Participation and voices everywhere, but going nowhere (post-2015)?

Joanna Wheeler

Consultations, surveys, on-line polls, social media posts, campaigns, forums, blogs, protests in public squares—everywhere there are claims to know what people really want, claims to represent poor and marginalised people.  As interests coalesce and the politics heat up around the questions of what a future framework for development should look like post 2015, everyone wants to claim that they represent the authentic‘voices of the poor’. Everywhere there are claims to legitimate participation, meaningful consultation  and a stated intention to represent citizen voices. The High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda met recently in London, and the co-chairs as well as several members called for the perspectives of those affected by poverty to be heard. Yet, all the talk about participation is not adding up to real influence or engagement between decision-makers with the diverse perspectives and realities of those living with poverty, marginalisation and injustice.

In a recent session for some NGOs on how to apply participatory approaches to working in conflict contexts, a government representative told me with excitement that she really believed in the value of participation:  ‘I always talk to my driver in any country I go to,’ she said. Is talking to the poorest and most marginalised really participation?  In fact, most of what is being labeled as ‘participatory’ at the moment is really no more than this:  a conversation in which the questions are framed by someone else, and the answers are used for an agenda that the‘driver’ never agreed to.

A major shortcoming of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) has been their lack of legitimacy in the eyes of those most affected by development.  As Francess Fornah said in her blog last week, the MDGs are largely irrelevant on a daily basis to those most closely engaged with improving the lives of those living in poverty.  A related and serious flaw with the MDGs is the lack of any provision for the poorest and most marginalised to hold governments and international aid agencies to account for the goals that have been set.

The track record of global agreements is not encouraging—the participation of ‘the poor’ is most often sought when it legitimates the decisions of the powerful, or when there is a political need to be seen to listen to them.  Previous attempts to use participatory approaches to bring the perspectives of those most affected by development to bear on its direction have had mixed results at best. Many global participatory consultation processes have been experienced as extractive listening projects, as opposed to on-going negotiations – with people left feeling that their contributions have been used for political ends which are not their own.  Failure to ensure meaningful participation has occurred in the past because 1) so-called participatory consultations can be highly exclusionary in terms of the voices and perspectives that are edited out or never make it to the table in the first place, 2) the purpose of people’s participation is often pre-determined in a very narrow way, so that any decisions affected by people’s participation are not the ones that really matter; and 3) there has been a lack of mechanisms for holding decision-making to account for the way that policies that have been shaped through participation are implemented (or have failed to be implemented). In sum, many attempts of large-scale participation to influence the direction of development have been a failure.  They have failed to truly connect the realities, experiences and priorities of people living in poverty, marginalisation and injustice in a meaningful way with the decisions that are made on their behalf.

Yet the impulse to hear from those most affected by decisions is not wrong.  When done well, participatory approaches can have huge potential to show unexpected and essential insights. Participatory approaches can provide fresh perspectives into intractable problems, demonstrate the complexity and interconnectedness of issues in people’s lives, and challenge assumptions about how change happens and what development interventions work.  For example, Reality Checks – a participatory initiative developed in Bangladesh – showed how legislation to curb the abuse and harassment of girls led to increasing bullying of boys and issues of low self-esteem. In Nigeria, a citizen score card exercise on the national economic empowerment strategy found that despite a new scheme to allocate farmland to youth, family and women’s groups in the Area Councils, a third of those people involved felt that access had worsened, and accessing farmland through the government was perceived as very difficult. As the rate of change accelerates in many contexts, participation is even more important to shed light on rapidly shifting realities.

If the post-2015 process to agree a future framework for development does not get the participation of those most affected right, it will fail. To avoid the mistakes of the past, it is essential that the participation of those living in poverty is used to question established ways of looking at social, economic and political issues. Participation must help frame the debate, and not just provide sound bites to justify the decisions of politicians. This time, talking to the driver will not be enough.

This article was originally published in the independent online magazine www.opendemocracy.net

Joanna Wheeler is a Research Fellow within the Participation, Power and Social Change research team at IDS.

Read other recent blog posts from Joanna Wheeler:

2 Responses to Participation and voices everywhere, but going nowhere (post-2015)?

  1. John says:

    Joanna, you certainly make some valid points. There is a lot that can go wrong when reaching out to consult an audience and asking for feedback, from failing to follow up with concrete action to abusing the feedback for a hidden agenda. However, we need to be realistic here. When we talk at the level of MDGs or the Post-2015 agenda, listening to the population that is affected by international frameworks decisions is already a big step in comparison to how the system used to work. The UN simply does not have the mandate to outsource any actual decision making from governments to the public. That is only something that governments can do by establishing participatory mechanisms that have a direct impact on decision making (it starts with formal national petitions and can end in crowd-sourcing Island’s constitution). At the inter-governmental level we have to acknowledge that the sole authorities for decision making are the governments themselves (no matter whether we approve of their political system or not). Hence, the only way to incorporate the view of the public is through consultation, asking questions, and listening. If you want participation in decision making, you have to ask for actual democratic and legally binding governance mechanisms, like a global representative parliament or global (and legally binding) referendums. Nothing wrong with those big ideas, but until we have those ideas realized, all the international system can do right now is to go out, ask questions and listen to people. The fact that this is happening now in such an increasingly visible manner should be encouraging. Much is changing in the perception of the role public administration towards the citizens it is supposed to serve, and we shouldn’t be disheartened by the fact that its baby steps and that there are hiccups on the way. Just think of it: The Rio+20 Dialogues on Sustainable Development that happened this summer included the first online consultation and crowd-sourcing of public suggestions at the level of a global UN summit. To expect that this approach already reaches even half of its full potential at its first, second or even tenth iteration is rather short-sighted. It’s a first step at most, but a crucial one (and was acknowledge by civil society at the end of the Rio+20 summit as such). One that very well might lead us to the realization of a grander vision of how the global citizenry will shape and determine national and international political decision making and governance in the future.

  2. […] it would be great if post-2015 were based as much as possible on the voices of the poor – who haven’t exactly been terribly conspicuous in the process so far. The UN has launched a big consultation entitled World We Want 2015, but its […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: