Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Statement of the problem

1.3 Purpose of the study

1.4 Research questions

1.5 Significance of the Study

1.6 Delimitation of the Study

1.7 Limitation of the Study

1.8 Organization of the Rest of the Study

CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Power dynamic is decision making

Figure 1: Spaces of Participation

Figure 2: Levels of representation in decision making

2.2 Understanding of civic of education

2.3 Benefits and barriers of citizens Participation

2.3.1 Barriers to Participation

2.3.2 Benefits of public participation

2.4 Techniques to participation

2.5 Conclusion

CHAPTER THREE. METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

3.1 Research Design

3.2 Population

3.3 Sample and Sampling Procedure

3.4 Instrument

3.5 Data Collection Procedure

3.6 Data Analysis

CHAPTER FOUR. RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.0 Introduction

4.1.0 Background information on respondents

4.1.1 Description of data

4.2.0 Power dynamics in decision

4.2.1 Public participation spaces

4.2.2.0 Levels of representation of decision making in communities

4.2.3 Sources of powers that influence decision making in communities

4.2.4 Conclusion

4.3.0 Community knowledge on civic education

4.3.1 General understanding of citizen's education

4.3.2 Participants' experience of citizenship education.

4.3.3 Who ideal citizen

4.3.4 Participants' perception of Public participation as a role of a good citizen

4.4.0 Barriers and Benefit of Public Participation

4.4.1.0 Barriers to public participation

4.4.2 Benefits of participation

4.4.0 Techniques to participation

4.4.1 Assemblymen response

4.4.2 Community members' response

CHAPTER FIVE. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Overview

5.1 Summary

5.2 Findings of the Study

5.3.0 Conclusions

5.3.1: Determinants of effective public participation

5.4 Recommendation

5.5 Suggestion for further research

REFERENCES

APPENDICES



CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Ghana is the first sub-Saharan country to gain independence in 1957. However, until 1992, Ghana saw several undemocratic rules where the general public was marginalised from participating in decision making (Gyimah-boadi, 2010). For instance, the amendment of Ghana's 1957 constitution and the promulgation of the 1960 constitution converted Ghana from a multiparty system to a one party state and conferred a live tenure on President Kwame Nkrumah. This was done without public involvement. A similar instance was a Prevention Detention Act which enacted by the CPP government under the leadership of President Nkrumah which saw that persons could be detained without trial. Also, under the leadership of General Acheampong, his government proposed the Union Government - a combination of military and civilian appointed government - without consulting the general public (Frimpong, 2007; Gyimah- Boadi, 2001). According to Mohammed (2013, p.119), the results of not involving citizens to participate in policy making in Ghana pointed to the fact that the elite decision-making model has a major drawback. He stated, "with respect to the union government concept, the initiating government was myopic in its outlook and failed to consider important communities and points of view".

Public participation nevertheless has been given credence in the 1992 constitution of the republic of Ghana and makes provision for decentralisation and local government. Decentalisation, as practiced in Ghana transfers political authority to the local levels. Participation according to Ahwoi (2010) cited in Stiftung (2010) “means adequate citizens' involvement in and influence over local governance”. The 1992 constittution of Ghana however states emphatically that as far as practicable, people who are in a particular local government area should be given the opportunity to participate effectively in their governance in order to ensure accountability of local authorities (Stiftung, 2010). The Ghanaian constitutions made several provisions for public participation and however states how citizens are to engaged decision making process.

According to the 1993 constitution Article 36 section 6 (d) states the state “makes democracy a reality by decentralising the administrative and financial machinery of government to the regions and districts and by affording all possible opportunities to the people to participate in decision-making at every level in national life and in government” Likely, the Local government act of 1993, as cited in Stiftung, (2010) made it clear that citizens have the mandate to take charge of the administration of their locality. Such powers can be executed through election by electing their District Assembly members, petitions, referendums, and to contact assembly members. The members in the community have the mandate to also observe assembly meetings and appeal for public information.

