Citizen Engagement Purpose of the module To provide relevant - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citizen Engagement

Purpose of the module

• To provide relevant knowledge

– Inclusion/engagement of the citizens – Participation of the citizens in policy making

• To train skills

– opportunities for more collaborative and open governance

Expectations

• Understanding both importance of citizen

participation/engagement in policy making processes

• Being aware of pros´ and cons´ of inclusion and

participation/engagement of the citizens within relevant stages of policy cycles

• orientation in the present relevant Ukrainian and

Slovak legislation, as well as European recommendations;

• readiness to propose participatory tools for more

efficient or more intensive citizen participation/engagement

Development in Slovakia: 1990s (I)

• Development after the WWII
• 1989: Velvet „revolution“
• Since late 1989: democratization

– The democratization in Slovakia was everything but simple and straight-lined (Szomolányi, 2004). During the mid-1990s the political situation in the Slovak Republic was characterized by the absence of consensual elite issuing into the polarity of society. Although levers had already been created for public to access the policy-making process in the early 1990s , strengthening public participation was not really a priority.

Development in Slovakia: 1990s (II)

• 1993: independence

– Own path of development – Problems with the EU accession process

• 1998: turning point

– After the parliamentary (general) election, party

• f the Prime Minister was not capable to establish

sufficient governing majority, and the opposition took power – Large scale of reform processes

Development in Slovakia: 2000s

• Heavily influenced by en effort to enter the EU
• Many legal amendments or brand new acts, e.g.

act on free access to public information

• Nowadays, Slovak legislation contains a sufficient

package of tools for the citizens to take part in all relevant policy making processes

Slovakia: constitutional provisions

Rights/freedoms/liberties Right/freedom/liberty belongs to: Everyone Citizens Guarantee

• f

nondiscrimination ■ Guarantee

• f

absence

• f

forced labor or services ■ (possible legal exceptions) Freedom

• f

thought and conscience ■ (conditions) Freedom of speech ■ (conditions) Right to information ■ (conditions) Right of petition ■ (conditions) Right to assemble ■ (conditions) Right to associate freely ■ (conditions) Right to strike ■ (conditions) Right to establish political parties ■ (conditions) Right to participate in the administration of public affairs – self-government issues ■ (conditions) Right to participate in the administration of public affairs ■ (conditions) Right to access to the elected or

• ther public posts

■ (conditions) Right to initiate referendum and to participate in it ■ (conditions) Right to appeal to the court for reexamine the lawfulness

• f

decision of public administration body ■ (conditions) Right to use mother language in dealings with the authorities ■ (conditions) Right to participate in the solution of affairs concerning national minority or ethnic group ■ (conditions) Right to put up resistance ■ (conditions)

Source: Iancu and Klimovský, 2008

Engagement in policy making

Implementing

the policy

Formulating

the policy

Assessing

the policy

Taking the decision Setting the policy agenda 1 2 3 4 5

Source: Iancu and Klimovský, 2008

Citizen engagement/participation

• Gramberger (2001):

– Information – Consultation – Active participation

• According to:

– Initiator (either public authority or citizens) – Direction of initiatives (either from or towards citizens)

Engagement in policy making

Implementing

the policy

Formulating

the policy

Assessing

the policy

Taking the decision Setting the policy agenda 1 2 3 4 5

Source: Iancu and Klimovský, 2008

Pros´ and cons´ of citizen engagement

• Discussion

Case study 1 (Slovakia)

• Introduction of performance budgeting in

Oravská Lesná

• Municipality with more than 2,000 citizens
• According to law, all municipalities with more

than 2,000 citizens had to implement PB in 2009

Source of case study: based on research done by D. Klimovský within project No. APVV-0880-12

Case study 1 (Slovakia)

• Mayor was against the PB and also the local

civil servants

• Members of local councils were in favour of

the PB and also majority of the citizens

Case study 1 (Slovakia)

• Initiative 1: the members of the local council asked

the Supreme Audit Office for inspection

• The SAO confirmed that the local government had

broken the legal requirements and asked for a remedy

• The members of the local council were ready to call

for referendum on recall mayor if there is no remedy

• Initiative 2: the citizens signed petition for respect
• f law (otherwise they were ready to recall mayor)

Case study 1 (Slovakia)

• Under the pressure from the side of local

council and the citizens, the mayor (together with local public servants) prepared performance budget

Case study 2

• Existence of segregated Roma community in

Letanovce

– The Roma settlement was without electricity,

• fficial water supply, etc. (high morbidity of

children, school attendance was very low, high level of criminality...)

• The local government in Letanovce decided to

remove the Roma settlement to other area

Source of case study: based on research done for „Klimovský, D. 2008. NIMBY syndróm v slovenských podmienkach na príklade riešenia problému existencie rómskej osady v

• Letanovciach. Verejná správa a spoločnosť, 9(1-2): 65-76.“

Case study 2

• New area (Strelníky):

– Better living conditions BUT – Much longer distance from Letanovce – Much shorter distance from neighbouring municipality called Spišský Štvrtok

• Result: NIMBYsm

Case study 2

• The citizens of Spišský Štvrtok signed petition

and called for public hearing in order to stop the removal of the Roma settlement in Letanovce to the locality of Strelníky

• Main argument: the local government of

Letanovce wants to transfer the problem to their municipality, because it could be expected that the Roma community would start to use infrastructure of Spišský Štvrtok which would be much closer to their new settlement

Case study 2

• After the first unsuccessful round of public

hearing where nobody from Letanovce came, the citizens from Spišský Štvrtok initiated meeting with the Government Commissioner and asked for help

• The GC tried to moderate negotiation between

the local governments in these municipalities and the result was a compromise, but rather disadvantageous for the Roma settlement

Case study 2

• Citizen engagement was initiated due to

NIMBY syndrome, and it led to unsufficient „solution“

Discussion

• Where is any limit of citizen

engagement/participation?

• Why can one find phenomena like NIMBYsm
• r tyranny of majority within citizen

engagement/participation?