Definitions of People’s Participation

As it has already been mentioned above, historically, the concept of participation suffers from the ambiguity of the given definitions (Ahmed 1987). Therefore, it is particularly difficult to establish a universal definition of people’s participation. An understanding of the concept is often assumed. In practice, development actions are often based on different perceptions of participation. This is partly due to the lack of experience in effective participation practice, especially in developing nations (Meldon, Kenny and Walsh 2004). However, the literature gives a series of definitions of participation, some of which are presented below.

62

The fundamental thought of participation is to provide local people with a significant role and decision-making power at the local level development programs that are designed for them and which affect their lives. Blair (2000) has identified a consequential formula of participation, that is, participation leads representation, representation ensures empowerment and empowerment gives benefits for all. Finally, all these improvements reduce poverty and enhance equity among all groups which leads the country to the way of good governance (Blair 2000:23). Therefore, participation could be defined both “an end and a means” (Oakley et al. 1999, Ahmad 1998). As an end, participation lifts the marginalized people from being excluded to being in partnership with public institutions. As a means, it enables them to contribute to the development in a meaningful manner for their own, as well as for society’s benefit (Ahmad 1998).

Thus, participation can be been seen from two parameters, efficiency and empowerment. In the efficiency parameter, participation is considered a tool for achieving better project outcomes. In the empowerment parameter, it is a process that enhances the capacity of individuals to improve their own lives, and it facilitates social change to the advantage of disadvantaged or marginalized groups (Cleaver 1999). Therefore, reversing power is the key to participation. As Cernea (1985) argues, putting people first in development projects is not just about organizing people, but it means empowering them to be social actors rather than passive subjects, and to take control over the activities that affect their lives. Sherry Arnstein (1969) has given a useful and influential definition of participation. Although it is quite old, it still possesses great value, especially for those who see participation as a tool of empowerment. He states that participation is a categorical term for citizen power which means redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. He further argues that, it is the strategy by which the have-nots determine how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programmes are operated, and benefits like contracts and patronage are parcelled out.

International aid agencies defined people’s participation in a more comprehensive manner. According to the UNDP (1993), participation means that people are closely involved in the economic, social, cultural, and political process that affects their lives. This definition highlights people’s participation as a continuous social process where people may have complete or partial control over it. The World Bank interprets the issue similarly. On the other

hand, for the OECD, people’s participation stands for partnership, which is built upon the basis of dialogue among the various actors, during which the agenda is jointly set, and local views and indigenous knowledge are deliberately sought and respected. This implies negotiation rather than the dominance of an externally set project agenda. Thus, according to the OECD, people become active actors in the development process instead of only being beneficiaries (OECD 1994).

Following the above perspective, people’s participation can also be defined as the active involvement of local people in the planning and implementation of development projects/programmes. Westergaard (1986) defines people’s participation as collective efforts to increase and exercise control over resources and institutions on the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded from control. In this regard, another quite useful definition has been given by Norman Uphoff (1987), who described people’s participation as a process of involvement of a significant number of persons in situations or actions that enhance their wellbeing. This definition highlights people’s participation as a kind of local autonomy in which people discover the possibilities of exercising their choice, and thereby becoming capable of managing their own development.

The above definitions emphasize the procedural meanings of people’s participation.

However, it has its own philosophical meaning. Philosophically, participation is necessary for upholding democratic values and practices in the modern polity, which in turn creates an objective situation for the continuity of sustainable development (Leeuwis 2000, Ahmed 1987, Taylor 1995). It enforces the rights of free speech, free assembly and free press, as those who take part in debates and discussions share information and beliefs (Taylor 1995). Thompson (1970), states that people should be considered the best judges of their own interests (the principle of citizen autonomy), and on the other hand, people are capable of making better political and social decisions than they do at present (the principle of citizen self-improvement) (in Fagence 1977). Milgrom’s and Roberts’s (1992) statement could be more suitable in this regard. In their words “people are fundamental first in the sense of being indivisible decision makers and actors; it is people - not organizations - who actually decide, vote or act. The actions of individuals determine the behaviour and performance of organizations. Furthermore, only the needs, wants, and objectives of individuals have ethical significance… Finally, it is the people who ultimately create and manage organizations, judge

64

their performance, and redesign or reject them if this performance is found inadequate”

(quoted from Kivistö 2007:14).

The above definitions of people’s participation make it crystal clear that it is quite difficult to find a universal definition of the term, as it still remains a chameleon with its characteristics of elusiveness (Quddus 1994). The scholars, practitioners and aid agencies have defined and explained the concept from various perspectives such as, means and ends, efficiency and empowerment, procedural and philosophical, et cetera. Therefore, it can be said that participation is contextual and its meanings differ from person to person, society to society and nation to nation. Shirley White’s opinion might be most appropriate in this regard.

She opines that the term participation is kaleidoscopic; it changes its colour and shape at the will of the hands in which it is held. It can be very fragile and elusive, changing from one moment to another. It can be seen from the eye of the beholder and shaped by the hand of the power holder (White 1994:16).