Citizen Participation in Local Governance in Eastern Europe: Rediscovering a Strength of Civil Society in the Post-Socialist World?

Abstract

This article studies the impact of citizen participation on local government performance in Bulgaria. Both survey and interview data are used to suggest that, all else being equal, municipal efficacy grows with the increasing involvement of social and economic actors in the policy-making process. This improved government efficacy is most likely a result of the professionalisation and organisational strength of the third sector. Although the politicisation of the local state has undermined its capacity, municipalities have been able not only to reconstitute some of their authority but also to improve the output and the quality of their policy making by employing the expertise and support of major local civic organisations. THE DESIRE TO DENY THE SOCIALIST ELITE THE ability to set goals with only marginal input from or control by domestic groups was a focal point for the mobilisation of opposition to state socialism and the impetus for the democratisation project in many Central and Eastern European countries. Since the collapse of state socialism, issues such as accountability, legitimacy, popular representation and responsiveness of governments to citizen demands have become central to discussions about democratisation among scholars, politicians and activists. However, studies of Central and Eastern European civil society have largely neglected to examine the contributions of non-state actors to governance in the region. This article seeks to begin addressing this gap in the literature by examining the impact of citizen participation in local government in Bulgaria on the efficacy of municipal policy making. The article shows that despite the passivity of local government in many municipalities, and their preference for working primarily with political actors, there has been widespread and diverse, if weakly institutionalised, cooperation between local authorities and societal actors. Moreover, it seems that in the Bulgarian

E-democracy Or E-Domination? Critical Observations Of One E-Democracy Tool In A Local Governance Institution In Lithuania

“…"to develop effective services to meet client needs, and is recognized as a key driver of continuous service improvement" (Petukiene, Damkuviene 2012: 45). Similarly, Petrova (2011) argues in her study that increasing involvement of citizens (in her case non-governmental organizations) in the policymaking process increases municipal efficacy. In contrast to dominating managerial approach, the communitarian approach which stresses that participation of citizens in local government strengthens democracy and fosters public will seems to gain little attention, if any, from the scholars as well as from the political actors.…”

“…Instead of individual oriented questions and answers, collective-oriented participation options should be also taken into account, may it be digital or real. Petrova (2011) mentions in her study many collective-oriented participation devices, such as public forums or discussions, advisory council meetings, consultations with stakeholder focus groups or polls. If and when these tools are truly participatory and enables expression of citizens' voice instead of its domination through familiar power mechanisms, remains to be evaluated in a concrete institutional context.…”

“…Especially in the East European countries where the totalitarian regime in the past constructed citizens as passive, silent and obedient, citizens' participation bear highly normative connotations, such as fastened democracy processes (Petrova 2011). Political desires have been complemented by new technological developments, with electronic democracy and electronic governance being assumed to enable citizens to participate in political decisions to a higher extent than ever possible in the past.…”

Nevyriausybinių organizacijų ir savivaldybių sąveika Lietuvoje: teoriniai sprendimų priėmimo ir įgyvendinimo proceso aspektai

“…Šaltinis: [11,33,25,30] Išskiriami aspektai sutampa su prieš tai S. R. Arnstein įtraukimo lygmenyse aptartais bruožais, tai yra iškyla abipusiško pasitikėjimo, komunikacijos ir realaus ar tik simbolinio įtraukimo klausimai, nes tik suteikus prieigą prie informacijos šios organizacijos savaime neįgyja galios daryti poveikį sprendimų procesui. Remiantis lentelėje pateiktais dalyvavimo elementais ir tam būtinomis sąlygomis, galima sakyti, jog dalyvavimui priimant ir įgyvendinant sprendimus daro poveikį suvokimo apie dalyvavimą išugdymas, informacijos suteikimas bei lygių galimybių dalyvauti priimant sprendimus užtikrinimas.…”

“…Šaltinis: sudaryta autorės remiantis [11,33,25,30] Tačiau, kaip jau minėta, realus sprendimų rengimo procesas panaudojant turimas NVO žinias, patirtį ar / ir pateikiamus įrodymus gali susidurti su natūraliais šio proceso apribojimais. Kaip pažymėjo H. A. Simonas, kalbant apie sprendimų priėmimo procesus, pirmiausia reikia atskirti dvi sąvokas: "žinojimą" ir "mokėjimą", siekiant nustatyti, kas turi žinias, reikalingas sprendimui priimti, ir kaip jie gali dalyvauti šiame procese bei kokį poveikį turėti [29].…”