Bijlhout s
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Bijlhout s

on

  • 279 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
279
Views on SlideShare
279
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Bijlhout s Bijlhout s Document Transcript

    •                                           FHR Institute for Social Studies   Individual study project Master of Public Administration in Governance 2008-2010 PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL THE DOMBURG CASE Student; Sandra A. Bijlhout FHRISS0308028 May 2010 Supervisor: Dr. S. Bergh This paper was submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Public administration in Governance degree 
    •   Acknowledgment ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.  Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 4  1.1.  Background .............................................................................................................................................. 4  1.2.  Research problem.................................................................................................................................. 5  1.3.  Research questions ............................................................................................................................... 5  1.4.  Relevance and justification .............................................................................................................. 6  1.5.  Research method ................................................................................................................................... 6  1.6.   Limitations and problems ............................................................................................................ 8 2.  The theory of citizens’ participation .................................................................................................... 9  2.1.  Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 9  2.2.  Representation: does it work? ........................................................................................................ 9  2.2.1.  Representative democracy and direct democracy .................................................... 9  2.2.2.  Quorum of participants ........................................................................................................ 12  2.3.  Analytical framework ...................................................................................................................... 13  2.3.1.  The obstacles and conditions for citizens participation .................................... 13  2.3.2.  Types of participation ........................................................................................................... 15  2.4.  Decentralization .................................................................................................................................. 16  2.5  Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 17 3.  Practicing participation in Suriname ............................................................................................... 18  3.1.  Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 18  3.2.  Legislation ............................................................................................................................................. 18  3.2.1.  The constitution ........................................................................................................................ 18  3.2.2.  The law on regional bodies ................................................................................................ 19  3.3.  Decentralization and strengthening of the local government program ................ 20  3.3.1.  Goal and Components of the program ........................................................................ 20  3.3.2.  The framework for citizens participation .................................................................. 21  3.4.  Participation in Domburg .............................................................................................................. 22  3.4.1.  Domburg: a short view ......................................................................................................... 22 ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 3.4.2.  What has been done so far? ............................................................................................... 23  . 3.5  Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 25 4.  The results of the inquiry ....................................................................................................................... 26  4.1.  Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 26  4.2.  Analysis of the focus group and interviews ........................................................................ 26  . 4.3.  Relationship of some questions .................................................................................................. 29 5.  Conclusions and policy recommendations ................................................................................... 31 6.  References ...................................................................................................................................................... 33  Annex 1: New organization structure of the districts  Annex 2: Questionnaire  Annex 3: focus of interviewISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • Acknowledgment One of the last parts of the study Master in Public Administration is to write a paper. Itwas a great experience for me to learn different things, the most important ones were toplan as realistic as possible and to stick to my planning.The different modules especially ‘Democracy: Principles and Approaches’ , ‘ Politicsand Public administration and ‘Public Sector and Change Management’ moved me tochose for the subject on participation.I show my gratitude to those people mentioned below because supported me throughthe study period: • my mother Joyce Belfor, my husband Rinaldo Panka and my niece Mary-Joy Belfor, • Iris Gilliad and Helianthe Hew A Kee especially with their knowledge on respectively participation and English • Mr Hans Lim A Po was a great mentor during the study and especially in the part of writing the paper. I experienced him as a motivator, who want to get the best out of you.Most of all I Thank the Almighty God, who gave me the strength to come this far.Sandra A. BijlhoutMay 2010     ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 1. Introduction1.1. BackgroundWithin decentralization there are different processes which allow the emergence of thevoices heard. In which way and how far you should go to hear the voices of the citizensis still a point for discussion.The constitution of Suriname states, that the function and operation mode of theregional bodies should be in such a manner that it should be in accordance with theprinciples of participatory democracy, and decentralization of administration andlegislation. In the districts of Suriname, the regional bodies are the District Council, theResort Council and the District Executive Body.The members of the District Council have been elected indirectly through general, freeand fair elections. The District Council is put together on the basis of the votes a certainpolitical party gets for the Resort Councils. The functioning of these organizations isstipulated in the law on Regional Bodies, announced in 1989, at the execution of theConstitution.It was not until 1998, that there were steps taken to implement the tasks of the regionalbodies into operation. This was because of the “Decentralization and Strengthening ofthe Local Government Program” (DLGP).The program was financed by the International Development Bank (IDB) (90%) and theGovernment of Suriname (10%). To implement this program approval was neededfrom the National Assembly. The debate within the National Assembly focused on thecomponents and the financing of the program, for it was an amount of USD 7 million.To implement this program, 5 districts were selected as a pilot of which Wanica is one. .Wanica consist of 7 resorts: De Nieuwe Grond, Kwatta, Domburg, Saramacca Polder,Houttuin, Lelydorp and Koewarasan.The implementation of the DLGP, the so called “decentralization program” started in2002, with the main goal to strengthen the local governments for self budget andfinancial management. The strengthening of the regional bodies 1 is also part of thisprogram, which consists of 5 components. One of these components is citizensparticipation.The law on regional bodies was the starting point for the decentralization program inSuriname. Although this law authorizes the local government to do different things                                                        1 Regional bodies has the responsibility to represent the citizens ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 2 within the district, there were no regulations that defined this in detail. So in practice itwas not working.To implement the program it was necessary to have these regulations. The programimplementation unit worked with consultants to make this regulation, so they could beapproved by the National Assembly. The time between starting and implementing wasalso necessary for training and recruiting personnel for the new divisions of thecommissariat. The