Bijlhout s

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 ju stification .............................................................................................................. 6

1.5. Research method ...................... ............................................................................................................. 6

1.6. Limitations and problems ........ .................................................................................................... 8

2. The theory of cit izens’ participation .................................................................................................... 9

2.1. Introduction .................................... ......................................................................................................... 9

2.2. Representation: does it work? ................................................... ..................................................... 9

2.2.1. Representative democra cy and direct democracy .................................................... 9

2.2.2. Quorum of partic ipants ........................................................................................................ 12

2.3. Analytical framework .................................................................................. .................................... 13

2.3.1. The obstacles and con ditions for citizens participation .................................... 13

2.3.2. Types of pa rticipation ........................................................................................................... 15

2.4. Decentraliza tion .................................................................................................................................. 16

2.5 Conclusion ............................................ ................................................................................................ 17

3. Practicing partic ipation in Suriname ............................................................................................... 18

3.1. Introductio n .......................................................................................................................................... 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 lo cal government program ................ 20

3.3.1. Goal and Components of the program ..... ................................................................... 20

3.3.2. The framework for ci tizens 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 ha s 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. Conclusion s and policy recommendations ................................................................................... 31

. References ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 6

Annex 1: New organization structure of the districts Annex 2: Questionnaire Annex 3: focus of interview

A

cknowledgment

One of the last parts of the study Master in Public Administration is to write a paper. It was a great experience for me to learn different things, the most important ones were to plan as realistic as possible and to stick to my planning. The different modules especially ‘Democracy: Principles and Approaches’ , ‘ Politics and Public administration and ‘Public Sector and Change Management’ moved me to chose for the subject on participation. I show my gratitude to those people mentioned below because supported me through the 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. Bijlhout M

ay 2010


1. Introduction

1.1. Background Within decentralization there are different processes which allow the emergence of the voices heard. In which way and how far you should go to hear the voices of the citizens is still a point for discussion. The constitution of Suriname states, that the function and operation mode of the regional bodies should be in such a manner that it should be in accordance with the principles of participatory democracy, and decentralization of administration and legislation. In the districts of Suriname, the regional bodies are the District Council, the Resort Council and the District Executive Body. The members of the District Council have been elected indirectly through general, free and fair elections. The District Council is put together on the basis of the votes a certain political party gets for the Resort Councils. The functioning of these organizations is stipulated in the law on Regional Bodies, announced in 1989, at the execution of the Constitution. It was not until 1998, that there were steps taken to implement the tasks of the regional bodies into operation. This was because of the “Decentralization and Strengthening of the Local Government Program” (DLGP). The program was financed by the International Development Bank (IDB) (90%) and the Government of Suriname (10%). To implement this program approval was needed from the National Assembly. The debate within the National Assembly focused on the components 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 in 2002, with the main goal to strengthen the local governments for self budget and financial management. The strengthening of the regional bodies1 is also part of this program, which consists of 5 components. One of these components is citizens' participation. The law on regional bodies was the starting point for the decentralization program in

w authorizes the local government to do different things Suriname. Although this la

1 Regional bodies has the responsibility to represent the citizens


2within the district, there were no regulations that defined this in detail. So in practice it was not working. To implement the program it was necessary to have these regulations. The program implementation unit worked with consultants to make this regulation, so they could be approved by the National Assembly. The time between starting and implementing was also necessary for training and recruiting personnel for the new divisions of the commissariat. The commissariat is the government at the local level. The law on regional bodies of 1989 describes that both the district council, and the resort council should take the wishes and comments of the citizens into account in the planning 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 last one 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 the opportunity to be heard through public hearings.

1.2. Research problem In short, the problem can be defined as: In spite of many investments in citizens participation outreach, the citizens of the resort of Domburg participate insufficiently in the policy making process. The number of people that are involved in the resort of Domburg 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, following the 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


1.4. Relevance and justification Because of the Decentralization and Strengthening of Local Government Program processes were put in place to make it possible for citizens to participate in the decision making process. Now it seems to be a good time to assess the experience of this program so far and to find out whether it has led to a higher level of participation and by extension to better planning or more responsive government. especially in Domburg which is one of the seven jurisdictions of the district Wanica. This jurisdiction is the smallest within the district, and I thought that being that small it would be less difficult to get people involved in the decision- making process The ressort council of Domburg has weekly meetings and as the law requires, these meetings are public meetings. Although the findings of this thesis are not a representation of the whole district, it would be possible that some of this information can be applied to other jurisdictions.

