|
|
November 2001 Insights Issue
#38
Back
to Insights #38
Pro-poor democracy?
Does representative
democracy give poor people a voice? Do municipal decision makers respond
to poor people's needs and priorities? Can the poor lodge complaints
when services fail to operate adequately? Is a combination of formal
structures of representative democracy and mechanisms permitting organised
political engagement the answer?
Research on the
responsiveness to poor residents of political systems in ten cities
found that:
- Ward-based elections
allow greater responsiveness of councillors to their constituents
than do party list electoral systems.
- Proportional
representation or mixed systems may give better representation to
minorities.
- Quota systems
(India, the Philippines) attempt to ensure adequate representation
of different groups (for example women or minorities) but how can
such representatives be held to account?
- An elected executive
mayor may deliver more decisive city government and clearer accountability
than an executive council system. Yet, the latter depends on whether
the legislature can exercise effective scrutiny whilst a mayor's responsiveness
to the needs of the poor is linked to his or her dependence on their
votes.
- Where political
office is held for a single short term, priority is often given to
visible, rapid achievements rather than longer term improvement of
basic services - usually more relevant to the poor.
Formal structures
of representative democracy are important, as is organised political
engagement. There is a need for poor groups to move the political process
beyond clientelistic relationships, towards open political bargaining.
Additional democratic mechanisms are perhaps needed to ensure participation
by poor people in policy making, project planning and service operation,
such as:
- integration
of organised interests into the political structure, as in Recife,
Cebu and Johannesburg
- formal consultation
of interests
- involvement in
budgeting, as in Recife, and service management
- participatory
democracy at the neighbourhood level, as in Colombo's informal settlement
upgrading programme
- an elected sub-city
level of government (in large cities) with real resources to help
bring decision-making closer to the poor.
A combination of
representative and participatory democracy and different accountability
mechanisms (elections, public meetings, free media, controls by the
municipality, central government or the judiciary) can in principle
produce city government that is responsive to poor citizens. In practice
however, real dilemmas exist in resolving competing demands, whilst
clientelism and informal political relationships are pervasive. Most
cities - not just those in this study - fall short of an ideal of democratic
inclusive politics.
Ways of ensuring
that political systems and processes result in appropriate local governance
for poor urban residents include:
- design of electoral
arrangements that give a voice to poor people and mechanisms that
ensure accountability
- provision for
closer involvement by residents in decision making at city and local
levels
- careful appraisal
by donors of local political processes to ensure they engage with
appropriate institutions - NGOs and community organisations - and
with city government
- design of donor-supported
interventions to strengthen the position of poor people.
Carole Rakodi
Department of City and Regional Planning
Cardiff University
Glamorgan Building
King Edward VII Avenue
Cardiff CF10 3WA
UK
T +44 (0)29 2087
5781
rakodi@cardiff.ac.uk
|
|
| FREE Information Delivery services
from ID21: |
 |
| ID21 is enabled by the UK Government
Department for International Development(www.dfid.gov.uk) and hosted by the Institute
of Development Studies (www.ids.ac.uk/ids), at the University of Sussex,
UK. Charitable Company No. 877338. ID21 is a oneworld.net
(www.oneworld.org) partner and a mediachannel
affiliate (www.mediachannel.org). |
Right-to-Reply:
Comment on any of the issues
raised in this Insights.
Read what others have said.
|