commissariat is the government at the local level.The law on regional bodies of 1989 describes that both the district council, and theresort council should take the wishes and comments of the citizens into account in theplanning process of the resorts and district plans and budgets.The process to draw up the plan and budget for the year 2008, began in 2007 . In 2009,there was also a participatory process to draw up the plan and budget for 2010. The lastone was in 2010 to draw up the plan and budget for the year 2011.To prepare these budgets and plans, the law demands that the citizens must have theopportunity to be heard through public hearings.1.2. Research problemIn short, the problem can be defined as: In spite of many investments in citizensparticipation outreach, the citizens of the resort of Domburg participate insufficientlyin the policy making process. The number of people that are involved in the resort ofDomburg cannot be seen as representatives of the citizens.1.3. Research questions What is the state of participatory democracy at the local level in Domburg, followingthe introduction of new participatory planning mechanisms in the DLGP in 2007?In order to discuss this problem, the research questions of the thesis are as follows: − what were the motivations behind introducing the DLGP at the national level? − Which actors play a role in the participation process? − what are the root/structural causes for the level of participation − what are the conditions for high levels of citizen participation and to what extent are they fulfilled in Domburg?                                                        2 For self management there was no district fund in place ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 1.4. Relevance and justificationBecause of the Decentralization and Strengthening of Local Government Programprocesses were put in place to make it possible for citizens to participate in the decisionmaking process. Now it seems to be a good time to assess the experience of thisprogram so far and to find out whether it has led to a higher level of participation andby extension to better planning or more responsive government. especially inDomburg which is one of the seven jurisdictions of the district Wanica. Thisjurisdiction is the smallest within the district, and I thought that being that small itwould be less difficult to get people involved in the decision- making processThe ressort council of Domburg has weekly meetings and as the law requires, thesemeetings are public meetings.Although the findings of this thesis are not a representation of the whole district, itwould be possible that some of this information can be applied to other jurisdictions.1.5. Research methodTo give answer to the research question I used the following sources: • Questionnaire:This questionnaire was intended for the citizens of Domburg (sample). The number ofpeople living there is 5.700. The information about the population, I got from theRegistry Office of the Ministry of Internal affairs. I requested the addresses of thepeople living in the resort of Domburg, who were 18 years and older. The reason why Ichose for this age is that in Suriname one can vote from the age of 18 years. In my viewthey will be the ones who need to take part in the decision- making processes inDomburg.To have the sample as required in science, I used the information (how to process thedata in excel and (and) how to draw a random check ) I got from the first workshop onthesis writing. The results of this questionnaire gave me information about forexample the reasons why people participate or not.The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions from which 5 give some information aboutthe individual (age, gender, education).The questions from 6 to 15 are about the participation in meetings of both the resortcouncil and the district council. The rest of the questions are about the way the personwants to be informed and wants to participate.The survey: Population and random check ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • The information showed that there are 4127 people starting from the age of 18 years thatlive in Domburg. The information I got, was on the age, gender and address. From thesedata, I learned that there is a small difference of 221 between men and women, so I didnot make a distinction in the population to draw a random check.Because the information of ethnic groups was not available for me at that moment, Ialso did not take this aspect into account to make a distinction within the population forthe random check.The programs on the websites (www.surveysystem.com, 1982) (www.random.org,1997) made it possible for me to draw a random check.On the first website I chose for a confidence interval of 95 % and an confidence level of5. Given the number of 4127 people within the population, the sample size needed was352 people.The program on the second website gives the numbers that are in the random check. Inumbered the population from 1 – 4127, and with the numbers given from this websiteit was possible to see the addresses which I needed for the survey. • Interviews with:Members of regional bodies, the District Commissioner and the Managing Director ofthe DGLP. With these interviews, I got information about the policy of the districtwhen it comes to participation of citizens and about the decentralization program itself.I also did group interviews with citizens who went to 2 or more f the 4 hearing thatwere organized by the ressort council. I got relevant information about the reason whycitizens would choose to go to a hearing and if they experienced any progress. • Literature on the subject:from the literature I got useful information to get a clear view on the subjectThe resort plans of Domburg and minutes from the hearings :these document had useful information about what happen during the hearings andwhat the results were. • The focus groups:The members of the resort council: to have their opinion about citizens participationand how they reach out to the citizens. The members of the districts council: I attended 2 meetings in which the memberswere busy with the district’s plan.The districts commissioner: as the manager, what the policy is when it comes tocitizens participation.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • Officials from Ministry of Regional affairs: those were directly involved in the planningprocess.These focus group meetings and interviews were done in the period of the 24th ofNovember –the 12th of January.The questionnaire and the focus group guides are in index 1 and 2.1.6. Limitations and problems I had some problems with the survey. I did not do the whole survey, becausesometimes I did not have enough persons to help me to distribute and collect theforms. So I chose to do an amount of 100, and added more focus group interviews.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 2. The theory of citizens’ participation 2.1. Introduction The degree to which participation takes place, can be looked at from both the representative and direct democracy. In this chapter, the focus will be on the pros and cons of both the representative and direct democracy. It will also describe the number of persons that participates in the planning process. There are some obstacles for citizens’ participation to be effective, but there are also some ways to overcome some of them. In this chapter there will be a description about this. Different countries have their own way of dealing with participation; in sub chapter 2.4 4 cases will be discussed from the point of the topics of the participants and the legal frame work. Sub chapter 2.5. gives a brief conclusion of this chapter. 2.2. Representation: does it work?  2.2.1. Representative democracy and direct democracy It often happens that scholars or philosophers do not have one way of thinking about an issue. This is also the case with democracy. One of the discussions about democracy is, whether is should be direct or representative. The philosophers on direct democracy were of the opinion that if the citizens exercise their political power, there is no need for institutions to speak on behalf of the citizens. The latter were of the opinion that the needs of the citizens, particularly those of bigger communities, only can be expressed by representative institutions. Jacques Rousseau was one the philosophers who thought that direct democracy was only possible in smaller communities where the citizens had a larger degree of independence, and where there were small differences between the rich and the poor. He was of the opinion that when the political community becomes bigger there is a need for assessment of direct democracy (Fennema, 2001, p. 8). Some arguments against direct democracy are (Verhulst & Nijeboer, 2007; Fennema, 2001,p.9): a. Incapacity of the citizens: in the modern society the problems are too complex, therefore the citizens are not able to take a well-considered decision; b. lack of responsibility: citizens do not look any further than their own interests. If the decision is taken by the citizens, no one can be held responsible for possible negative results of such a decision; ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • c. threat for minorities: within the direct democracy, decisions can be taken which violate