1.5. Research method To give answer to the research question I used the following sources:

• Questionnaire:

This questionnaire was intended for the citizens of Domburg (sample). The number of people living there is 5.700. The information about the population, I got from the Registry Office of the Ministry of Internal affairs. I requested the addresses of the people living in the resort of Domburg, who were 18 years and older. The reason why I chose for this age is that in Suriname one can vote from the age of 18 years. In my view they will be the ones who need to take part in the decision- making processes in Domburg. To have the sample as required in science, I used the information (how to process the data in excel and (and) how to draw a random check ) I got from the first workshop on thesis writing. The results of this questionnaire gave me information about for example the reasons why people participate or not. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions from which 5 give some information about the individual (age, gender, education). The questions from 6 to 15 are about the participation in meetings of both the resort council and the district council. The rest of the questions are about the way the person

ipate. wants to be informed and wants to particThe survey: Population and random check


The information showed that there are 4127 people starting from the age of 18 years that live in Domburg. The information I got, was on the age, gender and address. From these data, I learned that there is a small difference of 221 between men and women, so I did not 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, I also did not take this aspect into account to make a distinction within the population for the 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 of 5. Given the number of 4127 people within the population, the sample size needed was 352 people. The program on the second website gives the numbers that are in the random check. I numbered the population from 1 – 4127, and with the numbers given from this website it 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 of the DGLP. With these interviews, I got information about the policy of the district when 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 that were organized by the ressort council. I got relevant information about the reason why citizens 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 subject The resort plans of Domburg and minutes from the hearings : these document had useful information about what happen during the hearings and what the results were.

• The focus groups:

The members of the resort council: to have their opinion about citizens participation and how they reach out to the citizens. The members of the districts council: I attended 2 meetings in which the members were busy with the district’s plan. The districts commissioner: as the manager, what the policy is when it comes to citizens participation.


Officials from Ministry of Regional affairs: those were directly involved in the planning process. These focus group meetings and interviews were done in the period of the 24th of November –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, because sometimes I did not have enough persons to help me to distribute and collect the forms. So I chose to do an amount of 100, and added more focus group interviews.


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;


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 representative system, 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 for the community. He mentions that representation robs the ultimate responsibility of their values, beliefs and actions. He also argues that with representation one gives up its political will. For Barber (Barber, 1984, p. 147) representation is against equality. It is argued that all citizens have an equal vote. But in the end when a larger percentage of the people voted in favor of a policy matter, the choice is made to implement the policy. The ones who have voted against the policy do not have a say in this. His citation 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 the result and the policy that has most of the votes is implemented. Another argument is that representations make it difficult for the community to function as a regulating instrument of justice. With representation there is a gap between the representative and the represented. It must be possible , whether it is a large or a small community that is represented, to correct or verify the representative (Gusteren, 1998, p. 139). Although this must be possible, one cannot guarantee the success of representation, for it is an effort to bridge the gap (Gusteren, 1998, p. 140). J. Wijdenbosch (1985), argues that the representative democracy is not able to address the view of the minority. For him this is discriminatory to this group. For Wijdenbosch is it because of the imperfection of the system, the representatives become one with the small group of the policymakers, who most of the time have the power. The representatives tend to look more to the institution itself, than to the people who voted for them.


