32 February 2001

PLA Notes40
7
Andrea Cor nw all and
J ohn Gaventa
Bridging the gap: citizenship,
participation and accountability
Introduction
Around the world, a growing crisisof legitimacy
characterisesthe relationship between citizensand the
institutionsthat affect their lives. In both North and South,
citizensspeak of mounting disillusionment with
government, based on concernsabout corruption, lack of
responsivenessto the needsof the poor and the absence
of a sense of connection with elected representativesand
bureaucrats(Commonwealth Foundation 1999).
Astraditional formsof political representation are being
re-examined, direct democratic mechanismsare
increasingly being drawn upon to enable citizensto play a
more active part in decisionswhich affect their lives. In
thiscontext, the questionsof how citizens especially the
poor expressvoice and how institutional responsiveness
and accountability can be ensured have become
paramount.
In thisarticle, we explore some of these challenges.
Repositioning participation to embrace concernswith
inclusive citizenship and rights, we examine a range of
contemporary participatory mechanismsand strategies
that seek to bridge the gap between citizensand the
state.
New contexts, new challenges
In many countries, measuresto bring government closer
to the people through decentralisation and devolution
have prompted shiftsin approachesto service delivery that
have widened spacesfor citizen involvement. At the same
time, the increasing marketisation of service delivery in
many countrieshasintroduced new rolesfor those who
were formerly the beneficiaries of government services.
Usershave come to be seen as consumers or clients
and civil society organisationshave become significant co-
producersof what in the past were largely state functions.
To some, these new rolesare seen aswelcome formsof
partnership between the state, the market and civil
society, while to othersthey suggest the danger that the
state isoff-loading itslarger social responsibilitiesto
private or non-governmental actors(Cornwall and
Gaventa, 2000).
Bridging the gap
In the past, there hasbeen a tendency to respond to the
gap that existsbetween citizensand state institutionsin
one of two ways. On the one hand, attention hasbeen
made to strengthening the processesof participation
that isthe waysin which poor people exercise voice
through new formsof inclusion, consultation and/or
mobilisation designed to inform and to influence larger
institutionsand policies. On the other hand, growing
attention hasbeen paid to how to strengthen the
accountabilityand responsiveness of these institutionsand
policiesthrough changesin institutional design and a
focuson the enabling structuresfor good governance.
Each perspective hasoften perceived the other as
inadequate, with one warning that consultation without
attention to power and politicswill lead to voice without
influence and the other arguing that reform of political
institutionswithout attention to inclusion and consultation
will only reinforce the statusquo.
Increasingly, however, we are beginning to see the
importance of working on both sidesof the equation. As
concernsabout good governance and state
responsivenessgrow, questionsabout the capacity of
citizensto engage and make demandson the state come
to the fore. In both South and North, there isgrowing
consensusthat the way forward isfound in a focuson
both a more active and engaged civil society which can
expressdemandsof the citizenry and a more responsive
and effective state which can secure the delivery of
needed public services. At the heart of the new consensus
of strong state and strong civil society are the need to
develop both participatory democracyand responsive
government as mutually reinforcing and supportive (The
Commonwealth Foundation, 1999:76, 82).
Re-positioning participation
Both social participation and political participation have
carried with them a distinctive set of methodsor
approachesfor strengthening or enhancing participation.
Traditionally, in the field of political participation, such
methodshave included voter education, enhancing the
awarenessof rightsand responsibilitiesof citizens,
lobbying and advocacy, often aimed towardsdeveloping a
more informed citizenry who could hold elected
February 2001

PLA Notes40 33
representativesmore accountable. In the social and
community spheres, we have seen the development of a
number of broader participatory methodsfor appraisal,
planning, monitoring large institutions, training and
awarenessbuilding. The emphasishere hasbeen on the
importance of participation not only to hold others
accountable, but also asa self-development process,
starting with the articulation of grassrootsneedsand
prioritiesand moving towardsthe establishment of self-
sustaining local organisations.
Figure 1 Linking approaches to participation
bestowing rightsand demanding responsibilitiesof its
subjects. In doing so, they aim to bridge the gap between
citizen and the state by recasting citizenship aspractised
rather than asgiven. Placing an emphasison inclusive
participation asthe very foundation of democratic
practice, these approachessuggest a more active notion
of citizenship. Thisrecognisesthe agency of citizensas
makersand shapers rather than as usersand choosers
of interventionsor servicesdesigned by others(Cornwall
and Gaventa 2000). AsLister suggests, the right of
participation in decision-making in social, economic,
cultural and political life should be included in the nexus
of basic human rights Citizenship as participation can
be seen as representing an expression of human agency in
the political arena, broadly defined; citizenship as rights
enables people to act as agents (Lister 1998), (1998:228).
Building on thisnew thinking about participation, inclusive
citizenship, rightsand responsibilities, DFIDsrecent
strategy paper Human Rights for Poor People offers
important new directionsfor participation in development.