human rights. This is a threat for mostly the minorities; d. power of money: those with money can dominate the discussion in such a way that only their interest is taken into account. e. the representative democracy gives the opportunity to take the best people out of the community to deal with political decision- making processes. Emmanuel Sieyes was one the philosophers who argued that citizens should leave the decision- making to those who can do it better. f. Practical reasons: you could not involve all citizens in the decision making process.Barber (Barber, 1984, p. 145) argues that there are weaknesses in the representativesystem, because in this system, the citizen only uses his vote when there are elections.When one votes an elite is chosen that does not always looks at what is important forthe community. He mentions that representation robs the ultimate responsibility oftheir values, beliefs and actions. He also argues that with representation one gives upits political will. For Barber (Barber, 1984, p. 147) representation is against equality. It isargued that all citizens have an equal vote. But in the end when a larger percentage ofthe people voted in favor of a policy matter, the choice is made to implement thepolicy. The ones who have voted against the policy do not have a say in this. Hiscitation of Louis Veuillot, “ when I vote my equality falls into the box with my ballot;they disappear together”, motivates his view. All votes are counted together to get theresult and the policy that has most of the votes is implemented. Another argument isthat representations make it difficult for the community to function as a regulatinginstrument of justice.With representation there is a gap between the representative and the represented. Itmust be possible , whether it is a large or a small community that is represented, tocorrect or verify the representative (Gusteren, 1998, p. 139). Although this must bepossible, one cannot guarantee the success of representation, for it is an effort to bridgethe gap (Gusteren, 1998, p. 140).J. Wijdenbosch (1985), argues that the representative democracy is not able to addressthe view of the minority. For him this is discriminatory to this group. For Wijdenboschis it because of the imperfection of the system, the representatives become one with thesmall group of the policymakers, who most of the time have the power. Therepresentatives tend to look more to the institution itself, than to the people who votedfor them.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • In his book, Held ( 1996, p. 271) summarizes some information? about participatorydemocracy, which I agree with. One of them? is principles of justification: he argues thatan equal right to liberty and self-development can only be achieved if a society fostersa sense of political efficacy, nurtures a concern for collective problems and contributesto the formation of a knowledgeable citizenry(very formal) capable of taking sustainedinterest in the governing process.Barber ( 1984, p. 117) uses the term strong democracy, and describes it as a distinctivelymodern form of participatory democracy. He argues that strong democracy is the onlyform of democracy that provides adequate answers to today’s problems of politics. Forhim it is “self- government by the citizens rather than representative government in thename of the citizens” (Barber, 1984, p. 151). It does not necessarily mean that citizensgovern at every level. There are institutions which are designed to facilitate ongoingpublic (civic) participation.S. Pelissery and Berg, S (2007, p. 285) quote Deneulin, who points out that there is adifference between democratic and participatory decision- making. For Deneulindemocratic decision -making is a way of making decisions in the political communitythrough existing democratic political structures, for example political parties andparliaments. Participatory decision - making is a way of making decisions by directlyinvolving the people almost through ad hoc participatory structures, therebytrespassing normal democratic mechanisms.For J. Wijdenbosch (1985)the main elements of participatory democracy are:consultation, control, information and responsibility.For J.Wijdenbosch it is important that policy makers enable the citizens to be heard.Consultation is not just listening to what the citizens say. At the end the citizens need tobe informed about the decision that has been taken, but also why if it is not thedecision that the citizens wanted in the first place.Another term that is used when it comes to participation is deliberative democracy. AsS. Pelissery and Bergh S, (2007, p. 284) describe it, deliberative democracy has theprinciple that a normative legitimate democratic process includes reasonable discussionof social problems and policy proposals to address them across the whole (wide spreadof) society.Within these discussions the participants must respect each other’s way of thinking.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 2.2.2. Quorum of participantsWithin a democracy it is impossible to let everybody take part in the decision-makingprocess. There will always be some people who do not take part in the discussions. Forexample: they do not have the time or the topics are not in their interest (Verhulst &Nijeboer, 2007, p. 13). The decision which is taken also affect those who were not part ofthe discussion. This is a matter of authority (Verhulst & Nijeboer, 2007, p. 13), since therule of quorum cannot work for compulsory attendance Even if there was a rule, therestill must be a way for those who do not participate. The decisions are binding, also forthose who were not present.To clarify the quorum of participants , I will use two examples that Verhulst andNijeboer used (Verhulst & Nijeboer, 2007): − Baden, Germany The quorum? was set at 30 %. The rule was that at least 30% of the electorate had to take part in the discussion and vote for the subject. If less than 30 % voted the decision would not be implemented. − There could also be boycott of the system with one with quorum. For example: the quorum is set at 40% , suppose that 60 % of the voters (group A) take part in the decision -making process, the other 40 % (group B) is against the subject. From group A, 55% vote for the subject and 45 % are against the subject. If group B takes part in the process, they will have no influence. But if they stay home, the minimum of 40 % attendance will not be reached. So not taking part can be a form of boycott.Some other arguments against the system of quorum as defined by Verhulst en Nijeboerare (Verhulst & Nijeboer, 2007, pp. 16-17):A parliament is about 0,003 % of the citizens (global average), and they are able to makedecisions. So it is not wise to have a participant quorum of 20 % or 40 % in an adhocdecision -making process.Within the participant quorum, the votes of citizens who did not take part in thedecision -making process are put in favor of the government policy. There is apossibility that they would vote against the policy. Therefore, their vote must berespected.The amount of people attending the meetings cannot be compared with that of theelections. In the elections all possible subjects are put on the agenda for an amount ofyears, for example 5 years. Within a citizens’ or town meeting, there is a selected groupor subject on the agenda. It is reasonable that more people will vote in the case ofelections than in the case of a meeting.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • There is also an argument to put a lower quorum, to avoid boycott actions, which is alsonot reasonable. The barriers can be so low, that you will reach that amount. If this is thecase, one can question (argue what) the use of such a barrier, and the need for boycottactions. On the other hand the barrier can be put so high that it is impossible to reach .In that case there can be boycott actions.It also important which cases the quorum concerns. If it was, for example, for theelections of members of the parliament, and the voters did not reach the quorum, therecould be no government. 2.3. Analytical framework 2.3.1. The obstacles and conditions for citizens participationAfter having reviewed different studies (from, for example, India, Zimbabwe, LatinAmerica), Gaventa en Valderrama define some barriers to more participatory localgovernance (Gaventa & Valderrama, 1999). Some of these are: • Power relations With citizens participation there is an interaction between the citizens and government institutions. The control of the procedures for participating is in the hand of these institutions. This can become a barrier for the involvement of citizens. • Level of citizens organization. If citizens are not organized , it is difficult to make a stand against the power of the government institutions. It is also likely that their voices will not be heard, and that the subject they bring forward will not be looked at. • Participatory skills Participatory processes are becoming more complex, for example, information and management. To be able to participate there is need for skills like leadership and management. • Political will For Gaventa and Valderrama, lack of political will ‘ involves the absence of a strong and determined central authority in providing and enforcing opportunities for participation at the local level, as well as the lack of political will by local government officers in enforcing the legislation that has beenISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • created for this purpose’. If there is no pressure from the central authority to enforce participation, the local officers will not do their best to use the regulation to make participation work.   • Level of participation To make it possible for citizens to participate, it is important that there are institutions and committees. In practice it is shown that these institutions have a consultative character, which means that participation is at the level of plan formulation or execution of programs.In their paper, Gaventa and Valderrama describe solutions for the barriers which theydefine. I chose the following (Gaventa & Valderrama, 1999, pp. 9-12):• Participatory planning : their findings were that legislations give opportunities for new processes of participatory planning to influence the priorities of local governments• Citizens education and awareness building : when citizens are educated about and made aware of their right, they are able and willing to use it. So then they know what their role is when it comes to participation.• Training and sensitizing local officials : elected representative, especially those who do have the experience must be trained to make them aware of their role. The government officials also need to be trained. In doing their job, they need to involve the aspect of citizen participation; this needs a new way of thinking and new processes of planning and implementing policy.Participatory budgeting: It was in 1989 when Porto Alegre started with the process ofparticipatory budgeting. Within this process there were participatory structures withdecision-making power over the allocation of resources for the development of themunicipality. One of the works about participatory budgeting is the manual from the UN-Habitat(Yves Cabannes, 2004). It is not easy to have a definition for participatory budgetingbecause according to the UN Habitat, participatory budgeting differs from one place tothe next (Yves Cabannes, 2004, p. 20). In general it can be described as "a mechanism (orprocess) through which the population decides on, or contributes to decisions made on,the destination of all or part of the available public resources." (Yves Cabannes, 2004, p.20). Ackerman (Ackerman, 2004, p. 451) describes the participatory budgeting processas an excellent example of ço governance for accountability. With this process there is adirect involvement of normal citizens in the planning and supervising of publicspending.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • Because the cases of Brazil (for example Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte) were sosuccessful, there are many works about these cases. The importance of these cases lies intheir impact on accountability. When organizations want the involvement of membersor other stakeholders, in other words they say that they want to inform and at somelevel want to be held accountable for the activities of the organization. In the cases ofBrazil the impact on accountability was as follows (Ackerman, 2004, p. 451) : − There are fewer possible incentives for corrupt behavior of bureaucrats. In this case, (citizens know for which investments will be done)? and they also participated in designing the budget. − There are alternative channels for the civil society to participate. Adults can attend, speak and vote in the assemblies. − There is a limitation to the capture of state institutions by the richer person. − There is a bias that poorer neighborhoods have a priority to get investments.In analyzing the data, these obstacles will be taken into account.2.3.2. Types of participationThrough time, more and more people want to get involved in decisions regarding, forexample, their community and environment. The need to be involved resulted indifferent kinds of councils, and committees for both for smaller parts and for thecommunity as a whole. Each of these councils and committees has power in somedegree. The involvement of these institutions in the decision- making process, makes itpossible for the citizens to have an impact in the process.There are 7 types of participation ( (, 2007, pp. 286-7) from Drydyk (2005, pp 259) : 1. passive participation: being told what is going to happen; 2. participation in information giving; 3. participation by consultation, but which does not concede any share in decision- making; 4. participation from material incentives (e.g. labor in exchange for food or cash); 5. functional participation (to meet predetermined objectives after decisions have been made; 6. interactive participation; 7. self- mobilization ( taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • For example, the involvement in typology 1 is less than that of typology 6.These types of participation are useful in analyzing the way that people are involved.2.4. DecentralizationThrough the years people wanted to be involved more in decision making processesthat influenced their lives. To have the involvement needed there can be reforms atdifferent levels. Decentralization is of the reforms to. The World Bank describesdecentralization as the transfer of fiscal, political and administrative powers to subnational governments ( (Hadiz, 2004, p. 697). Another definition is that of Vedeld(Bergh, 2004, p. 781): The transfer of powers and resources to authorities representativeof, and downwardly accountable to, local populations, and can be considered andinstitutionalized form of participatory development.S. Bergh (Bergh S. , november 2004, p. 781) describes advantages and disadvantages ofdecentralization. There are three advantages: • The citizens are closer to the ones who represents them. Therefore it is easier to be in contact with each other and have interaction for example about policy matters. • At a local level there can be more experimentation with different projects. • There a better opportunities for participation at the local level.The disadvantages can be • that there are not enough financial recourses for the administrative responsibilities. When the administrative responsibilities are transferred, the financial resources also should e transpired tot the local level. • The transfer to a lower level is often seen as a threat for the ones at the national level. • It is possible that the elites at the local level keep all the tools in their hand, in such a way that it seems as if corruption is decentralized.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 2.5 ConclusionAlthough much has been written about citizens participation, there are different viewsin how to make this participation work.Within representative democracy, some of the arguments are that not all can haveinfluence in the same way within the nation, and that there is a need for institutions thatcan argue and work in favor of those who do not have the opportunity.On the other hand, there is direct democracy, which makes it possible for everyone tohave a say in different issues. Sub type of direct democracy are for exampledeliberative and strong democracy.Decentralization as Velded defines it is one of the reforms which can lead to a higherlevel of participation.Although it is a good view to give or to have the opportunity to participate, there aresome obstacles that can hold people from participating. Fortunately, there arepossibilities to overcome these obstacles.As a result of the literature review, I conclude that there is no such thing as an adequatenumber and hence I am not necessarily going to judge the performance of the hearings,but just describe and analyze the trends, and measure them against the expectations asstated in DLGP documents.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 3. Practicing participation in Suriname 3.1. IntroductionThis chapter will focus on how participation works in Suriname Regardingparticipation the Constitution of Suriname, the Law on Regional Bodies and the InterimLaw Financial Decentralization are the three most used laws. So the first part of thischapter will be about the legislation on participation . Secondly, there is informationabout the decentralization program in Suriname while in the third part there is adescription about participation in Domburg. The chapter ends with a conclusion.3.2. Legislation 3.2.1. The constitutionThe first article of the constitution of Suriname (Constitution of the Republic Suriname,1987) describes that Suriname is a democratic State based upon the sovereignty of thepeople, and on the respect and guarantee of the fundamental rights and liberties.Chapter 8 of the constitution (Constitution of the Republic Suriname, 1987) concerns thesocial order. Within this chapter article 46 describes that the State must createconditions to make it possible for citizens to participate in a democratic and effectivemanner.Chapter 9, article 52, describes rudiments of a democratic state order. ‘Politicaldemocracy is characterized by the participation and representation of the Surinamesepeople, which shall express itself through the participation of the people in laying downa democratic political regime, and through their participation in legislation andadministration, aimed at the upholding and expanding of this system. Politicaldemocracy shall further create the conditions for the participation of the people ingeneral, free and secret elections for the composition of representative organs and of theGovernment.Accountability to the people, supervision of government actions by institutions createdfor that purpose and the right of revocation with regard to elected representatives areguarantees for true democracy’.Looking at article 55 part 1, one can say that Suriname has a representative democracysince the National Assembly represents the will of the people.