In his book, Held ( 1996, p. 271) summarizes some information? about participatory democracy, which I agree with. One of them? is principles of justification: he argues that an equal right to liberty and self-development can only be achieved if a society fosters a sense of political efficacy, nurtures a concern for collective problems and contributes to the formation of a knowledgeable citizenry(very formal) capable of taking sustained interest in the governing process. Barber ( 1984, p. 117) uses the term strong democracy, and describes it as a distinctively modern form of participatory democracy. He argues that strong democracy is the only form of democracy that provides adequate answers to today’s problems of politics. For him it is “self- government by the citizens rather than representative government in the name of the citizens” (Barber, 1984, p. 151). It does not necessarily mean that citizens govern at every level. There are institutions which are designed to facilitate ongoing public (civic) participation. S. Pelissery and Berg, S (2007, p. 285) quote Deneulin, who points out that there is a difference between democratic and participatory decision- making. For Deneulin democratic decision -making is a way of making decisions in the political community through existing democratic political structures, for example political parties and parliaments. Participatory decision - making is a way of making decisions by directly involving the people almost through ad hoc participatory structures, thereby trespassing 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 to be informed about the decision that has been taken, but also why if it is not the decision that the citizens wanted in the first place. Another term that is used when it comes to participation is deliberative democracy. As S. Pelissery and Bergh S, (2007, p. 284) describe it, deliberative democracy has the principle that a normative legitimate democratic process includes reasonable discussion of social problems and policy proposals to address them across the whole (wide spread of) society. Within these discussions the participants must respect each other’s way of thinking.


2.2.2. Quorum of participants

Within a democracy it is impossible to let everybody take part in the decision-making process. There will always be some people who do not take part in the discussions. For example: 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 of the discussion. This is a matter of authority (Verhulst & Nijeboer, 2007, p. 13), since the rule of quorum cannot work for compulsory attendance Even if there was a rule, there still must be a way for those who do not participate. The decisions are binding, also for those who were not present. To clarify the quorum of participants , I will use two examples that Verhulst and Nijeboer 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 Nijeboer are (Verhulst & Nijeboer, 2007, pp. 16-17): A parliament is about 0,003 % of the citizens (global average), and they are able to make decisions. So it is not wise to have a participant quorum of 20 % or 40 % in an adhoc decision -making process. Within the participant quorum, the votes of citizens who did not take part in the decision -making process are put in favor of the government policy. There is a possibility that they would vote against the policy. Therefore, their vote must be respected. The amount of people attending the meetings cannot be compared with that of the elections. In the elections all possible subjects are put on the agenda for an amount of years, for example 5 years. Within a citizens’ or town meeting, there is a selected group or subject on the agenda. It is reasonable that more people will vote in the case of elections than in the case of a meeting.


There is also an argument to put a lower quorum, to avoid boycott actions, which is also not reasonable. The barriers can be so low, that you will reach that amount. If this is the case, one can question (argue what) the use of such a barrier, and the need for boycott actions. 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 the elections of members of the parliament, and the voters did not reach the quorum, there could be no government.

2.3. Analytical framework

2.3.1. The obstacles and conditions for citizens participation

After having reviewed different studies (from, for example, India, Zimbabwe, Latin America), Gaventa en Valderrama define some barriers to more participatory local governance (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 been


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 o make participation work. t

• 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 they define. 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 of participatory budgeting. Within this process there were participatory structures with decision-making power over the allocation of resources for the development of the municipality. 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 budgeting because according to the UN Habitat, participatory budgeting differs from one place to the next (Yves Cabannes, 2004, p. 20). In general it can be described as "a mechanism (or process) 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 process as an excellent example of ço governance for accountability. With this process there is a direct involvement of normal citizens in the planning and supervising of public spending.


Because the cases of Brazil (for example Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte) were so successful, there are many works about these cases. The importance of these cases lies in their impact on accountability. When organizations want the involvement of members or other stakeholders, in other words they say that they want to inform and at some level want to be held accountable for the activities of the organization. In the cases of Brazil 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 participation

Through time, more and more people want to get involved in decisions regarding, for example, their community and environment. The need to be involved resulted in different kinds of councils, and committees for both for smaller parts and for the community as a whole. Each of these councils and committees has power in some degree. The involvement of these institutions in the decision- making process, makes it possible 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.


