Citizen participation is at once the most and least controversial issue of democratic theory today. It is uncontroversial in that "everyone" agrees that citizen participation is requisite to the achievement of social, economic, and political equality in our communities and our nation. The controversy arises over concerns about who, when, where, and how citizens should participate.
While citizen participation takes many forms - including voting in local elections, serving on government boards and commissions, attending public hearings, and being active in volunteer, neighborhood, and civic organizations - in successful communities common threads regarding the who, when, where, and how of citizen participation can be found.
Citizen participation in successful communities is characterized by the involvement of the diverse sectors and interests of the community. Each demographic interest - be it age, race, gender preferences, or places of residence and employment - is in some way represented in community decision-making practices.
This means that citizen participation is defined by the involvement of all people who have a stake in the future of the community, not simply those who traditionally have had power in the community. Certainly the "usual suspects," that is community leaders and organizations who are always involved in community efforts, have valuable contributions to make to a community. But successful communities have a good balance of the "old" and the "new" and are thus able to take advantage of what traditionally underrepresented populations have to offer a community.
Moreover, the key leaders of successful communities realize that citizens must be empowered to have real influence over community decisions. Citizens are too sophisticated to accept the role of only advising officials and community leaders who may or may not accept their advice.
Correlatively, this means that citizens must be engaged in decision-making processes from the beginning. Many communities to this day only provide citizens with the opportunity to sanction public policy; citizens are involved only in the final step of policy-making processes. A town meeting, for example, is called for citizens to confirm the pre-determined conclusions of their governmental leaders.
Successful communities engage citizens in the initial stages of policy-making processes. Governmental leaders go to neighborhoods, find out what people think, find out their needs and concerns and then develop a plan based in response to that proactive input.
Many communities have seen the benefits of adopting this broad mode of citizen participation. For example, New Haven, Connecticut has seen a 26 percent reduction in crime in their community since citizens became involved in the policing process. After citizens were involved in this success, they became involved in other important issues in the community. Now citizens are involved, from the beginning, in projects such as the planning of park renovations and school construction.
The Civic Index lists a number of questions communities can ask themselves to help gauge the quality of their community's citizen participation, including:
What is the level of voter turnout in local elections?
What is the level and nature of participation at public hearings?
Are there strong neighborhood and civic groups?
Is it difficult to find people to run for public office?
Do citizens volunteer to serve on local boards?
Are citizens actively involved in major projects? Is participation proactive or reactive?
The word "apathetic" has become a popular adjective to describe today's citizens. Low voter turnout and limited attendance at public hearings are a few of the examples of apathy often cited by community leaders.
However, apathy is actually a secondary response to something deeper. Citizens-at-large aren't as apathetic as they are frustrated and angry: Citizens care a great deal about their communities, but feel their participation in the overall governance of their communities simply won't matter. As a result, citizens have made conscious decisions to devote their time to areas upon which they feel they can have an impact, such as family, churches, schools, and youth sports.
Successful communities, by providing meaningful outlets for citizen participation - outlets which involve a broad range of community perspectives and vest citizens with the real power to influence their own lives - have high levels of citizen involvement. People aren't apathetic when they can make a difference.
For more Congress Heights and River East news visit The Congress Heights Examiner website, http://www.examiner.com/x-13507-Congress-Heights-Community-Examiner
Share on Facebook
4 Comments:
I plan on reading the book : Towards a Caring Society
http://www.amazon.com/Toward-Caring-Society-Ideas-Action/dp/0275954536
I've been interested in the idea that we tend to look to local leaders or non profits to solve community problems. What happened to just being neighborly and personally involved in the community?
Getting someone's mail while they are on vacation, giving someone a ride to work or picking someone's kid from school are the things I would like to see more of in society. Unfortunately those are things that people can't quantify so they don't "count".
If we can't build community on the most personal (local) of levels then I can't expect that people will come together on a larger scale.
When I attend my ANC meetings I see how frustrated everyone gets with Fenty and other DC government people. Most of the people are older and have been asking for help for years. They are just plain tired and don't know what else to do. They really feel like they can't make a difference.
One of my neighbors fought for over 5 years to get a left turn light on Southern Ave and Wheeler. I'm so very proud of her as she didn't give up. Hopefully her success inspires others to rally together to tackle more issues.
To be honest I am really getting fed up with the community apathy in Ward 8. At first I was trying to be understanding about it now after colliding with it on a regular basis it really just pisses me off. So many folks who love to complain but can't get off their butts if you lit a stick of dynomite under them. The obstructionist are bad enough but those that allow those dysfunctional self appointed know it alls to stay in power are even worse. Ward 8 is in need of an intervention and a serious come to Jesus talk. Overall we need to stop being lazy and waiting for someone else to fix our problems.
OK A-8....From your own column:
“However, apathy is actually a secondary response to something deeper. Citizens-at-large aren't as apathetic as they are frustrated and angry: Citizens care a great deal about their communities, but feel their participation in the overall governance of their communities simply won't matter. As a result, citizens have made conscious decisions to devote their time to areas upon which they feel they can have an impact, such as family, churches, schools, and youth sports.”
That quote is not offered as an excuse, but they certainly are not empty words. For every resident who doesn't care, I know that you could find 3 or 4 who WERE active.. but became frustrated with the foolishness and either focused on family -- or, more likely, doubled-down and were active with their church.
So... what would it take to re-engage the "old" citizens... for the time being, they far outnumber the "new residents"..
Also from your article: "But successful communities have a good balance of the "old" and the "new" and are thus able to take advantage of what traditionally underrepresented populations have to offer a community."
How do you (generic) convince old and new that this is a desirable community worth fighting for?
I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?
Post a Comment