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • The legislation also looks at participation on the regional level. Article 159 of theconstitution: ´The democratic order of the Republic of Suriname comprises inferiorgovernment organs on the regional level, whose function, organization, competenceand operation mode shall be regulated by law in accordance with the principles ofparticipatory democracy, and decentralization of administration and legislation.At the regional level there are two bodies, one is the districts council the second is theressort council (Article 161, 162 and 163).As article 161 states, the district council is the supreme political administrative organ ofthe district, whereas the resort council is that on the resort level.From the point of view of the elections, there is a relationship between the districtscouncil and the resort council. The resort council is chosen through elections. Thenumber of seats a political party gets within the resort council determines the numberof seats it gets within the districts council. 3.2.2. The law on regional bodiesAs mentioned before, there are two bodies on regional level. In article 54 of the law onregional bodies (Wet Regionale Organen, SB. 1989 No 44 zoals laastelijk gewijzigd bijSB 2002 N0 54) about the planning, it is stated that the Districts council needs to presentthe annual budget to the citizens in a public meeting. Prior to this meeting (there isprocess making the resort plan)?, the resort budget and the district’s plan.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 3.3. Decentralization and strengthening of the local government program  3.3.1. Goal and Components of the programAlthough the constitution and the resort council mention the participation and thepower of the regional organs, it was not until 1998 that the government of Surinameimplemented the decentralization and strengthening of the local government. For thegovernment in that period it was important to implement what the law stated. So thedecentralization program was written as a way to put into practice what theconstitution of Suriname and the Law on regional bodies described.Some of the actions that needed to be taken for the implementation are(Ahmadali, 2005, pp. 5, 54-60): ‐ Interim regulations for financial decentralization ‐ Ordinances district fund ‐ Guidelines from the minister of Finance ‐ Rules for regulating the administration of the district fund ‐ Handbook budget and financial management? ‐ the new structure within the commissariatThrough the years, different steps have been taken to have participation and to let theregional bodies perform as they were supposed to.The main reason why the regional organs could not perform was the lack ofautonomous jurisdiction (Ahmadali, 2005, p. 7).The main goal of this program is to strengthen the local government in Suriname witha legal framework, and they have good fiscal and administrative functioninggovernment institutions in the districts.The program consists of 5 components, these are ( Ahmadali, 2005, pp. 13-22): • Inter governmental reform The reform is needed so that the districts can have financial autonomous responsibilities. • Capacity building of the 5 pilot districts This component will focus on activities for the institutional strengthening of the districts. Some of the activities are citizens participation and training, and budget and financial management.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • • Capacity building with the ministries of Regional development and Finance The Ministry of Regional development needs to make and implement policy on regional level. To be able to do this, different parts of this ministry need to be strengthened. The ministry of Finance needs to give technical assistance to the districts. To be able to do it there is also the need for strengthening within this ministry. • Pre- investment and DLGP II The implementation of the different aspects of the program will be in different phases. To make them connect in a proper way, it is necessary to make some investments prior to the second phase. • Program management. The unit which is responsible for the implementation of this program must do its job as good as possible. It needs to manage the activities in a proper way, so that the program can be implemented as planned.3.3.2. The framework for citizens participationThe second component is divided into 5 sub components of which citizensparticipation is one. This sub component looks at different issues about participation.The other components have to do with other issues that are needed for thedecentralization program, which are not directly involved with citizens participation,Some of the activities within this sub component are ( Ahmadali, 2005, p. 17): • A citizens participation plan • A citizens participation committee • Coordinators for the citizens information center • Training of the coordinators and members of the committee.The planning process:The hearings at resort level are intended to present the resort plan of the year t+1.For example, the hearing of 2010 is for the plan of 2011. ( t= 2010, t+1=2011)The hearings are held in January and February of year t. In each district all the resortshave their own hearing in which the council presents a concept plan. The citizen are notonly allowed to debate on the activities that are part of the plan, but also to bring otheractivities forward, which they want to have in the plans. At the end of the meeting, theissues which the council and citizens agreed on are put in the plan. The participants ofISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • these meetings are the citizens of these resorts, members of the district council,members of the National Assembly, civil organizations and government officials. By February 28th, the resort councils need to submit the final plan to the districtcouncil.Until the end of March the district council has the opportunity to transform theseplans into a district plan.. For example, district Wanica has 7 resorts, so the districtcouncil of Wanica needs to draw up a district plan. The district council uses differentcriteria to make a choice for the different activities from the resort plans. For example,how many persons or which group of the district will be affected by a certain activity.On t March 31st, the district council needs to submit the plan to the Minister ofRegional development.The minister of regional development then, has the job to give those plans to hiscolleagues so that they know what the needs of the citizens of certain district are.Within a month the district council needs to draw up a district budget, with theassistance of the different councils and committees but also the Ministry of Planningand development. The district council then presents the budget in a hearing (at districtlevel). The participants of this hearing are the citizens of the district, members of theresort councils, government officials as well as civil organizations.It is important to mention that in this phase of the decentralization program, thedistricts work on those subject that are within the competence of the Ministry ofRegional development while the other subjects are still implemented by the otherministries. The subject within the competence of the Ministry of RegionalDevelopment has to work on secondary infrastructure and waste collection3.4. Participation in Domburg 3.4.1. Domburg: a short viewDomburg is the second smallest resort of the Wanica district (37 KM²) and there areabout 5700 inhabitants (Districtsplan Wanica Dienstjaar 2008). The demarcation of thisresort:This resort is situated on the left bank of the Suriname river. In the east, the border isthe plantation Adrichem, in the west the border is the Para river, and in the south theplantations Willemsburg and Concordia, and the Para river.