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. Decentralization Through the years people wanted to be involved more in decision making processes that influenced their lives. To have the involvement needed there can be reforms at different levels. Decentralization is of the reforms to. The World Bank describes decentralization as the transfer of fiscal, political and administrative powers to sub national governments ( (Hadiz, 2004, p. 697). Another definition is that of Vedeld (Bergh, 2004, p. 781): The transfer of powers and resources to authorities representative of, and downwardly accountable to, local populations, and can be considered and institutionalized form of participatory development. S. Bergh (Bergh S. , november 2004, p. 781) describes advantages and disadvantages of decentralization. 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.


2.5 Conclusion Although much has been written about citizens participation, there are different views in how to make this participation work. Within representative democracy, some of the arguments are that not all can have influence in the same way within the nation, and that there is a need for institutions that can 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 to have a say in different issues. Sub type of direct democracy are for example deliberative and strong democracy. Decentralization as Velded defines it is one of the reforms which can lead to a higher level of participation. Although it is a good view to give or to have the opportunity to participate, there are some obstacles that can hold people from participating. Fortunately, there are possibilities to overcome these obstacles. As a result of the literature review, I conclude that there is no such thing as an adequate number 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 as stated in DLGP documents.


3. Practicing participation in Suriname

3.1. Introduction This chapter will focus on how participation works in Suriname Regarding participation the Constitution of Suriname, the Law on Regional Bodies and the Interim Law Financial Decentralization are the three most used laws. So the first part of this chapter will be about the legislation on participation . Secondly, there is information about the decentralization program in Suriname while in the third part there is a description about participation in Domburg. The chapter ends with a conclusion.

3

.2. Legislation

3.2.1. The constitution

The 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 the people, and on the respect and guarantee of the fundamental rights and liberties. Chapter 8 of the constitution (Constitution of the Republic Suriname, 1987) concerns the social order. Within this chapter article 46 describes that the State must create conditions to make it possible for citizens to participate in a democratic and effective manner. Chapter 9, article 52, describes rudiments of a democratic state order. ‘Political democracy is characterized by the participation and representation of the Surinamese people, which shall express itself through the participation of the people in laying down a democratic political regime, and through their participation in legislation and administration, aimed at the upholding and expanding of this system. Political democracy shall further create the conditions for the participation of the people in general, free and secret elections for the composition of representative organs and of the Government. Accountability to the people, supervision of government actions by institutions created for that purpose and the right of revocation with regard to elected representatives are guarantees for true democracy’. Looking at article 55 part 1, one can say that Suriname has a representative democracy since the National Assembly represents the will of the people.


The legislation also looks at participation on the regional level. Article 159 of the constitution: ´The democratic order of the Republic of Suriname comprises inferior government organs on the regional level, whose function, organization, competence and operation mode shall be regulated by law in accordance with the principles of participatory democracy, and decentralization of administration and legislation. At the regional level there are two bodies, one is the districts council the second is the ressort council (Article 161, 162 and 163). As article 161 states, the district council is the supreme political administrative organ of the 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 districts council and the resort council. The resort council is chosen through elections. The number of seats a political party gets within the resort council determines the number

f seats it gets within the districts council. o 3.2.2. The law on regional bodies

As mentioned before, there are two bodies on regional level. In article 54 of the law on regional bodies (Wet Regionale Organen, SB. 1989 No 44 zoals laastelijk gewijzigd bij SB 2002 N0 54) about the planning, it is stated that the Districts council needs to present the annual budget to the citizens in a public meeting. Prior to this meeting (there is process making the resort plan)?, the resort budget and the district’s plan.


3.3. Decentralization and strengthening of the local government program

3.3.1. Goal and Components of the program

Although the constitution and the resort council mention the participation and the power of the regional organs, it was not until 1998 that the government of Suriname implemented the decentralization and strengthening of the local government. For the government in that period it was important to implement what the law stated. So the decentralization program was written as a way to put into practice what the constitution 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 commissariat

Through the years, different steps have been taken to have participation and to let the regional bodies perform as they were supposed to. The main reason why the regional organs could not perform was the lack of autonomous jurisdiction (Ahmadali, 2005, p. 7). The main goal of this program is to strengthen the local government in Suriname with a legal framework, and they have good fiscal and administrative functioning government 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.


