a great idea in practice. Community participation and community engagements are activities that are not limited to one area of the world. Community participation occurs in Africa, Europe, and South America for example. (Williams, 2006; Lowndes et al., 2001; McNeish, 2006) There are a number of factors that contribute to community participation perhaps resulting in more trouble (and less efficacy) than it is worth or intended. Community participation cannot work without a community. Members of a community must be motivated for some reason, hopefully at least a moderately altruistic one, to serve the community and be willing to take organized, consistent action(s) to improve the community's quality, in the many number of ways in which that could take shape. With lazy, or uncaring community members, community participation is a waste.

Effective community participation additionally needs cooperative and collaborative government officials, bureaucrats, and administrators. Community participation is organized actions coordinated among several groups of people. The best community participation comes when all of those groups communicate well and work together as a team. It may sound redundant, but when community engagement fails, or when anything fails, people want to assign blame, whether it is on a person, group of people, system, idea, or goal. Mistakes are less likely to happen when the factors that make community participation work are identified before the action is underway.

Many citizens, administrators, and politicians are interested in increasing public participation in public decisions. Efforts to do so are currently underway across the country. However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that these efforts are not effective. Some efforts appear to be ineffective because of poor planning or execution. Other efforts may not work because administrative systems that are based upon expertise and professionalism leave little room for participatory processes. (King et al., 2008)

Community participation therefore is a sensitive endeavor that can be compromised or sabotaged by a number of factors including people who do not wish to cooperate with others or lack professional attitudes. Community action is not simple and successful community action is not accidental.

…effective, or authentic, public participation implies more than simply finding the right tools and techniques for increasing public involvement in public decisions. Authentic public participation, that is, participation that works for all parties and stimulates interest and investment in both administrators and citizens, requires rethinking the underlying roles of, and relationships between, administrators and citizens. (King et al., 2008)

Community participation, then, has to do more than look good on paper as a plan. It needs to be a living organism, that is flexible, adaptable, and cohesive. Community participation, according to King et al. (2008) is something that interests and stimulates the members of the community as well as the administrators and officials who legislate and serve the community. Community participation is a mutual endeavor. It is not necessarily an "us vs. them" situation. Ultimately community participation is an occasion for people to participate in a community and to participate as a community.

A disadvantage to community participation is that it has a long history of failure. Public participation as a whole does not work. Certainly there are instances of success and achievement, but overall, between the mistrust, misperceptions, avarice, and apathy, public participation is a bit of a long shot. Though, just because something has not yet worked does not mean it is useless, and perhaps required a bit of tweaking.

The traditional methods of public participation in government decision making simply do not work. They do not achieve genuine participation in planning or decisions; they do not provide significant information to public officials that makes a difference to their actions; they do not satisfy members of the public that they are being heard; they do not improve the decisions that agencies and public officials make; and they don't represent a broad spectrum of the public. (Innes & Booher, 2000)

This is yet another disadvantage or reason as to why people may not want to engage in community participation.

Worse yet, they often antagonize the members of the public who do try to work through these methods. Moreover, they pit members of the public against each other as they each feel compelled to speak of the issues in polarizing terms to get their points across -- making it even more difficult for decision makers to sort through what they hear, much less to make a choice. Most often these methods discourage busy and thoughtful individuals from wasting their time in going through what appear to be nothing more than rituals designed to satisfy legal requirements. (Innes & Booher, 2000)

Conventional methodology is ineffective and counterproductive for the reasons stated above. An advantage to using community participation is that when it succeeds, the success provides hope and an example for others to modify and emulate for their own needs.

As most citizens in their communities are not government officials or administrators, readers may infer that the people who want community participation the most are the members of the community. If readers consider the topic of community participation and engagement from multiple perspectives, they may discover that there is more than just one party that benefits from community participation, when sincere community participation is the desired outcome. Community participation is beneficial on behalf of public administration and levels of government. The attitude toward community participation from the government and public administrative perspective has not historically be one of overwhelming support, though, in the 21st century, attitudes as well as the times, are changing.