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • Domburg is becoming more and more popular, because of the waterfront. Within thatarea there is also a market and the government has done something to make itattractive. Mostly in the weekend, there are a lot of people who visit the waterfront.Within the area of Domburg there are also many sailboats, which mostly belong toforeigners.The resort council of DomburgThe current resort council of Domburg consists of 13 members, 3 women and 10 men.These members were chosen during the elections of the 25th of May 2005.The average period that these persons have been members of the resort council is 10,7years. The average age is 50 years. The council has meetings on every third Tuesday ofthe month at 19.00 h. The number of people coming to this meeting vary from 2- 7 permeeting.3.4.2. What has been done so far?Establishment of the citizens’ participation committee: the committee consists of 15members, who are active in different parts of, and in different sectors in the district.To establish this committee, there was a meeting with different organizations in 2005(religious, NGOs) that are active within Wanica. They were informed about thedecentralization program and the need to have such a committee, which needs toadvise the local government regarding citizens’ participation. After this meeting the organizations were asked to take part within this committee.Training : For the members of the resort council on financial budget management andabout the decentralization program. ‐ For the management and personnel of the districts’ commissariat Wanica: financial management, project management, decentralization. ‐ For the citizens participation committee on citizens participation. Hearings:In 2007 the was one hearing with 38 participants on the 3rd of January.In 2008 there were 2 meetings: one on the 22nd of January with 54 participants. The otherone with 31 participants. In the interview with officials from the commissariat Wanica,they said that the policy in 2008 was to meet the citizens. In evaluating the hearings ofISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 2007, they concluded that more people would attend the hearings if the locations wherethe hearings were held would be closer. The hearing in 2009 was held on the 25th of January with 73 participants. In 2010 thehearing was held on the 12th of January with 29 participants.The reasons for changing the policy back to one hearing per resort was that overallthere was no high increase of the participants. Even though the hearings were heldcloser to the citizens, the number that they had expected was low. They estimated atleast 150 participants per hearing.There is no quorum in Suriname that specifies the number of people that need to attendthese hearings, or that are needed to put a certain issue on the agenda.Promotion:The commissariat Wanica is the facilitator of these hearings. Together with the resortcouncil they make a promotion plan. Until now fliers have been distributed to thecitizens, and advertisements have been placed in the newspaper and on the radio.There were promotions in different popular talk shows as well.The promotion costs, estimated at a percentage of 0.2, were financed from the budget ofthe Wanica district.Agenda of the hearing:These hearings have 4 parts: 1. Overview of the activities that were done in the resort in the year t-1 2. Overview of the activities that are planned for year t 3. Presentation of the plan of 2011 4. The citizens can ask questions and give suggestions to complete the planNeighborhood committeeOne of the activities within the decentralization program is the capital investmentprogram. For this activity some ways are going to be paved and they will also work onthe drainage of these roads. There were committees of citizens installed and trained,whose job it was to oversee that the job was done properly. In the ressort of Domburgthe capital investment program consist of two roads. There were different criteria’s tomake a choice for these roads. For example if there were school there and the number ofhouse hold within that area.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 3.5 ConclusionBoth the constitution of Suriname, and the Law on regional Bodies mention some formof participation of the citizens in the decision- making process.With the so- called decentralization program, there where steps taken to let the citizenstake part in the process to make annual plans and budgets for the districts. In 2007 the local government started with different meetings in the districts to makethese plans and budgets. These meetings are to inform the people about the plans andthey have the opportunity to bring forward issues that regard the resort or district.These meetings were also organized in the resort Domburg. From the figures we seethat between 50 and 90 people attended these meetings.Citizens participation is one of the sub components of the decentralization program.Some of the activities done within this sub component are : a citizens participation planwas made, a citizens participation committee was established.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 4. The results of the inquiry4.1. IntroductionThis chapter gives an analysis of the inquiry of both the focus group and the survey.The information from the literature review will be used to make the analysis.4.2. Analysis of the focus group and interviewsSome constraints which make it difficult for the result council to do their job properly:− Tasks :Most of the time the council is the first institute citizens go to when they have aproblem. Because of the tasks of the council, they have to write letters regarding theseproblems to the institute, to seek for a solution to such a problem. The members of thecouncil experience that the institutions do not always reply, which means that theproblem remains unsolved.− Own budgetThe council would find it suitable and easier to have an own budget, so that problemscould be tackled immediately. In that way they could help the citizens in a better way.The districts commissariat has a budget for all the activities that need to be executedwithin a certain year. Most of these activities are mentioned in the district plan. Inimplementing the plan, the resort council only takes part in the activities concerninginfrastructure. When they want a certain activity done within their resort, they need tomake contact with the commissariat. The law does not mention that resort councils canhave a budget to do different activities. It is the commissioner, acting as representativeof the local government, who needs to implement these activities. He has the role tokeep an eye on the way the work is done. At this moment the cost of, for example,copies are paid by the members themselves.− Office: the weekly meetings are now held in a room of the office of the Ministry of public works. This makes it difficult because there I not enough space to accommodate citizens.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • − Concurrent in representation.:As mentioned earlier there is a capital investment program (roads and drainage) goingon because of the decentralization program. The choice for the roads was made by theressort council, without the influence of the citizens. Although this was a choice of theressort council, there is a neighborhood committee which have to oversee that theproject is done a properly. the neighborhood committee is sometimes seen as aconcurrent of the council, because they have the main task of looking if he job is donewell. It seems as if the council has no say when it comes to implementing theinvestment program. Contact with the citizensThe members of the council have a day by day contact with the citizens. Mostly they goto the citizens to ask them about the problems they might have.They also mentioned that they get phone calls from the citizens. The biggest problemwithin the Domburg area is lack of tap water. As they mentioned, most of the citizenshad water only in the 80`s. Nowadays some citizens use water from the gutter or theriver.If we look at the number of people that attended the hearing and the weekly meetingsof the resort councils, we can conclude that it is not a representative part of the citizensthat attended these meetings and that the citizens do not participate sufficiently.The ressort plansLooking at the ressort plans the subject were on:Infrastructure, electricity, water, education, waste, security, transport and health.Every year the activities for a certain subject were the same.For example, every year all the roads within the resort are listed and the activity is (atthey need to be paved and heightened with shells.)?There are no priorities set by the resort council, they just put all the subjects andactivities mentioned by the citizens in the hearing , in the plan.The district council has some criteria for choosing the activities from the resort plan.They mentioned that it would be easier for them if the resort councils had already hadpriorities. Because they have experienced that f the deliberations take longer thanneeded to make a choice.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • As the districts commissioner mentioned he works of the community, so his policy is tosatisfy the citizens. For him is it important that all is done to let the citizens participate.Confronting him with the fact that most of the citizens do not know that there aremeetings, he argued that the process is new and it needs a mindset to makedecentralization work, and that he will look at this with his staff to see what can bedone.Actors:Both the ressort council and the districts council were of the opinion that there aredifferent actors which pal a role when if comes to citizens participation.Every one that lives and works within that area is seen as an actor: ‐ Citizens: they are the ones who need to bring issues foreword that needs to be looked at. There are special needs for the different groups, children, women, handicapped etc. ‐ NGO`s: because the contact they have with the citizens and the capacity to implement projects. Sometimes they get financial resources to implement a certain project. ‐ Businesses: the opportunities these businesses create for the development of the ressort are important, for example for the working force of Domburg ‐ Other ministries: there is a need to work together to get things done faster. Every ministry has his own responsibilities, but if they work together they can reach more. ‐ Local government: the districts commissariat is the local government, so they need to have the role to coordinate an implement different projects. ‐ The ressort council: they are have the highest authority within the ressort ‐ The districts council: they have the highest authority within the district.Hearings:The persons who went more than two times to a meeting went because they alwayswanted to participate and bring forward issues that needs looked at.Also the fact that was no change in most of the issues that were brought forward in thelast hearing. They wanted to know why. Most of them were not happy with theanswers and said that they are not interested in who is responsible for a certain job, theyjust want their problems fixed.