• 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 participation

The second component is divided into 5 sub components of which citizens participation is one. This sub component looks at different issues about participation. The other components have to do with other issues that are needed for the decentralization 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 resorts have their own hearing in which the council presents a concept plan. The citizen are not only allowed to debate on the activities that are part of the plan, but also to bring other activities forward, which they want to have in the plans. At the end of the meeting, the issues which the council and citizens agreed on are put in the plan. The participants of


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 district council. Until the end of March the district council has the opportunity to transform these plans into a district plan.. For example, district Wanica has 7 resorts, so the district council of Wanica needs to draw up a district plan. The district council uses different criteria 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 of Regional development. The minister of regional development then, has the job to give those plans to his colleagues 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 the assistance of the different councils and committees but also the Ministry of Planning and development. The district council then presents the budget in a hearing (at district level). The participants of this hearing are the citizens of the district, members of the resort councils, government officials as well as civil organizations. It is important to mention that in this phase of the decentralization program, the districts work on those subject that are within the competence of the Ministry of Regional development while the other subjects are still implemented by the other ministries. The subject within the competence of the Ministry of Regional Development has to work on secondary infrastructure and waste collection

3

.4. Participation in Domburg

3.4.1. Domburg: a short view

Domburg is the second smallest resort of the Wanica district (37 KM²) and there are about 5700 inhabitants (Districtsplan Wanica Dienstjaar 2008). The demarcation of this resort: This resort is situated on the left bank of the Suriname river. In the east, the border is the plantation Adrichem, in the west the border is the Para river, and in the south the plantations Willemsburg and Concordia, and the Para river.


Domburg is becoming more and more popular, because of the waterfront. Within that area there is also a market and the government has done something to make it attractive. 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 to foreigners. The resort council of Domburg The 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 10,7 years. The average age is 50 years. The council has meetings on every third Tuesday of the month at 19.00 h. The number of people coming to this meeting vary from 2- 7 per meeting.

3.4.2. What has been done so far?

Establishment of the citizens’ participation committee: the committee consists of 15 members, 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 the decentralization program and the need to have such a committee, which needs to advise 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 and about 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 other one 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 of


2007, they concluded that more people would attend the hearings if the locations where the hearings were held would be closer. The hearing in 2009 was held on the 25th of January with 73 participants. In 2010 the hearing was held on the 12th of January with 29 participants. The reasons for changing the policy back to one hearing per resort was that overall there was no high increase of the participants. Even though the hearings were held closer to the citizens, the number that they had expected was low. They estimated at least 150 participants per hearing. There is no quorum in Suriname that specifies the number of people that need to attend these 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 resort council they make a promotion plan. Until now fliers have been distributed to the citizens, 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 of the 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 plan

Neighborhood committee One of the activities within the decentralization program is the capital investment program. For this activity some ways are going to be paved and they will also work on the 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 Domburg the capital investment program consist of two roads. There were different criteria’s to make a choice for these roads. For example if there were school there and the number of house hold within that area.


3.5 Conclusion Both the constitution of Suriname, and the Law on regional Bodies mention some form of participation of the citizens in the decision- making process. With the so- called decentralization program, there where steps taken to let the citizens take 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 make these plans and budgets. These meetings are to inform the people about the plans and they 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 see that 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 plan was made, a citizens participation committee was established.


4. The results of the inquiry

4.1. Introduction This 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 interviews Some 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 a problem. Because of the tasks of the council, they have to write letters regarding these problems to the institute, to seek for a solution to such a problem. The members of the council experience that the institutions do not always reply, which means that the problem remains unsolved.

− Own budget

The council would find it suitable and easier to have an own budget, so that problems could 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 executed within a certain year. Most of these activities are mentioned in the district plan. In implementing the plan, the resort council only takes part in the activities concerning infrastructure. When they want a certain activity done within their resort, they need to make contact with the commissariat. The law does not mention that resort councils can have a budget to do different activities. It is the commissioner, acting as representative of the local government, who needs to implement these activities. He has the role to keep 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.