The role of participation in public administration has historically been one of ambivalence. Although the political system in the United States is designed to reflect and engender an active citizenry, it is also designed to protect political and administrative processes from a too-active citizenry… (King et al., 1998)

Thus, sometimes the government cannot move forward and accomplish its objectives without the cooperation and trust of the community and/or constituency. Attitudes and perceptions about the government and about communities assist in the determination of community participation and success.

Because of the numerous, public failures of public administrators and government officials, many communities will not cooperate without representation and participation in legislation and activities such as community participation and community engagement.

There is also growing recognition on the part of administrators that decision making without public participation is ineffective. In recent times, interest in public participation in administrative decision making has increased as a result of a number of factors, not the least of which is that a citizenry with diminished trust in government is demanding more accountability from public officials (Parr and Gates, 1989). There is also a growing recognition on the part of administrators that decision making without public participation is ineffective. (King et al., 1998)

Whereas public administrators and government officials may have previously not relied upon the approval and cooperation of the communities in previous decades and generations, currently, it behooves them to engage communities in the 21st century as citizens have the potential to be far more informed and educated about issues that affect the community, as well as the corresponding public servants.

Public officials attempts to make decisions on behalf of a community without the participation of the community does not prove effective in the long-term and may additionally cost resources and time. In an effort to use resources more effectively, community participation is a part of this strategy. Cultures like time are relative; meaning, the kinds of community participation that work in one community are not guaranteed to yield the same results in another community, even if the communities are relatively similar. When public officials and administrators make attempts at public engagement and participation must do the research and know the community and culture(s) with which they wish to engage or else the probability of success decreases significantly.

In the context of conventional participation, the administrator controls the ability of the citizen to influence the situation or the process. The administrative structures and processes are the politically and socially constructed frameworks within which the administrator must operate. These frameworks give the administrator the authority to formulate decisions…[and] has no real power to redefine the issue or to alter administrative processes to allow for greater citizen involvement. (King et al., 1998)

Public scandals, misconceptions, bad methods, and unequal social relationships contribute to the failure of community participation on behalf of public administrators. Public administrators have the daunting task to earn the trust and respect of the communities they serve. The general climate or attitude toward public administrator and public officials is one of great mistrust in conventional practices of community participation.

In the context of conventional participation the administrator plays the role of the expert…participation within this context is structured to maintain the centrality of the administrator while publicly presenting the administrator as representative, consultative, or participatory. The citizen becomes the "client" of the professional administrator, illequipped to question the professional's authority and technical knowledge…the administrator is separated from the "demands, needs, and values" of the people whom he or she is presumed to be serving…Participation in this context is ineffective and conflictual... (King et al., 1998)

People want to believe in their officials and administrators, but they are continually proven wrong and the press prefers to highlights officials' mistakes rather than those with integrity and success. Administrators have to make the community members feel as if they are equal and that their knowledge is just as potent and valuable as the knowledge of the administration.

Effective community participation is a formidable challenge from the perspective of the community and from that of the public administrator. There are advantages to community participation in that when it works, people experience the feeling of overcoming a challenge as well as the feeling of direct action that results in the improvement of the community. Before endeavoring upon community participation, all parties should cultivate awareness of any biases and consider how it may affect the activity and the outcome. As aforementioned, attitudes regarding community participation from both sides of the activity are currently in a state of flux. Whereas previously community participation went from very important, to not important, it is now essential from the community standpoint. Whereas before from the perspective of the administration or government, community participation was integral to a nuisance, has now become a moderate necessity. These changes are having direct affects on the frequency and success of community participation.

Authentic participation requires that administrators focus on both process and outcome. In this context, participation is an integral part of administration, rather than an add-on to existing practices. Authentic participation means that the public is part of the deliberation process from issue framing to decision making…[In authentic participation, administrators are] involving citizens in "dialectical exchange" (Fischer, 1993, 183) and by engaging with citizens in discourse (Fox and Miller, 1995), rather than simply getting citizens input. Then, the administrator becomes a cooperative participant, assisting citizens in examining their interests, working together with them to arrive at decisions, and engaging them in open and authentic deliberation. (King et al., 1998)