Voice and accountability

Deepening democracy

Page contents:

• Approaches to deepening democracy
• Citizenship, rights and participation
• Power and representation
• Accountability and responsiveness of the state, donors and civil society

Many experts believe that greater citizen participation in decision making will result in pro-poor policies that reflect the needs and interests of the poor.  Many development interventions focus on creating new spaces for the active participation of citizens in the decision-making process. Creating new spaces for participation does not guarantee the representation of diverse and marginalised voices, however, as these spaces can exclude portions of  the population and be prone to elite capture. There is much debate around how to engage all citizens in more meaningful participation in the political process, a process often referred to as ‘deepening democracy’.

Approaches to deepening democracy

The ‘deepening democracy’ debate has evolved from discussing whether and how citizens should engage in the political process, to analysing how to ensure inclusiveness of participation and deepen citizen engagement in decision-making processes.

Gaventa, J., 2006, ‘Triumph, Deficit or Contestation: Deepening the “Deepening Democracy” Debate’, IDS Working Paper 264, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
What are the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to democracy? What challenges exist in efforts to promote “deeper” democracy? This working paper from the Institute of Development Studies surveys current debates about democracy, covering four main strands: “civil society” democracy, participatory democracy, deliberative democracy and empowered participatory governance. It argues that democracy is an ongoing process of contestation, rather than a set of standardised institutional designs: approaches to democracy should combine a range of democratic models.
Access full text: available online

Some theorists emphasise inclusion through participation in the democratic process, while others focus more on the quality of the dialogue that occurs between citizens and public actors.

Ackerman, J., 2003, ‘Co-governance for Accountability: Beyond “Exit” and “Voice”’, University of California, Santa Cruz
How can government accountability be improved through a combined strengthening of civic participation and state engagement? This paper from World Development surveys various accountability strategies, focusing on “co-governance for accountability” programmes in Brazil, Mexico, the US and India. It argues that, by giving social actors direct access to state institutions, these projects’ approaches have achieved significant pro-accountability success. Co-governance is the best way to tap in to the energy of society.
Access full text via document delivery. Please see document summary.

Quality dialogue with the state depends on citizens having sufficient knowledge and interest about the issues being discussed, but on any issue the number of individuals with such knowledge is usually small. Improving the quality of dialogue may limit participation, while expanding participation may diminish quality. Achieving both participation and quality dialogue can be difficult, and may involve trade-offs. 

Cohen, J. and Fung, A., 2004, ‘Radical Democracy’, Swiss Political Science Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, Pp. 23-34
Concerns about the regulatory capacities of national governments and the capacity of conventional democracies to engage the energies of ordinary citizens have recently given rise to radical-democratic ideas. Radical democracy advocates two strands of political engagement: participation and deliberation. What is the relationship between these two strands? Can radical democracy address the limitations of competitive representation? This article from Swiss Political Science Review addresses these questions, concluding that there are some tensions and difficulties within these concepts that must be resolved in order to advance a radical-democratic project.
Access full text: available online

Citizenship, rights and participation

Participation is linked with citizenship, which implies certain social and political rights and duties. Rights-based approaches (RBAs) are popular and emphasise that every citizen has an inherent right to engage in the decision-making processes that affect their lives.

Miller, V., VeneKlasen, L., and Clark., C., 2005, ‘Rights-based Development: Linking Rights and Participation – Challenges in Thinking and Action’, IDS Bulletin Vol. 36, No. 1, Pp. 31-40
The growing interest in pursuing rights-based approaches to development raises questions about how these two broad traditions - human rights and development - can best work together in practice. This article from a joint 7-country action research initiative carried out by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Just Associates, outlines the challenges and opportunities of this emerging trend.
Access full text via document delivery. Please see document summary.