− Concurrent in representation.:

As mentioned earlier there is a capital investment program (roads and drainage) going on because of the decentralization program. The choice for the roads was made by the ressort council, without the influence of the citizens. Although this was a choice of the ressort council, there is a neighborhood committee which have to oversee that the project is done a properly. the neighborhood committee is sometimes seen as a concurrent of the council, because they have the main task of looking if he job is done well. It seems as if the council has no say when it comes to implementing the nvestment program. i Contact with the citizens The members of the council have a day by day contact with the citizens. Mostly they go to the citizens to ask them about the problems they might have. They also mentioned that they get phone calls from the citizens. The biggest problem within the Domburg area is lack of tap water. As they mentioned, most of the citizens had water only in the 80`s. Nowadays some citizens use water from the gutter or the river. If we look at the number of people that attended the hearing and the weekly meetings of the resort councils, we can conclude that it is not a representative part of the citizens that attended these meetings and that the citizens do not participate sufficiently. The ressort plans Looking 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 (at they need to be paved and heightened with shells.)? There are no priorities set by the resort council, they just put all the subjects and activities 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 had priorities. Because they have experienced that f the deliberations take longer than needed to make a choice.


As the districts commissioner mentioned he works of the community, so his policy is to satisfy 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 are meetings, he argued that the process is new and it needs a mindset to make decentralization work, and that he will look at this with his staff to see what can be done. Actors: Both the ressort council and the districts council were of the opinion that there are different 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 always wanted 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 the last hearing. They wanted to know why. Most of them were not happy with the answers and said that they are not interested in who is responsible for a certain job, they just want their problems fixed.


They motivated other citizens to come to meeting and also explained why it is needed to participate, but not all were successful in bringing other citizens to the hearings. The answers they got the most, is that they do not believe they can influence the policy.

4.3. Relationship of some questions The 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 council and have contact with the local government? Even though 96% of the persons have lived in the resort of Domburg for more than 10 years (most of them were born there), the results show that 78% do not know the members of the resort council, while 41% have a good contact with the personnel of the local government. 33% did not ever have any contact at all with the local government. Reason for not participating - being organized The results show that 48% of the persons knew that there were weekly meetings or hearing held by the resort council, while 26% answered that they were not interested in these kinds of meetings. 63% said that they were not a member of any organization. Most of the 37% were members of a religious organization. Mentioning problems to institutions When problems occur, 41% will mention the problem to the institution , while 26% go to the local government.


Reasons for participating – how one comes to know that there is a meeting Everybody who went to a weekly meeting were invited by a member of the resort council, while those who went to the hearings of the district council heard it from the

edia. m The way one wants to be informed 29% had no idea how they want to be informed. The following suggestions were made by the rest: through a monthly bulletin, through neighborhood meetings, through the radio-and television stations and by visiting the people at home. The way one wants to participate – education 78% suggested that there must be more contact with the resort council, so they can inform the people about the things that go on within the resort. If that is the case, then people 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 they would like to participate or not. 11% mentioned that they are not interested. The rest had no idea how they could participate.


5. Conclusions and policy recommendations What is the state of participatory democracy at the local level in Domburg, following the 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 which allows citizens to participate. The law on regional bodies describes that the citizens need to have public meetings in which they allow the citizens to participate when it come to making the annual plan for the ressort, the ressort plan. In 1998 the government started the Decentralization and Strengthening of Local government Program , the so called decentralization program. The basis for this program was the Law on Regional Bodies. The law already describes that there is a local government. The case in Suriname was as Bergh describes the disadvantage that the responsibilities where transferred but without the financial resources. There were different laws needed and most of them passed in the National Assembly, one of them being the interim law financial decentralization, which allowed the local government to have the financial resources. There were lot of activities done to get a higher level of citizens participation, one of the sub 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 to the meetings, especially in the second year. In the second year there were more hearings just to have the hearings closer to the citizens. The figures show that average of 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 the following can be said about the participation in Domburg:


Power relations: the way the citizens are allowed to participate is describes by the local government. It could be that for example if you present a concept plan that people do not want to come any more because they do not see the reason to say something. It seems 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 as social or sport clubs. If people are organized they could come out as one to bring issues forward. Also the fact that a bigger group is affected by a certain issue, could let the government look at it faster. Participatory skills: When people are allowed to participate it is important to let them know what their role is. Also the local government need to make sure that there is no overload of participation. This is the case for example in the Capital Investment Program. There is a neighborhood committee, there is a ressort council, there are hearings, in which people are 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 what their role is these processes. If one knows what the hearing is for, they can also make better preparation. Training and sensitizing local officials: For the local government of Wanica citizens participation is a new issue. The local government needs to be involved more in the planning process that is developed by the central government. Also for the members of the regional bodies it is necessary to be involved in the process. Besides that it is important that when they are elected that they get a training in what their tasks and responsibilities are. Another issue is that the basic needs need to be in place. All the respondents mentioned 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 level promised 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 you participate to bring forward other issues.


6. References

1. 2(n.d.). Wet Regionale Organen, SB. 1989 No 44 zoals laastelijk gewijzigd bij SB 200N0 54 . Suriname.

voice".

2. Ackerman, J. (2004). Co‐Governance for accountability: beyond "exit" and "

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. LondonUniversity of California press.

ation: a 90.

5. Bergh, S. (november 2004). Democratic decentralisation and local participreview of recent research. Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 6 , 780‐7

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.

ctsraad 7. Districtspan Wanica dienstjaar 2008. (2007, maart). Wanica, Suriname: DsitiWanica.

tic 8. Elkin, S. L., & Soltan, K. E. (Eds.). (1999). Citizens comptence and democrainstitutions. 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. ce. 11. Gaventa, J., & Valderrama, C. (1999). Participation, citizenship and local gvernan

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.). UnitedKingdom: Polity Press. 15. International reations and security network. (n.d.). Retrieved juni 20, 2009, from www.isn.ethz.ch. ela.

ess. 16. McCoy, D. a. (Ed.). (2004). The unraveling of representtive democracy in Venezu

Baltimore and London, UAS and Great Britain: The Johns Hopkins University Pr 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



samenwwerking met Democratie.Nu (Belgie) en het Referendum Platform (Nederland). : Cmbridge 20.Warren, M. E. (1999). Democracy and trust. Cambridge, United KingdomUniversity Press.

ame. 21.Wijdenbosch, J. (1985, oktober 25). openngscollege van de faculteit der

maatschappij wetenschappen, studiejaar 1985/1986 . Paramaribo, Surin aculteit der

aribo. 22.Wijdenbosch, J. (1985, oktober 28). Openngscollege van de F

Maatschappij wetenschappen, studie jar 1985/1986. Param 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.

Annex 1: New organization structure of the districts

4. DISTRICTS-COMMISSARIS (DC)

12. Kabinet DC

6. DISTRICTSBESTUUR (DB)99

13. Secr.

7. Districts Financiën en Planning

(DFP)Districts-Administrateur

(Afdelingshoofd)

PLANNING-Voorbereiden Districts Strategisch Plan, Jaarplan, Meerjaren Districts Ontwikkelingsplan-Informatie, Communicatie Technologie

BEGROTING ENFINANCIEEL BEHEER

-Voorbereiden Districts-begroting-Zelfstandig Begroting & Financieel beheer

DISTRICTSINKOMSTEN-Inning, registratie en administratie belasting- en niet- belasting middelen-Beheer Districtsfonds

8. Administratieve Diensten (AD)

Districts Secretaris (Afdelingshoofd)

-Administratie-Agenda en expeditie -Archief en documentatie-Vergunningen-Domeinzaken-HRM- Toezicht- Logistieke zaken -Coördinatie en bemiddeling

9. Civieltechnische

Dienst (CTD)

Regulier onderhoud

- Gebouwen- Zandwegen- Bruggen- Sluizen- Dammen en dijken

Ontwikke-lingsdienst (sectoren)

- Wegennet- Vuilophaal- Drinkwater - Openbare markten

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. ......