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • They motivated other citizens to come to meeting and also explained why it is neededto participate, but not all were successful in bringing other citizens to the hearings. Theanswers they got the most, is that they do not believe they can influence the policy.4.3. Relationship of some questionsThe conclusions mentioned below, concern the persons within the random check.Education – participation in weekly meetings or hearings:89% of the persons have a lower education, while 11% have a higher education.93% of the persons did not go to one of the weekly meetings of the resort council, in comparison with 82% which did not go to a hearing.How long should one live in the ressort to know the members of the resort counciland have contact with the local government?Even though 96% of the persons have lived in the resort of Domburg for more than 10years (most of them were born there), the results show that 78% do not know themembers of the resort council, while 41% have a good contact with the personnel of thelocal government.33% did not ever have any contact at all with the local government.Reason for not participating - being organizedThe results show that 48% of the persons knew that there were weekly meetings orhearing held by the resort council, while 26% answered that they were not interested inthese kinds of meetings.63% said that they were not a member of any organization. Most of the 37% weremembers of a religious organization.Mentioning problems to institutionsWhen problems occur, 41% will mention the problem to the institution , while 26% goto the local government.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • Reasons for participating – how one comes to know that there is a meetingEverybody who went to a weekly meeting were invited by a member of the resortcouncil, while those who went to the hearings of the district council heard it from themedia.  The way one wants to be informed29% had no idea how they want to be informed. The following suggestions were madeby the rest: through a monthly bulletin, through neighborhood meetings, through theradio-and television stations and by visiting the people at home.The way one wants to participate – education78% suggested that there must be more contact with the resort council, so they caninform the people about the things that go on within the resort. If that is the case, thenpeople are willing to help to make plans to develop the resort.But because they do not have enough information, it is difficult to say whether theywould like to participate or not.11% mentioned that they are not interested. The rest had no idea how they couldparticipate.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 5. Conclusions and policy recommendationsWhat is the state of participatory democracy at the local level in Domburg, followingthe introduction of new participatory planning mechanisms in the DLGP in 2007?In order to discuss this problem, the research questions of the thesis are as follows: − what were the motivations behind introducing the DLGP at the national level? − Which actors play a role in the participation process? − what are the root/structural causes for the level of participation − what are the conditions for high levels of citizen participation and to what extent are they fulfilled in Domburg?The Constitution of Suriname describes that the State must create conditions whichallows citizens to participate. The law on regional bodies describes that the citizensneed to have public meetings in which they allow the citizens to participate when itcome to making the annual plan for the ressort, the ressort plan. In 1998 the governmentstarted the Decentralization and Strengthening of Local government Program , the socalled decentralization program.The basis for this program was the Law on Regional Bodies. The law already describesthat there is a local government. The case in Suriname was as Bergh describes thedisadvantage that the responsibilities where transferred but without the financialresources. There were different laws needed and most of them passed in the NationalAssembly, one of them being the interim law financial decentralization, which allowedthe local government to have the financial resources.There were lot of activities done to get a higher level of citizens participation, one of thesub component of the program.With all these activities it was possible for the citizens to have their say in a hearing.The expectation from the local government were that about 150 persons would come tothe meetings, especially in the second year. In the second year there were morehearings just to have the hearings closer to the citizens. The figures show that averageof citizens participating in the hearings was 56 persons.The actors when it comes to citizens participation are all living an working in that area,all with their special needs.Looking at the barriers for participation as Gaventa en Valderrama describes them thefollowing can be said about the participation in Domburg:ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • Power relations: the way the citizens are allowed to participate is describes by the localgovernment. It could be that for example if you present a concept plan that people donot want to come any more because they do not see the reason to say something. Itseems that you already know, why should I come.Level of Citizens organization:Within the Domburg area there is only one NGO. There are no originations, such associal or sport clubs. If people are organized they could come out as one to bring issuesforward. Also the fact that a bigger group is affected by a certain issue, could let thegovernment look at it faster.Participatory skills:When people are allowed to participate it is important to let them know what their roleis. Also the local government need to make sure that there is no overload ofparticipation. This is the case for example in the Capital Investment Program. There is aneighborhood committee, there is a ressort council, there are hearings, in which peopleare allowed to participate.To have a higher level for participation in Domburg the following can be done:Citizens education and awareness building:It is a good thing to have processes in place , but it important to let people know whattheir role is these processes. If one knows what the hearing is for, they can also makebetter preparation.Training and sensitizing local officials:For the local government of Wanica citizens participation is a new issue. The localgovernment needs to be involved more in the planning process that is developed by thecentral government. Also for the members of the regional bodies it is necessary to beinvolved in the process. Besides that it is important that when they are elected that theyget a training in what their tasks and responsibilities are.Another issue is that the basic needs need to be in place. All the respondentsmentioned the lack of water. Some of them even never had water in their homes.Most of the respondents say that many different official, both at local and national levelpromised to solve this problem, but this is still not the case.Water is the most important basic need, if that I not available for you why should youparticipate to bring forward other issues.ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • 6. References  1. (n.d.). Wet Regionale Organen, SB. 1989 No 44 zoals laastelijk gewijzigd bij SB 2002  N0 54 . Suriname.  2. Ackerman, J. (2004). Co‐Governance for accountability: beyond "exit" and "voice".  Worls development , 3 (Vol 32), 447‐463.  3. Ahmadali, B. (2005). projetinformatie document X. Paramaribo: PIU DLGP.  4. Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy , participatory politicts for a new age. London:  University of California press.  5. Bergh, S. (november 2004). Democratic decentralisation and local participation: a  review of recent research. Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 6 , 780‐790.  6. Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to  participatory democracy. Environment & Urbanisation (pp. 27‐46). Porto Alegre:  Internationl Institute fo environment and development.  7. Districtspan Wanica dienstjaar 2008. (2007, maart). Wanica, Suriname: Dsitictsraad  Wanica.  8. Elkin, S. L., & Soltan, K. E. (Eds.). (1999). Citizens comptence and democratic  institutions. Pennsylvavannia, United States: The Pennsylvania Sate University press.  