The major responsibility of the state is to listen to the voices of citizens without any prejudice, incorporate their suggestions into practice, and convey a commitment to improving the welfare of its people, especially vulnerable groups.
With such a practice and system in place, the desired change can be achieved. A Citizen’s Assembly could be an appropriate approach to engage and mobilize citizens between the state and its people.
What is a Citizen’s Assembly?
Democracy, the election-centered system, is often criticized for failing to steer development in the right direction.
Its actors and players widely take a short-term perspective for development in their constituencies and focus more on their voters.
Due to election-centered plans and the announcements they make, they are limited in their ability to think broadly and long-term for the prosperity of the community.
Moreover, such assemblies can cover multiple issues, such as the behavior and work environment of officials and representatives, local government policies and plans, budgets, and the results.
The tenure-focused approach is preventing sustainable and people-centered development.
Therefore, there is a need to foster discussions about issues that affect citizens and engage them in policymaking and planning.
Citizen assemblies at the local level can be a very effective approach to enhancing people’s participation.
Many countries that have practiced citizen assemblies have proven to ensure meaningful engagement on public issues.
The practice of inclusive citizen assemblies, based on the principle of “deliberative democracy” (which we can frame as dialogic-led democracy), addresses public grievances and strengthens democratic processes.
German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas emphasized the role of rational dialogue in achieving democratic legitimacy.
What he argues is that democracy is not limited to voting; it is based on public dialogue through which citizens reach mutual consensus.
Therefore, citizen assemblies in communities can be a means to understand citizens’ needs, desires, and views for drafting policies and making plans.
The concept of a citizen assembly emphasizes inclusivity and involves citizens in having their voices, plans, and ways of implementing them.
It brings grassroots people, the poor, the marginalized, and representatives from all corners of life onto a platform to interact on the issues and challenges they face in their lives.
Through collective efforts, consensus, and meaningful dialogue, they identify solutions and provide recommendations to the government.
It is a way of fostering citizens’ ownership, valuing their thoughts, and promoting civic engagement that largely contributes to the value of true democracy. Two years ago, a citizen assembly was also practiced in Nepal.
Why do we need a Citizen Assembly in Nepal?
People possess a lot of power if united. The political change in Nepal was an outcome of people’s power.
Prioritizing citizen engagement in development is an essential component for transformative change.
Involving people in local development processes and giving them the freedom to express their ideas openly is crucial.
Democracy is a culture that allows for open discussion and critical feedback.
A primary goal of citizen assemblies is to ensure citizens are meaningfully engaged in the development process at all levels.
Citizen Assembly Fosters Good Governance at the Local Level
After the country adopted a federal structure, powers related to development, construction, and administrative services were delegated more to provincial and local governments.
Locally elected governments now have the authority to make decisions for their own development.
They have already demonstrated a number of good examples of serving the community, though it is still at an early stage.
Local governments are mainly working tirelessly on infrastructure development.
However, there are also numerous examples of misuse of authority and projects with the vested interests of power holders.
Complaints are growing that resources allocated for development at the local level are being misused.
Elected representatives are blamed for working for the interests of their associated parties rather than for the interest of citizens.
Often, development activities at the local level become a distribution of budgets based on political affiliation or over the influence of the power holder.
They seem more focused on elections than on the larger public good or long-term development, as committed by national and international development indicators.
This is a sign of weakening good governance and devaluing inclusive democracy.
In some local levels, there are reports of neglecting citizens’ concerns, asking for commissions on development projects, establishing party-based syndicates in contract awarding, delaying services if there is no financial benefit to the officials and elected leaders, using the development budget on training and seminars that carry zero value, promoting businesses owned by elected representatives, and recruiting party cadres under the guise of development.
Such actions undoubtedly weaken good governance and create frustration among citizens, indicating that elected representatives are failing to truly act as guardians of the people.
Another major problem at the local level is the lack of accountability towards the public.
There have been many instances where provincial and federal leaders exert pressure even in the hiring of lower-level employees.
Actions that delay the overall community development process, such as obstructing proposals or collaboration efforts from different parties or groups with differing views, have fostered a negative sentiment among citizens towards the government structure and political parties.
However, this does not mean that the concept of federalism and local governance, aimed at empowering citizens, is flawed.
As noted above, there are many examples of good work done by accountable local governments under the new structure.
Previously, citizens had to travel to the district headquarters or central government for certain administrative and other services, but now these services are available at their doorsteps.
Therefore, to address the current inconsistencies and discrepancies at the local level, it is essential to ensure that elected representatives are always citizen-oriented, no matter which party the people belong to.
This is also vital to hold them accountable for development efforts and establish good governance across all administrative units.
Citizen assemblies can play an extremely important role in making local government accountable, transparent, and shaping the direction of development with their committed ownership.
To sustainably address current issues at the local level, it is crucial for local governments to first win the trust of the citizens.
A citizen assembly can be a powerful and effective medium to mainstream citizens’ feelings, thoughts, and needs into local development and increase citizen participation.
