Opinion By the people

Greater public participation must be combined with sound decision-making. The challenge is to manage these processes.

AAp continued with its strategy of pitting candidates against political heavyweights in its second list of 30 names for the Lok Sabha elections announced on Thursday.

February 8, 2014 05:33 AM IST First published on: Feb 8, 2014 at 12:12 AM IST

Aam Aadmi Party is making efforts to introduce more participation in governance by referendums to determine the people’s will and mass meetings to resolve their problems.

Arun Maira

The Aam Aadmi Party is making efforts to introduce more participation in governance by referendums to determine the people’s will and mass meetings to resolve their problems. More democratic participation in decision-making has become necessary in the 21st century, not only as an ideological preference but also as a practical necessity. Advances in communications and information technologies — ubiquitous cellphones, the internet, social media — and a hyperactive media, have transformed the speed with which citizens become engaged with issues. Established executive and legal processes are not designed for sufficient citizens’ participation. Therefore, new processes are required for citizens’ participation in a structured manner, to enable new options to be systematically considered and for consensus to emerge. However, as the AAP’s efforts so far have shown, the management of these processes is not easy. The challenge is to combine more public participation with sound decision-making.

Broadly speaking, institutional methods with which democracies resolve disputes and find solutions can be divided into three categories: Method A is the adversarial method. Courts hear adversarial arguments. They pass judgments. One side wins,
the other loses. It is the rule of law.

Method B is the bureaucratic method. Ministries represent their positions. Expert views are sought. Authorities decide. This is the role of the executive. Method C is the collaborative method. Stakeholders listen to each other. Desired outcomes are agreed to. Various options are generated and considered. This is the role that democratic institutions are expected to perform, in which citizens or their representatives deliberate. Such institutions range from elected assemblies to participative planning processes.
Each of these methods has its protocols, its established procedures, and its professionals. These methods are not substitutable for each other because each is designed for a purpose. The adversarial method of the legal system is good to answer singular questions posed to it. It is not an appropriate method for developing multi-faceted solutions to complex problems. The latter is the domain of the executive with its bureaucratic method. The bureaucratic method can consider many facets of an issue. However, its established protocols and procedures make it operate in silos. It is not very effective when “out of the box” and systemic solutions are required. Moreover, its methods are unsuitable to resolve ideological differences.

Method C, the collaborative method, is the default process to which democracies must turn when the bureaucratic method is stymied by deep differences amongst stakeholders. However, if good processes for democratic deliberation are not used when required, problems tend to oscillate between methods A and B without any resolution. For example, groups of ministers (GoMs) hear all sides and try to find solutions, but the solutions do not stick. Then people turn to the Supreme Court for resolution, which the executive sees as an encroachment on its domain. The longer the system is frustrated by bureaucratic failure to find an acceptable solution and the more it relies on legal or adversarial approaches for resolution, the deeper differences between stakeholders become. This is the swamp into which debates in India on several issues are sinking: environmental regulation, labour laws, and prices of medicines, for example. Policy change is paralysed by contentions, and projects are stuck in disputes. Therefore, investments are not flowing in and growth is stalling.

Method C processes have defined protocols of engagement and procedures for their work, just as legal and bureaucratic processes have their own. They too require professional capabilities. In all these cases, technology can facilitate the process. It cannot replace the institutions and processes of courts, government, Parliament and other democratic bodies. Of late, the Planning Commission has been searching the world and the country too for the best processes for converting contentions amongst stakeholders into collaboration, and confusion in plans into coordination. It has become imperative for the country to adopt such processes so that it can convert its developmental intentions into implementation.

Many countries are developing and applying new “Method C” processes. An example is a special office set up by the Danish parliament to use a process called the “consensus conference” for deliberative consultations. This capacity is made available to commissions and government entities for consultation with citizens on difficult issues. The process of “Deliberative Polling” has been introduced in China for citizens to determine what infrastructure should be built in their city. Another example is “Pemandu”, a systematic process introduced in Malaysia for engaging all stakeholders concerned with a national issue, such as improvement of education or development of an industrial sector. This process is facilitated by a special unit attached to the prime minister’s office.
The Planning Commission has developed a process for spreading the use of such deliberative processes across the country. Called the India Backbone Implementation Network (IbIn), this process is modelled on that used in Japan in the 1970s to spread the use of total quality management (TQM) techniques with which Japan was able to transform the performance of its public and private enterprises. Corporations, professionals, government — all participated in building the TQM movement and, with it, the rapid progress of the country.

The evolution of Indian democracy requires innovations of new democratic processes for citizens’ participation. IbIn is the seed of a network of civil society organisations, business associations, and government agencies committed to accelerating the country’s progress by the application of better methods for stakeholder engagement in developing and implementing solutions.

The writer is member, Planning Commission