Oral Democracy and Women's Oratory Competency in Indian Village Assemblies: A Qualitative Analysis

Abstract

In democracies, innovative political institutions have opened up scope for direct public participation often in the form of talk: citizens talking to the state and mutual talk among citizens on matters concerning community development. A prominent example is the Indian gram sabha, or village assembly, which occurs in a highly stratified context. This paper undertakes a talk-centered analysis of the gram sabha with a focus on examining the oral participation of women in general and women affiliated with microcredit self-help groups who have access to an associational life. The qualitative analysis of 255 gram sabha transcripts from four South Indian states finds that women associated with microcredit self-help groups employ a wider variety of narrative styles and utilize a more multilayered structure to convey their messages compared with all women taken together. Thus, the difference is not so much in the numerical instances of talking or in the types of issues raised, but rather in the quality of participation. The paper makes an important theoretical contribution by proposing the concept of oral democracy as an alternative to deliberative democracy, and urges an analytical focus on the oral or oratory competency of subordinated groups as they participate in these important institutions.

Gender Policies of the new Developmental State: The Case of Indonesian new Participatory Village Governance

“…The crucial issues, of course, concern how the meetings are held, who attends, who speaks, and how the decisions are made, because different settings and different dynamics will make different outcomes. Studies from other countries, such as India (Sanyal and Rao, 2019) have shown that there is a dynamic of participation where the participant with different gender, age, and background can bring about different outputs to the participatory mechanisms. However, as we can see shortly, such a dynamic does not appear in Indonesian participatory governance.…”

Shifting terms: Development discourses and moral imaginaries in Indian state service provision

“…It is the morning of a Gram Sabha meeting in May and residents are slowly entering the meeting hall at the panchayat , in some cases making their way across the village in spite of the enervating summer heat. This public meeting is intended to be a cornerstone of Panchayati Raj local governance, presenting an opportunity for citizens to air grievances, discuss common concerns, and engage in democratic deliberation (Sanyal and Rao, 2019). Inside, the meeting hall is gender-segregated: men at the front, women in ghoonghat at the back.…”

Do Informal Forums Matter? Lessons from Nepal’s Local Policymaking

“…Often government-sponsored participatory processes provide little space for citizens to have their say in setting up rules on, for example, selecting participants or organising deliberations (Lowndes et al, 2006). Perhaps capturing this lacuna, civil societies and NGOs are found to have been adopting flexible norms and rules that help select participants and organise deliberations (Sanyal, Rao, & Prabhakar, 2015). Although there requires more empirical investigation to understand the extent to which successful cases of participatory processes provide enough opportunities to ordinary citizens in setting up rules for themselves, an important aspect of the concept of society-driven participatory institution is to advocate for providing rule-making capacity to participants.…”