11. Milieu en Gezondheids- Dienst

(MGD)Districts-Secretaris(Afdelingshoofd)Reguliere taken

-Vuilophaal-Onderhoud pleinen, plantsoenen en openbare ruimten-Beheer markten-Beheer begraafplaatsen-Toezicht op openbare gezondheidszorg

10. Beheer Bestuurs RessortenDistricts Secretaris (Afdelingshoofd)

- -Bestuursressorten-Bevolkings-participatie Commissie -Bevolkings Info Center-Voorlichting-Hoorzitting

1. Burgers

3.DISTRICTSRAAD(DR)

5. Distr. Mgt TeamDMT 2.RESSORTRAAD

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

ntwoord kort en duidelijk u op het formulier de stippellijntjes tegenkomt, betekent het dat u daar uw amag invullen. Ik dank u bij voorbaat dat u tijd wil uitrekken om deze vragen lijst in vullen. andra Bijlhout tudent Masteropleiding Public Administration aan het Lim A Po instituut te Paramaribo. SS

1. U lt tusse : w leeftijd va n 25‐40jaar 40‐55 jaar 55‐70 jaar 18‐25 jaar ar ouder dan 70 ja

ouw 2. Geslacht: man vr

3. Uw (hoogst) genote

n opleiding:

TS GLO VOJ(MULO, LBGO, L ) VOS

geen Universitair anders:……………….

4. H onachtig in het resoe lang bent u wo sort Domburg?

n 1 jaar Korter da tussen de 1 ‐5 jaar

dan 10 jaar 5‐10 jaar langer

5. nt u lid v n een org isat e of ver

Be a an i eniging nee Zo ja welke…………………………………….. n ja

6. K e R

R leden van het ressort Noem tenminste 2 namen: 1. ………………….. 2………………. ent u d J a

Neen

eeft u d 7. wel eens geparticipeer in wekelijkse vergaderingen van de RR H neen ja

8. H wel eens geparticipeer in een hoorzitting eeft u d 1 van de RR neen ja

W

Indien ja, ga naar vraag 9, indien neen: ga naar vraag 11;

9. aderinaarom besloot u naar de verg g 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.

O

Anders:………………

10. p welke manier bent u te weten gekomen dat er een hoorzitt g is d or een medeburger van het ressort Door een RR lid zelf

ers:……………………

in oVia de media And

11. O ngen geweest:

m welke reden bent u niet op een van de hoorzittiekelijkse vergaderingenNiet bekend dat er w zijn

Niet geïnteresseerd Anders: …………………..

12. H wel eens geparticipeer in een van de volksvergaderingen eeft u d 2van de Districtsraad? neen ja

W

Indien ja, ga naar vraag 13; indien neen: ga naar vraag 15;

13. aderinaarom besloot u na Om een klacht doo

ar de verg g te gaan r te geven Uit nieuwsgierigheid Anders:………………

14.

eO

p welke manier bent u te weten gekomen dat er volksvergad ringen zijn d or een medeburger van het ressort Door een RR of DR lid zelf

…………… o

Via de media Anders:………

15. O g van de DR geweest

m welke reden bent u niet op een volksvergaderin elijkse vergaderingen zijn Niet bekend dat er wekNiet geïnteresseerd

Anders: …………………..

16. Indie un u eer en prob w omgeving is, naar welk het eerst? naar de politie naar de RR of DR

………

leem in u e instantie gaat naar de media naar de bestuursdienst Anders:……………

17. Wa an de volgende s e RR mt op v e belangen van het ressort` t vindt u v telling:` D ko oor d

ns oneens neutraal ee

18. Hoe omschrijft u het contact tussen u en bestuursdienst

91 . Op welke manier zou u (nog meer) geïnformeerd willen worden over zaken in uw ressort

20. p welke manier zou u willen participeren ter ontwikkeling van uw ressort O

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.

A

nnex 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

• cht op participatie Wat doet u om burgers bewuster te maken van hun re

• burgers Vindt u dat u genoeg feedback krijgt van de

• Wat kan beter of anders bij de Ressort raad

• Wordt er vanuit de Districtsraad adequaat gereageerd op voorstellen van uit de Ressort raad

• maken. Wat is er gedaan zodat u het proces u eigen kon

• oe ziet u uw rol als DC, RR en DR in het geheel H

• 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.

Bijlhout s

News & Politics

Transcript of Bijlhout s