Chapman, J. et al, 2005, ‘Rights-based Development: The Challenge of Change and Power’, Global Poverty Research Group
What are the implications of integrating rights into development work? This paper from the Global Poverty Research Group (GPRG) draws on case study material from ActionAid International (AAI) to explore the benefits and challenges of a rights-based approach for strengthening the voice and power of marginalised sectors of society. 
Access full text: available online

Ideas about universal citizenship ignore the reality of unequal power, which can exclude people on the basis of race, class, ethnicity and gender. For example, ‘community’ participation often translates into ‘male’ participation, excluding women from key decision-making processes. Even the idea of a male consensus is misleading, and inevitably reflects the interests of particular group of men, since men do not have one set of needs, interests and concerns.

Kabeer, N., 2005, ‘The Search for Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions in an Interconnected World’, in Kabeer, N. (ed), Volume 1: Inclusive Citizenship – Meanings and Expressions, IDS Series on Claiming Citizenship: Rights, Participation and Accountability, Brighton
What does ‘citizenship’ mean for excluded groups around the world? What do these meanings tell us about the goal of building inclusive societies? This introductory chapter from ‘Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions’ outlines some of the values and meanings associated with citizenship. It considers how debates around citizenship, rights and duties can be interpreted in the light of these values, and discusses the emergence of an explicit rights-based approach in the development agenda.
Access full text via document delivery. Please see document summary.

Mukhopadhyay, M and Meer, S., 2004, 'Creating Voice and Carving Space: Redefining Governance from a Gender Perspective', Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam
How have approaches to improving governance addressed the question of gender inequality? This book from the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) explores what good governance and citizenship means for poor women who belong to groups excluded from power, resources and decision-making. Based on action research projects by sixteen organisations in eight different country contexts it analyses how women can stake their claim to participation in governance, and make institutions accountable to their interests and rights.
Access full text: available online

Power and representation

The creation of new spaces for public participation is intended to enable more direct forms of citizen engagement in policy making.  However, simply creating new spaces for participation will not guarantee greater inclusion or enable the most marginalised segments of the population to articulate their voices and demand accountability. The outcomes of participatory approaches are affected by power and power relations which create inequality.

Mosse, D., 2004, ‘Power Relations and Poverty Reduction’, in Ruth Alsop’s (ed) Power, Rights and Poverty: Concepts and Connections, The World Bank, Washington D.C., pp.51-67
The concept of power is central to social science, but receives relatively little attention in development policy analysis. This paper presented at a joint World Bank/DFID workshop argues that power inequalities have a significant impact on the achievement of poverty reduction goals. Examples from DFID partner states in India show that the politicisation of poverty is necessary for the empowerment of the poor. Formal decentralisation may fail to challenge informal power relations and be ineffective in addressing the needs of the poor.
Access full text: available online

Even within social movements intended to benefit the poor, uneven power relations can be replicated at the local level, resulting in the exclusion of the most marginalized citizens.

Waldman, L., 2005, ‘When Social Movements Bypass the Poor: Asbestos pollution, International Litigation and Griqua Cultural Identity’, IDS Working Paper 246, Institute of Development Studies Brighton
Why was a successful legal case against a British asbestos mining company regarded by many of its South African claimants as a defeat? This paper from the Institute of Development Studies explores the divergent interpretations of the case, focusing on two towns in the Northern Cape: Prieska and Griquatown. Ultimately, Griquatown's geographical marginalisation from the process led residents to perceive the case in local religious and cultural terms rather than in international justice terms.     
Access full text: available online

Power needs to be understood in relation to how spaces of engagement are created, the levels of power within these and different forms of power across them.

Gaventa, J., 2006, ‘Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 6, Pp.23-33
Access to full text via document delivery will be available soon.

It is essential to consider who participates, on what basis and whose interests they represent.