Using the more insistent language of obligation rather
than the softer term responsiveness , it enjoins
governmentsto honour commitmentsto citizens. Casting
participation asa human right in itself, it situatesthe right
to participate asbasic to the realisation of other human
rights: Participation in decision-making is central to
enabling people to claim their rights. Effective
participation requires that the voices and interests of the
poor are taken into account when decisions are made and
that poor people are empowered to hold policy makers
accountable (DFID 2000).
At the same time, there isa growing recognition that
universal conceptionsof citizenship rights, met through a
uniform set of social policies, fail to recognise diversity
and difference and may in fact serve to strengthen the
exclusion of some while seeking inclusion of others
(Ellison 1997). With thishascome a renewed emphasison
inclusion and on issuesof social justice. In all three
spheresof political, social and community participation,
greater emphasisisnow being placed on the involvement
of those with least power and voice, with particular
attention being paid to measuresto addressentrenched
gender bias.
New spaces and places for citizenship
participation
Such new thinking about citizenship, participation and
rightsraisesthe question of how to create new
mechanisms, or spacesand placesfor citizen engagement.
It also requiresthat greater attention ispaid to the
interface between citizensand the state, to the
intermediarieswho play an increasing role in bridging the
gap and at processesthat can enhance responsibility as
well asresponsivenesson all sides.
Citizen participation/
or citizenship
Social
participation
Political
participation
Participatory
methods
Engagement in social and community participation has
inevitably brought citizensin closer contact with the
institutionsand processesof governance. Conversely,
leadersof projects, programmesand policy research
initiativeshave increasingly sought the voicesand versions
of poor people themselves.
Where citizenshave been able to take up and use the
spacesthat participatory processescan open up, they have
been able to use their agency to demand accountability,
transparency and responsivenessfrom government
institutions. An informed, mobilised citizenry isclearly in a
better position to do so effectively; the capacitiesbuilt
through popular education on rightsand responsibilities
also extend beyond taking a more active interest in the
ballot box. Equally importantly, however, where
government agencieshave taken an active interest in
seeking responsivenessand have not only listened to but
acted on citizens concerns, otherwise adversarial and
distant relationshipshave been transformed. Clearly, this
also holdsthe promise of electoral advantage. These
movesoffer new spacesin which the concept of
participation can be expanded to one of citizenship
participation , linking participation in the political,
community and social spheres(see Figure 1).
New thinking about participation
as a right
The concept of citizenship haslong been a disputed and
value-laden one in democratic theory. New approachesto
social citizenship seek to move beyond seeing the state as
34 February 2001

PLA Notes40
One area of innovation hasbeen to extend the traditional
placesfor citizen engagement from the episodic use of
the ballot box. Conventional spacessuch aspublic
meetingsand committeescan be transformed when lent
new powersand responsibilities, asuser groupsand
citizen councilsbecome actively involved in deliberation.
Innovative processestaking place in public spaceswhere
the majority of citizensspend their everyday livesinvolve
more than a self-selecting few, opening up spacesfor
broader engagement. The use of PRA for poverty or well-
being assessments, for example, offerswaysof taking the
consultation processto citizensin their own spaces.
Legislative theatre performancesdraw together policy
makers, service commissioners, providersand managers
with community membersto engage with the lived
realitiesof everyday life and explore solutionsto real-life
dilemmas.
Another emerging space for the exercise of citizenship has
come with the opening up, and indeed the levering open
through citizen action, of formerly closed-off decision-
making processes. On the one hand, in a number of
countriesenabling national policy hascreated a new
imperative to consult and involve. In Bolivia and Brazil, for
example, participatory municipal planning and budgeting,
respectively, have national or state backing. In the UK,
central government support for public involvement hasled
to a wave of innovation in consultation over a number of
high-profile government schemes. The adoption of
participatory mechanismsfor project and programme
planning hasextended beyond the boundsof discrete
initiatives, in some contexts, to on-going processesof
citizen involvement in monitoring and evaluation through
which citizensplay a part not only in offering opinionsbut
also in holding agenciesto account.
On the other hand, the increasing use of participatory and
deliberative processeshave contested and begun to
reconfigure the boundariesbetween expertise and
experience (Gaventa 1993). Ascitizensare increasingly
considered to have opinionsthat matter and experience
that counts, government agencieshave involved them
more in the kindsof decisionsthat were once presented
astechnical, rather than acknowledged asvalue-laden and
political. Nowhere isthismore the case than in the
opening up of public expenditure budgeting to citizen
engagement, ashasbeen the case in several
municipalitiesin Brazil. At the local level, a growing
emphasison the co-production and co-management of
serviceshasalso served to create new spacesfor citizen
involvement, asthe owners , and to some extent the
makersand shapers , rather than simply usersand
choosers of services.
In other contexts, pressure placed on governmentsby civil
society organisationshasforced open spacesthrough
demandsfor responsivenessand accountability. Perhaps
the most notable example of thisisthe work of M KSS in
India, whose public hearingson recorded public
expenditure have named and shamed officialsand
exposed graft to audiencesof thousandsof citizens
(Goetz 1999). Numerousother examplesexist where
NGOshave sought to intermediate between government
and citizensthrough the use of participatory mechanisms
for enhanced service responsivenessand accountability;
for example in the growing move for citizen involvement
in local health service management.