9. Fennema, M. (2001). De moderne democratie. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.  10. Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the Spaces for Change: a power analysis. IDS Bulletin , 37  (6), 23‐33.  11. Gaventa, J., & Valderrama, C. (1999). Participation, citizenship and local gvernance.  Background note prepared for workshop on, (p. 16).  12. Gusteren, H. R. (1998). A Theory of Citizenship. United States: Westview Press.  13. Hadis, V. (2004). Decentralisation and democracy in Indonesia: A critque of Neo‐ Instittionalist Perpectives. Development and Change, Volume 35 No 4 , 697‐718.  14. Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy, Second edition (second edition ed.). United  Kingdom: Polity Press.  15. International reations and security network. (n.d.). Retrieved juni 20, 2009, from  www.isn.ethz.ch.  16. McCoy, D. a. (Ed.). (2004). The unraveling of representtive democracy in Venezuela.  Baltimore and London, UAS and Great Britain: The Johns Hopkins University Press.  17. Papadopoulos, Y. (2001). In C. Crouch, K. Eder, & D. Tambini (Eds.), Citizenship,  Markets, and the State (pp. 173‐196). New York: Oxfod University Press.  18. S. Pellissery and S.I.Bergh. (2007). Adapting the capability approach to explain the  effcets of participatory development programs: case studies from India and  Morocco. Journal of Human development , 8:2, 282‐302.  19. Verhulst, J., & Nijeboer, A. (2007). Directe democratie: fieten, argumeneten en  ervaringen omtrent het referedum. Brussel: Democracy Interntional in ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • samenwwerking met Democratie.Nu (Belgie) en het Referendum Platform  (Nederland).  20. Warren, M. E. (1999). Democracy and trust. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cmbridge  University Press.  21. Wijdenbosch, J. (1985, oktober 25). openngscollege van de faculteit der  maatschappij wetenschappen, studiejaar 1985/1986 . Paramaribo, Suriname.  22. Wijdenbosch, J. (1985, oktober 28). Openngscollege van de Faculteit der  Maatschappij wetenschappen, studie jar 1985/1986. Paramaribo.  23. www.random.org. (1997). Retrieved januari 12, 2010, from  www.random.org/integers/.  24. www.surveysystem.com. (1982). Retrieved januari 12, 2010, from  www.surveysystem.com/sscale.htm.  25. Yves Cabannes. (2004, july). U R B A N G O V E R N A N C E T O O L K I T S E R I E S. 72  Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting . Quito: Un‐Habitat.  ISP S.A.Bijlhout Participatory democracy at the local level
    • Annex 1: New organization structure of the districts  ORGANISATIESTRUCTUUR VAN DE DISTRICTS-COMMISSARIATEN VAN DE DISTRICTEN TER UITVOERING VAN DE INTERIMREGELING FINANCIËLE DECENTRALISATIE (S.B. 2003 no. 33) (Behorende bij de Beschikking van de Minister van Regionale Ontwikkeling van ................ no. ...... 6. DISTRICTSBESTUUR 4. DISTRICTS-COMMISSARIS 3.DISTRICTSRAAD (DB) (DC) (DR) 99 12. Kabinet DC 13. Secr . 5. Distr. Mgt Team DMT 2.RESSORTRAAD 1. Burgers 8. 10. Beheer Administratieve Bestuurs Ressorten 7. Districts Financiën en Diensten (AD) 9. Districts Secretaris Planning Districts Civieltechnische (Afdelingshoofd) (DFP) Secretaris Dienst (CTD) Districts-Administrateur (Afdelingshoofd) - -Bestuursressorten (Afdelingshoofd) Regulier -Bevolkings- -Administratie onderhoud participatie PLANNING -Agenda en Commissie -Voorbereiden Districts expeditie - Gebouwen -Bevolkings Info Strategisch Plan, Jaarplan, -Archief en - Zandwegen Center Meerjaren Districts documentatie - Bruggen -Voorlichting Ontwikkelingsplan -Vergunningen - Sluizen -Hoorzitting -Informatie, Communicatie -Domeinzaken - Dammen en Technologie -HRM dijken BEGROTING EN - Toezicht FINANCIEEL BEHEER - Logistieke -Voorbereiden Districts- zaken Ontwikke- begroting -Coördinatie en lingsdienst -Zelfstandig Begroting & bemiddeling (sectoren) Financieel beheer 11. Milieu en DISTRICTSINKOMSTEN - Wegennet Gezondheids- Dienst -Inning, registratie en - Vuilophaal (MGD) administratie belasting- en - Drinkwater Districts-Secretaris niet- belasting middelen - Openbare (Afdelingshoofd) -Beheer Districtsfonds markten Reguliere taken -Vuilophaal -Onderhoud pleinen, plantsoenen en openbare ruimten -Beheer markten -Beheer begraafplaatsen -Toezicht op openbare gezondheidszorg  
    • Annex 1: Questionnaire   Burgers van ressort Domburg, Geachte heer of mevrouw, u hebt voor u een enquête formulier bedoeld voor een onderzoek naar burgerparticipatie in het ressort Domburg. Dit onderzoek verricht ik ter afronding van de masteropleiding aan het Lim  A Po instituut. Ik vraag hierbij uw medewerking om dit formulier in te vullen en zo uw bijdrage te leveren aan het onderzoek. Er zijn diverse antwoord mogelijkheden, gaarne het gekozen antwoord omcirkelen of aankruisen. Indien u op het formulier de stippellijntjes tegenkomt, betekent het dat u daar uw antwoord kort en duidelijk mag invullen. Ik dank u bij voorbaat dat u tijd wil uitrekken om deze vragen lijst in vullen. Sandra Bijlhout Student Masteropleiding Public Administration aan het Lim A Po instituut te Paramaribo.  1. Uw leeftijd valt tussen:   18‐25 jaar      25‐40jaar   40‐55 jaar     55‐70 jaar    ouder dan 70 jaar    2. Geslacht:  man     vrouw    3. Uw (hoogst) genoten opleiding:   GLO       VOJ(MULO, LBGO, LTS)     VOS        Universitair     anders:……………….        geen    4. Hoe lang bent u woonachtig in het ressort Domburg?   Korter dan 1 jaar       tussen de 1 ‐5 jaar       5‐10 jaar         langer dan 10 jaar   5. Bent u lid van een organisatie of vereniging   neen      ja    Zo ja welke……………………………………..   6. Kent u de RR leden van het ressort    Ja    Noem tenminste 2 namen: 1.  …………………..    2……………….   Neen   7. Heeft u wel eens geparticipeerd in wekelijkse vergaderingen van de RR   neen      ja   8. Heeft u wel eens geparticipeerd in een hoorzitting  1  van de RR   neen      ja Indien ja, ga naar vraag 9, indien neen: ga naar vraag 11;  9. Waarom besloot u naar de vergadering te gaan   Om een klacht door te geven  Uit nieuwsgierigheid                                                             1  Hoorzitting is een jaarlijkse bijeenkomst waarin de RR een conceptplan presenteert en verantwoording doet over het afgelopen jaar. Verder zijn burgers op deze vergadering in de gelegenheid om hun noden en grieven kenbaar te maken en oplossingen aan te bieden. 
    • Anders:………………   10. Op welke manier bent u te weten gekomen dat er een hoorzitting is   door een medeburger van het ressort    Door een RR lid zelf  Via de media            Anders:……………………   11. Om welke reden bent u niet op een van de hoorzittingen geweest:  Niet bekend dat er wekelijkse vergaderingen zijn  Niet geïnteresseerd      Anders: …………………..   12. Heeft u wel eens geparticipeerd in een van de volksvergaderingen  2 van de Districtsraad?   neen      ja Indien ja, ga naar vraag 13; indien neen: ga naar vraag 15;  13. Waarom besloot u naar de vergadering te gaan   Om een klacht door te geven  Uit nieuwsgierigheid  Anders:………………     14. Op welke manier bent u te weten gekomen dat er volksvergaderingen zijn  door een medeburger van het ressort    Door een RR of DR lid zelf  Via de media            Anders:……………………   15. Om welke reden bent u niet op een volksvergadering van de DR geweest  Niet bekend dat er wekelijkse vergaderingen zijn  Niet geïnteresseerd  Anders: …………………..   16. Indien u eer en probleem in uw omgeving is, naar welke instantie gaat u het eerst?  naar de politie             naar de RR of DR  naar de media    naar de bestuursdienst    Anders:……………………   17. Wat vindt u van de volgende stelling:` De RR komt op voor de belangen van het ressort`  oneens    neutraal     eens     18. Hoe omschrijft u het contact tussen u en bestuursdienst        19. Op welke manier zou u (nog meer) geïnformeerd willen worden over zaken in uw ressort  20. Op welke manier zou u willen participeren ter ontwikkeling van uw ressort      21. Wat zou er volgens u anders of beter moeten om uw interesse te wekken om (meer) te participerenp                                                             2   In een volksvergadering presenteert de districtsraad de districtsbegroting voor het komend jaar. De vergadering bedoeld voor de burgers van het district. De burgers kunnen ook hier opmerkingen, aanvullingen plaatsen. 
    • Annex 2 : Topics voor de interviews    • Relatie tussen de ressort Raad, Districtsrad en de locale overheid  • Hoe is het gesteld met de participatie van de burgers aan uw activiteiten  • Wat doet u om burgers bewuster te maken van hun recht op participatie  • Vindt u dat u genoeg  feedback krijgt van  de burgers  • Wat kan beter of anders bij de Ressort raad  • Wordt er vanuit de Districtsraad adequaat gereageerd op voorstellen van uit de  Ressort raad  • Wat is er gedaan zodat u het proces u eigen kon maken.  • Hoe ziet u uw rol als DC, RR en DR in het geheel      • Waarom vond u het nodig naar de hoorzittingen te gaan  • Heeft u andere proberen te overtuigen mee te gaan naar de hoorzittingen, wat  was hun reactie  • Vele mensen weten niet dat er hoorzittingen zijn, wat vindt u daarvan  • Kunt u aangeven welke ontwikkelingen u heeft ervaren over de gehouden  hoorzittingen.  • Vindt u dat de zaken die u aanhaalt ook opgelost worden.  • Weet u wat uw rol is als u in de hoorzittingen aanwezig bent.