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 of 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 Right/freedom/liberty belongs to: Rights/freedoms/liberties ■ Right to establish political parties Everyone Citizens (conditions) Guarantee of Right to participate in the ■ ■ nondiscrimination administration of public affairs – (conditions) ■ self-government issues Guarantee of absence of (possible ■ Right to participate in the forced labor or services legal administration of public affairs (conditions) exceptions) ■ Right to access to the elected or ■ Freedom of thought and other public posts (conditions) conscience (conditions) ■ Right to initiate referendum and ■ to participate in it (conditions) Freedom of speech (conditions) Right to appeal to the court for ■ ■ reexamine the lawfulness of Right to information (conditions) decision of public administration (conditions) ■ body Right of petition (conditions) ■ Right to use mother language in ■ dealings with the authorities (conditions) Right to assemble (conditions) Right to participate in the ■ ■ solution of affairs concerning (conditions) Right to associate freely national minority or ethnic group (conditions) ■ ■ Right to strike Right to put up resistance (conditions) (conditions) Source: Iancu and K limovský , 2008
Engagement in policy making Setting the 5 1 policy agenda Assessing Formulating the policy the policy 4 2 Implementing Taking the decision the policy 3 Source: Iancu and K limovský , 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 Setting the 5 1 policy agenda Assessing Formulating the policy the policy 4 2 Implementing Taking the decision the policy 3 Source: Iancu and K limovský , 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 of 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, official 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 or tyranny of majority within citizen engagement/participation?
Recommend
More recommend