In areascharacterised by uncertainty, the use of
mechanismssuch ascitizens juriesoffersan important
new dimension: moving beyond eliciting opinionsfrom
citizenstowardsa processin which viewsare aired and
defended, in which contrasting knowledge and versions
are weighed up and interrogated, before judgements are
sought. These processesoffer a valuable corrective to the
tendency found in some participatory processesof simply
gathering peoplesviews, rather than providing
opportunitiesfor exploration, analysisand debate.
At the same time, citizen involvement in processeswhere
the emphasishasbeen on mutual learning and new
coursesof action hashelped mould new formsof
consensus, bridging differencesof interest and perspective
within communitiesaswell asbetween community
membersand statutory or non-statutory agencies. This, in
turn, hashelped create better mutual understanding and
with it, the prospectsfor enhancing relationshipsthat
were previously characterised by mistrust, suspicion and
distance.
Making participation real
Formsof participation run acrossa spectrum, from
tokenism and manipulation to devolved power and citizen
control. Asthe usesof invited participation to rubber
stamp and provide legitimacy for preconceived
interventionsgrows, citizensare becoming increasingly
sceptical. A recent report by the Commission on Poverty,
Participation and Power in the UK for instance warnsof
phoney participation, in which power relationsdo not
shift, and in which rhetoric isnot reflected in reality.
In thiscontext, making participation real raisesa set of
complex challenges. A key challenge isbuilding
confidence in the willingnessof agenciesto hear rather
than simply to listen, nod and do what they were going to
do in the first place. Where the use of participatory
methodsfor consultation hasoften been most effective is
where institutional willingnessto respond ischampioned
by high-level advocateswithin organisations. Where such
champions exist and where they can create sufficient
momentum within organisations, the processesof invited
participation that they help instigate can make a real
difference.
February 2001

PLA Notes40 35
New public management strategiesemphasise incentives
for change from within. One important incentive isto be
championed asa model for othersto follow, asan
example of good practice. Equally, recognising and
rewarding changesin practice can have significant ripple
effects. By creating spaceswithin bureaucraciesin which
responsivenessisvalued, wider changesbecome possible.
Yet, aswe suggest earlier, such changesare only one part
of the story. The best-laid plansfor public involvement can
falter where citizensexpressdisinterest and where cynical
public officialssimply go through the motionswith no real
commitment to change. Citizen monitoring and other
formsof citizen action can help force some measure of
accountability. To do so effectively, however, requiresa
level of organisation and persistence that isoften beyond
many communitieswho are involved in consultation
exercises. Building the preconditionsfor voice and
enabling citizensto actively take up and make use of
available spacesfor engagement callsfor new
combinationsof older approachesto social, community
and political participation.
It isin thisthat some of the most exciting challengesfor a
new generation of participatory processesreside: in ways
of building more deliberation into consultative processes;
in participatory rightsassessmentsthat enable people to
recognise and articulate their rights; and in movesthat
turn the tableson processesto gather voices to enable
poor people to engage in analysing the policiesand
institutionsthat affect their lives, asa starting point for
changesthat will make a difference.
Andrea Cornwall, Fellow, Institute of Development
Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, Brighton BN1
9RE, UK. E-mail: a.cornwall@ids.ac.uk
John Gaventa, Fellow, Institute of Development
Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, Brighton BN1
9RE, UK. E-mail: j.p.gaventa@ids.ac.uk
Notes
Thisnote borrowsfrom material prepared for a project
with Anne-M arie Goetz, et. al. From Consultation to
Influence: Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focusinto
Service Delivery (forthcoming).
References
Commonwealth Foundation. (1999). The Way Forward:
Citizens, Civil Society and Governance in the new
Millennium. London, Commonwealth Foundation.
Cornwall, A., and Gaventa, J. (2000). From users and
choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning
participation in social policy. IDS Bulletin 31 (4): pp 50-62.
DFID (2000). Realising human rights for poor people.
London, DFID.
Ellison, N. (1997). Beyond Universalism and Particularism:
Rethinking contemporary welfare theory. Critical Social
Policy 19 (1): pp. 57-83.
Gaventa, J. (1993) The powerful, the powerless and the
experts: knowledge struggles in a information age in
Peter Park, Budd Hall and Ted Jackson (eds), Participatory
Research in North America, Amherst, M A: Bergin and
Hadley
Goetz, R. J. and A. M . (1999). Accounts and
Accountability: Theoretical Implications for the Right-to-
Information Movement in India. Strengthening
Participation in Local Governance, IDS, Brighton, IDS.
Guijt, I., and Kaul-Shah, M . (eds) (1998). The myth of
community: gender issues in participatory development.
London, Intermediate Technology Publications.
Lister, R. (1998). Citizen in Action: Citizenship and
community development in Northern Ireland Context
Community Development Journal 33(3): 226-235.