Home >> Contributions >> Understanding Participation

Conclusions

This section tries to explore the links between the discussion on the idea of participation in Section II and the discussion on how participation gets operationalised in local resource management projects in Section III.It is evident that arguments from which advocates of participation might draw their support – onebased on efficiency, the other on equity/empowerment – do not capture the reality of thedynamics of community participation, if they do not take into account certain factors. Thesefactors being the fact that a community can constitute a social capital but it does not necessarilyconstitute a good social capital, and is usually a space of hierarchies, power differentials andsocio-economic disparities; and the fact that privileging the local in policy formulations withoutunderstanding this important characteristic of communities could mean the sanctioning ofdifferences of money and social power, which in turn could mean the exclusion of those who do not have such power.

The recognition has to come in theory, in the form of acknowledging the idea of difference andpower in these arguments; and in practice, in the form of change in policies that want to ensure'people's' participation in the decision-making processes. To this end, the realisation that face-tofaceinteractions, which characterise local communities, are imbued with all kinds of meanings isneeded. For example, when access to certain resources and spaces is restricted because oftraditions and local ideas of appropriate access, it is difficult to ensure that participation of allsections of society would take place. Similarly, if norms of accepted behaviour do not allow forassertive articulation of self-interest by certain sections of the community, then mere participationwould not result in the inclusion of varied interests, knowledge and opinions of those sections. Ifthe participants do not have any knowledge of the workings of the decision-making bodies, theyare not going to be participating but are going to be just present in these bodies. If the items onthe agenda of these bodies do not concern the participants, they are not going to be interested inparticipating. And if certain sections of the community have the wherewithal to ensure that theparticipants are of their choosing, then the starting point of participation, inclusion, would beundermined and would become exclusion.13In terms of concrete policy implications, legislation is important because, through it, spaces ofdecision-making are opened up to local communities.

Legislation encouraging and ensuringparticipation in the long-term leads to institutionalisation and routinisation of certain norms, whichmake participatory decision-making a given. However, it is important to note that procedures ofelectoral representation do not necessarily ensure accountable representation. "Rural elitesalways try to manipulate candidacies, electoral processes and persons in elected or otherleadership positions. Inclusive processes cannot create accountable representation: they simplymake it a possible outcome of struggle among various rural strata" [Ribot 1998]. Some might beable to take advantage of the opportunity provided by such processes (India's experience withpanchayats, where certain communities seem to have taken advantage of this possibility, is anoft-quoted example in this regard) and many others might not on account of their relativedeprivation. In this context, the importance of appropriate legislation that provides for the presence of disadvantaged sections (like provision for reservations) cannot but be underscored. In the example of JFM in India, many scholars repeatedly point out that the rule of one-member-per householdin JFM, which was followed by most states, initially managed to exclude womenaltogether [Agarwal 2001].14 It is the law, in this case, which gave itself to manipulation by bothtradition and interests. Social mores do not usually see women occupying certain spaces – here, public decision-making – and this gets reflected in the predominantly male composition of these bodies.

The loophole was provided by there being no explicit mention of how many women thereshould be in these bodies. As a corollary, provisions should also be made to address situations in which the decisions of themajority at the local level are coercive, inegalitarian and even illegal. The majority community in a particular village, for instance, might pass resolutions to exclude access to certain resources inthe village to smaller, disadvantaged communities. Some kind of statutory agency, which makessure that the decisions taken in these bodies are at the least legal and fair, is essential. To thisend, what also needs to be ensured is that there is minimum multiplication of authority betweenvarious resource management bodies. After all, in the same village, there can exist a forestmanagement body as well as a watershed management group. Duplication of authority in thesetwo – a very likely prospect given the common electorate – can give one dominant group a lot ofpower. Likewise, if the same group is represented in the local legislative and executive body(panchayats in the case of Indian villages), there might be a multiplication of the authority andpower of this one dominant group. One way out could be that the legislative bodies like thepanchayats, form and coordinate resource management agencies and ensure that nobodybelongs to more than one such agency. However, legislation is not enough because even when participation is ensured persons belonging to certain sections (such as women or lower castes) might feel too intimidated and inhibited in a public forum to express their interests and concerns in any form. For this reason, the idea of knowledge transference and skill formation is important, because given their peculiar situation in society certain disadvantaged sections might not be equipped well enough to participate effectively in decision-making. This would mean intervention from outside. However, as is stressed by many, this intervention in itself has to be participatory so that it can focus its attention on the kind of input that is needed according to the ground situation on the ground.15Another way to ensure effective participation by most sections could be by encouraging the sharing of costs by beneficiaries of the resources in terms of money or labour. The idea behind this being that it would encourage a sense of partnership and dignity, as also of responsibility. Finally, it is important to reiterate that all these provisions and legislations can become truly participatory only under an overarching democratic framework of the state, so as to ensure that they do not lead to regimented and closed systems extending the coercive state powers to the local level.16