Studies worldwide have shown the importance, impact, and effectiveness of such assemblies.
The development-oriented community people of Tarkeshwor Municipality in Kathmandu, who formed community-based organizations more than a decade ago, organized a citizen assembly in April 2022, probably the first of its kind in Nepal, with participation from the local government, community organizations, intellectuals, and citizens from across the corners of the community in an inclusive way.
The remarkable engagement, debate, and discussion seen at the assembly set a strong example of the interaction of the community over the issues of development.
The assembly concluded with priorities, which were submitted to the municipality.
Why Must Local Government Hold Citizen Assemblies?
Citizen assemblies can be organized for various issues that are key to the community, such as designing and building local road infrastructure, managing several other community projects, planning for education improvements, setting up and managing drinking water systems, distributing social security benefits, and providing health services, including facilities.
Such plans or policies developed through larger consultation hold more value, whereas documents prepared by experts, who may be affiliated with influential power holders or political parties, might receive acceptance from the party or signatory of the local government but may lack broader consensus by citizens.
The assembly can also discuss agriculture, the environment, employment and entrepreneurship, disaster management and preparedness, and climate change.
Moreover, such assemblies can cover multiple issues, such as the behavior and work environment of officials and representatives, local government policies and plans, budgets, and the results.
The assembly provides citizens an opportunity to analyze, review, and come up with recommendations to shape future policies and practices.
There are certain methods to follow when conducting a citizen assembly. Citizens selected for the assembly should represent all corners of the community, including age, class, geography, caste, gender, and so on.
Presentations from subject experts make it easier for the assembly participants to understand the realities of the community where they live.
The broad discussions, debates, and interactions during the assembly reflect the collective thoughts of the majority of participants, making the outcome more inclusive.
Here, the term “majority” reflects inclusivity rather than numerical representation.
When organizing an assembly, the participation of those directly impacted by the topics or issues to be discussed must be ensured.
Participants must dedicate time to the assembly, and those who depend on daily wages should be compensated for their time and contribution.
This can only ensure that the voices of the voiceless are addressed. Since citizen assemblies are inclusive, the conclusions drawn reflect the desires and perspectives of the public.
Responsible officials and institutions then incorporate the suggestions from the assembly into municipal planning and advance them for implementation.
Thus, citizen assemblies offer two primary benefits: First, local people can identify and prioritize problems and issues themselves.
Even when these marginalized groups are present, they are seldom provided an opportunity to speak up meaningfully and are often ignored or excluded while making the final list of project activities.
Second, citizens take ownership of those decisions, support, and contribute to implementation, which ultimately ensures the sustainability of the actions.
Such plans or policies developed through larger consultation hold more value, whereas documents prepared by experts, who may be affiliated with influential power holders or political parties, might receive acceptance from the party or signatory of the local government but may lack broader consensus by citizens.
That’s why they often fail or remain in draft form for years. The greatest fear with such documents is that they fail to reflect the reality of the people and their concerns.
Therefore, if local governments commit to introducing policies, programs, and development initiatives through organizing citizen assemblies, the efforts need to be citizen-led/centered and participatory.
Citizen Assembly to Ensure Meaningful Participation
The Government of Nepal has developed a “seven-step planning process” to guide local governments in preparing development plans.
According to this process, it is mandatory to hold gatherings at the settlement and ward levels to create plans that truly reflect the community’s conditions and desires.
However, such gatherings often do not follow the seven steps as outlined. Instead, those sitting or gathering are not structured to get the voices and concerns of the most marginalized.
They tend to be dominated by social leaders, influential or political party cadres, who are usually the ones in most of the gatherings and dictate the activities to be done in their community.
The people are always at the bottom due to their survival needs and are unaware of these gatherings or are rarely empowered to join.
The disadvantaged groups, such as the poor, low-income earners, wage laborers, and farmers, are often unable to participate.
When decisions are made with such active participation, everyone is responsible for the outcomes and is motivated to support its implementation and celebrate it.
Even when these marginalized groups are present, they are seldom provided an opportunity to speak up meaningfully and are often ignored or excluded while making the final list of project activities.
This cannot be considered meaningful participation.
Citizen assemblies help to ensure and promote meaningful participation from all community members.
Only the physical presence or providing information to people is not true participation.
True participation involves attending, actively discussing community issues, engaging in critical debate, listening to others, presenting one’s thoughts logically, and contributing to collective decision-making after sufficient interaction.
Active involvement throughout the entire process is what defines meaningful participation.
Therefore, facilitators of citizen assemblies should ensure that all participants are meaningfully involved.
When decisions are made with such active participation, everyone is responsible for the outcomes and is motivated to support its implementation and celebrate it.
Thus, local representatives, staff, and citizens should understand the value of organizing citizen assemblies regularly on various issues.
These assemblies play a pivotal role in transforming the way local governments deliver services to their people.
Moreover, they greatly contribute to recognizing the power of citizens and their engagement.
This further strengthens the accountability of local government, and ultimately, citizen assemblies will be the future of democracy.
(KC is development and humanitarian worker)
