4 Theoretical Framework

Theories on Participation and Deliberation

As defined by Shelly Arnstein in A Ladder of Citizen Participation, citizen participation is just a categorical term for citizen power, which in turn pushes for the redistribution of power (Arnstein, 1969). This redistribution of power is what enables previously left out citizens to participate in economic and political processes. She claims that participation without redistribution of power is an empty process for the powerless. In her work, Arnstein presents a framework for conceptualizing the different degrees of participation. Her framework is organized as a ladder consisting of eight different levels of participation that show the gradations of citizen participation. The rungs of the ladder are characterized by three different levels: non-participation, tokenism and citizen power. The bottom two rungs of the ladder, Manipulation and Therapy, are described as levels of non-participation. These two rungs are seen as substitute for genuine participation because the real objective is for the power-holders to “educate” the participants (Arnstein, 1969). The next two rungs, Informing and Consultation, rise to levels of tokenism. The participants are now able to hear and have a voice, however, they lack the power follow through on their views. The next rung, Placation, is a step up from tokenism because under the set rules, participants are allowed to advise, even though the power-holders still have the right to make decisions (Arnstein, 1969). At the top of the ladder are “levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision-making clout” (Arnstein, 1969: 4). Partnership makes it so citizens can negotiate and engage in tradeoffs. Delegated Power and Citizen control are the last rungs on the ladder and are defined by the previously left out citizens obtaining most of the decision-making ability or full managerial power. Arnstein’s framework are important in analyzing different citizen participation models.

As defined by N.C. Saxena, participation must include contribution, influencing, sharing or redistributing power and decision-making (Saxena, 1998). In his article, What is Meant by People’s Participation, Saxena essentially argues that participation is when all people, no matter their background, have a role or influence in the decisions made that impact them. In order to actually participate, people must organize themselves, and through that organization, they are able to identify their needs (Saxena, 1998). The most important characteristic that gets people to organize is common interests and needs. Saxena also asserts that there are three different outcomes of participation: newly acquired knowledge, empowerment and organization building.

Moreover, deliberation is also a key aspect in the process of citizen participation. Deliberation is a condition to deepen democracy rather than a substitute for an electoral democracy. Heller and Rao, in their paper, Deliberation and Development, define deliberation as “the process by which a group of people can—through discussion and debate—reach an agreement. Ideally, agreement is achieved by both persuading people of a different way of thinking (usually by changing their preferences) and engaging in a process of reasoned compromise” (Heller & Rao, 2015: 1). They argue that in order for the deliberation to be seen as legitimate, all the participants must reveal their preferences and their stakes in the outcomes. This must be done because it is complicated to support self-interested proposals in a public debate. Furthermore, they assert that a deliberative process can “produce an outcome that is both procedurally and normatively legitimate” (Heller & Rao, 2015: 15). This is because the outcome is seen as reasonable by the people involved in the deliberation rather than the people focusing on the best outcome for themselves.

“Gender-Aware” Participatory Development

In her piece Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on Gender and Participatory Development, Andrea Cornwall explores aspects of participation and gender in development, while also drawing attention to the contradictions between “gender-aware” and participatory development interventions (Cornwall, 2011). Cornwall also examines the tensions between Gender and Development (GAD) approaches and participatory approaches. GAD approaches seek to reduce inequality by introducing gendered perspectives to practices that maintain the marginalization of women while more general participatory approaches look to enhance the participation of excluded groups through ideas of power and difference. Cornwall begins her argument by establishing an understanding of the use of “gender” in participatory development. She states that there is a practical equivalence between gender and women’s issues, as well as gender-relations and specific subsets of male-female relationships. This means that the term gender within the context of participatory development has become synonymous with the interests/issues of women, and gender-relations has become synonymous with heterosexual male-female relationships. Therefore, in the context of the author’s argument, gender must be defined as a facet of difference, where the term gender does not point to a specific subset of issues facing a gendered group. In her exploration of gender aware and participatory approaches to development, Cornwall argues that tensions between the two arise from the different ways that the approaches engage with the issue of gendered power. Cornwall cites two different cases that highlight the tensions. The first, Joint Forest Management (JFM), is an example of participatory development. At the time, JFM was praised, however, feminist researchers discovered that JFM was gender exclusionary and highly inequitable (Cornwall, 2011). The problem with women’s participation and influence on the forest protection committees was that it did not solely rest on putting the women on the committees. In reality it rested on how women represented their needs, if they raised their voice and if anybody listened. As noted by Cornwall, the JFM case raised two sets of issues, the barriers to women’s participation and “the extent to which the participation of particular women should be taken as representative of women in general” (Cornwall, 2011: 207). The second case relates to gender progressive NGO, Oxfam and their work on the Kebkabiya food security project in Sudan. When the project was handed back to the community, almost all of the women joined separate committees from the men, which Oxfam was in support of. The creation of these women-only spaces led to women gaining confidence and reflecting on the need to be heard by men. The difference in the results of the case shows the importance of having a gender aware approach to participatory development. While creating space for women in development is a step in the right direction, it is important to note that other efforts must be made to amplify the voices of women. This could include, but is not limited to, assertiveness training and confidence building. Cornwall cites that working with difference requires specific skills (Cornwall, 2011). Simply including women in participatory development is not satisfactory.