1. For an informative discussion on the typology of participation see Agarwal (2001:1623-1648).
2. Amartya Sen being the most famous of them all. According to the capability approach, the goal of public policy is to enlarge a person's functioning and capacity to function or expand the range of things that a person can do and be in his/her life.
3. See for a representative work their most famous book, Participation and Political Equality : A Seven- Nation Comparison (ed), Sidney Verba, Norman H Nie, Jae-on Kim, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1978.
4. A work that discusses the various strands of such a political theory is Democracy and Difference (ed), Seyla Benhabib, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1996.
5. Entitlements are defined as basic ownership relationships that we are legitimately entitled to. They might be trade-based, production-based, own-labour, and/or inheritance and transfer entitlements. See Amartya Sen, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford University Press, London, 1981.
6. See (1986), 'Under the Cooking Pot: The Political Economy of the Domestic Fuel Crisis in South Asia', IDS Bulletin, 1987, Vol 18, No 1, pp 11-22; 'The Diffusion of Rural Innovations and the Case of Wood- Burning Stoves', World Development, Vol 11, No 4, pp 359-76.
7. This had been preceded by success stories of participatory forest management in West Bengal, Haryana and Gujarat.
8. Defined as 'the resources accessible to the whole community of a village and to which no individual has exclusive rights', N S Jodha, 'Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions of India', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 31, No 27, 1996, pp 1169-81.
9. As Agarwal puts it, empowerment refers to 'a process which enhances the ability of disadvantaged individuals or groups to challenge and change (in their favour) existing power relationships that place them in subordinate economic, social and political positions'. Quoted in Ruth S Meinzen et al, 'Gender, Property Rights and Natural Resources', World Development, Vol 25, No 8, 1997, pp 1303-15. This change actually gets reflected in the policy and academic world – from women in development approach to women and development and later gender and development approach.
10. Chipko movement, for the protection of forests, in the Uttranchal state, from the onslaught of contractors authorised by the state to cut the trees, started almost entirely by women, is a classical illustration of the stakes of women in the preservation of forests for their survival.
11. The following discussion borrows from ibid; Bina Agarwal, 1986, op cit, Bina Agarwal, 'Environmental Action, Gender Equity and Women's Participation', Development and Change, 1997, Vol 28, No 1, pp 1-44; Bina Agarwal, 'Conceptualising Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender Matters', Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2000, Vol 24, pp 283-310; C Locke, op cit; Kameswari op cit, Sarin, op cit; Debnarayan Sarkar and Nimai Das, 'Women's Participation in Forestry: Some Theoretical Issues', Economic and Political Weekly, October 26, 2002.
12. There is an interesting discussion in Agarwal (2001) and Locke (1999) about one of the reasons given by foresters for encouraging women's participation – that women present a major 'problem' for male field staff when they are policing the forests as they are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment by these women if they are approached (another reason being that they are too shy to be approached). Leaving aside the problematic nature of such claims, this example goes to show how inclusion of women is premised on reasons of utility.
13. Except perhaps in a very homogeneous tribal society.
14. Subsequent to such criticism many states have institutionalised reservations for women in these bodies.
15. See for instance the essays in Guijt and Shah.
16. See the last part of Section II.