Lavalle, A.G., Houtzager, P., and Castello, G., 2005, ‘In Whose Name? Political Representation and Civil Organisations in Brazil’, IDS Working Paper 249, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Civil organisations (COs) have become representatives of particular segments of the population in design, implementation and monitoring of public policy. But who are they representing, and how is this representation constructed? This Institute of Development Studies working paper examines the dilemma of how an organisation engaged in representational activities establishes that representativeness: Elections, membership, or something else? Findings from a survey of COs in São Paulo, Brazil, demonstrate that their representative function is principally one of mediation between the poorly or under-represented, and the State.
Access full text: available online

Even where the opportunities to engage exist, certain policy decisions may be off limits to the ordinary citizen due to structural barriers, cultural barriers, fear, dependency relations or lack of self-confidence. Women are often excluded on the basis of these barriers.

Clisby, S., 2005, ‘Gender Mainstreaming or Just More Male-streaming? Experiences of popular participation in Bolivia’, Oxfam
The Law of Popular Participation (LPP) in Bolivia represents the first significant attempt by policy makers in the region to mainstream gender into a national development initiative. The LPP aims to increase the prominence of women in local politics and development spheres. But has it in fact had the effect of displacing women from their traditional forms of political activism?  This paper from Oxfam examines how a lack of effective, systematic gendered analysis of structural barriers to women's participation and inadequate capacity building have impacted on the achievement of the LPP's intended goal.
Access full text: available online

Simply getting female (or other marginalised) bodies into existing political structures and formal institutions does not guarantee space for meaningful participation in politics. Achieving true participation may require changing political systems to make them genuinely inclusive.

Cornwall, A. and Goetz, A.M., 2005, ‘Democratising Democracy: Feminist Perspectives’, Democratisation, Vol. 12, No. 5, Pp. 783-800
Increasing numbers of women have gained entry to formal political spaces. To what extent has this translated into their political influence, or into gains in policies that redress gendered inequities and inequalities? This article, from Democratization, explores the factors that affect and enable women’s political effectiveness in different democratic arenas. It argues that women’s political interests are not necessarily influenced by sex, but by their  “political apprenticeship”, or pathway into politics. To enhance the potential of women’s political participation, democracy itself must be democratized; including building new pathways into politics.
Access full text via document delivery. Please see document summary.
 

Accountability and responsiveness of the state, donors and civil society

Efforts to strengthen voice and participation need to be accompanied by state mechanisms to ensure accountability and responsiveness. Accountability mechanisms can be formal top-down processes (e.g., elections, hearings, consultations) or bottom-up strategies (e.g., citizen juries, popular protests, participatory budgeting).

The ability to demand accountability and the capacity and willingness to respond to calls for accountability assumes relations of power between the state, civil society and market actors.

Newell, P. and Wheeler, J., 2006, ‘Taking Accountability into Account’, in Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability, Zed Books, London
Access to full text via document delivery will be available soon.

Accountability is not limited to the state. One of the most complex challenges facing civil society organizations is the question of their legitimacy as social and political actors and their accountability to key stakeholders.

Jagadanda and Brown, L.D., 2005, ‘Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability: Issues and Challenges’, paper prepared for the Program on Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability of CIVICUS and the Hauser Center.
What are the challenges to the legitimacy and accountability of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and how can these be addressed? This draft scoping report from the World Alliance for Citizen Participation (CIVICUS) and the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations analyses existing systems and practices for responding to these challenges. It suggests steps for developing systems to enhance the legitimacy and accountability of CSOs and multi-organisation domains.
Access full text: available online

There are no direct accountability mechanisms for holding donors to account, although the need for downwards accountability of donors and other international development organisations is becoming increasingly acknowledged.

Eyben, R. and Ferguson, C., 2005, ‘How Can Donors Become More Accountable to Poor People?’, in L. Groves and R. Hinton, Inclusive Aid: Changing Power and Relationships in International Development, Earthscan, London
How Can Donors Become More Accountable to Poor People? This chapter from 'Inclusive Aid: Changing Power and Relationships in International Development' explores the new pressures placed on stakeholders who have begun to adopt a rights-based approach to accountability in terms of power, procedures and relationships. Although highly problematic, this process is a positive step towards Northern governments being prepared to be held accountable by poor people in the South.
Access to full text via document delivery will be available soon.

New additions