The National Development Planning Act, 1994 Section 3 also provided opportunity for citizens views to be heard whereby District planning Authorities were mandated to organise public hearing on any proposed district development plan. According to Act 480, “A District Planning Authority shall conduct a public hearing on any proposed district development plan and shall consider the views expressed at the hearings before adoption of the proposed district development plan "however, the section 4 subsection 1, 2 and 3 added a report on the public hearing shall be attached to the proposed district development plan by the District Planning Authority and The proposed district development plan in formal prescribed by the Commission shall be submitted for consideration to the Commission through the Regional Co-ordinating Council. (3) The commission shall determine the compatibility of district development plans with national development objectives and if approved shall incorporate them into a national development plan. In Ghana therefore the establishment of the urban council or the town council was to give opportunity for citizens to be directly involved in decision making. It is to provide opportunity for citizens to discus with the assembly, specific problems and suggest solutions to them. it is again supposed to enable community members to select their leaders and plan and implement community participation and engage in voluntary community services (Stiftung, 2010).

Participation is, however, a concept of deliberation in the social sciences (Kpormegbe & Ahorlu, 2014; Irvin & Stanbury 2004; Creighton, 2005 & Woods, 2012 &Westergaard 1996) and it is deep rooted in human civilisation which is embedded with a transition towards a more democratic system of governance (Muse & Narsiah 2015). Omotosho (2015, cited in Muse & Narsiah, 2015) also clearly showed that public participation is not a new phenomenon in African culture since it had long been a part of political life among many African tribes such as the Ashantis in Ghana, the Zulus in South Africa and what is popularly known as the village square meeting among the Igbo people in Nigeria and many other places. Moreover, in our modern era, many governments thrive to effectively involve citizens in decision making since participation has been recognised as a centre of democracy and also a panacea to most developmental problems. Africans leaders mostly have been urged to adopt participatory democracy (Ghana News Agency, 2007).

Different terms such as local participation, grassroots participation, community participation and popular participation have, however, been given to participation (Der Bebelleh & Nobabumah, n2013). Mathbor (2008), in agreement, went on to explain that the term participation is modified with adjectives which have further resulted in generals terms such as community participation, citizens participation, public participation and as well popular participation which give different emphasis. Rahnema (1992) cited in Mathbor G. (2008) explained that participation belongs to a category of words which have no particular content but serves a function. However, Westergaard (1996) in defining participation claimed that participation is a collective effort which sought to increase and exercise public, who were previously excluded, control over resources and institution. In the view of Slocum et al. (1995), public participation enables the personal interests and concerns of the individual and the society made known taking into consideration, purported developmental plan when they have the assurance that planning activities would affect the general public. However, according to European Institute for Public Participation [EIPP] (2009), "Public participation is the deliberative process by which interested or affected citizens, civil society organisations, and government actors are involved in policy making''. By deliberation, they meant a process of thoughtful discussion which is based on the act of giving and taking of ideas or opinion.

1.2 Statement of the problem

In Ghana, the `father and son' relation between public officials and the citizens where by the officials perceive that they know when to decide, how to decide and what to decide on amidst available scare resources as well as, the citizens perception that all their needs need to be met by officials since official control the resources pose a challenge to effective public participation. Participation, on the other hand, is expected to improve citizens' trust towards political systems that will enable them to better understand dynamics of politics (Lukensmeyer & Torres, 2006).

Involving the community in decision making, government act 1993 (act 462) stated that district assemblies are supposed to collect and collate views, opinions and proposal on matters affecting the district and present these issues to the District assembly for the needed actions to be taken. Also, in order to improve communities' participation in decision making, the assembly members are required to educate communities on government policies, programmes and projects. Assembly members are also supposed to provide adequate information to their community members and they are also required to keep a close contact with their community members and consult them on issues that are discussed during assembly meetings (Stiftung 2010 p.76).

However, public participation though has been much advocated for, research and surveys have proved that there a have been decline in political participation in communities worldwide in which Ghana is not an exception (Abudu and Fuseini, 2014). In the case of Ghana, there have been a decline in some indicators of political participation such as voting, attendance on demonstration, community activism, and contacting activities between citizens and government agencies have reduced with more that 80% of the people interviewed claiming they have never had a contact with any government agency (Afrobarometer, 2014).

Most scholars attribute low levels citizen's participation in decision making to bureaucratic structures while others attribute citizens' reluctance to participate in decision making to their lack of trust for these officials which is as a result of corruption where officials use power given to them for their own personal gains, incompetence; officials' usage of ineffective techniques of public participation (Der Bebelleh & Nobabumah, 2013; Lowndes et. al., 2001; Muse & Narsiah, 2015), and lack of civic knowledge in areas such as voting and volunteering (Delli Carpini and Keeter, 1996).

This research therefore analyses the perception of community members in order to examine the causes of the decline in political participation. This thesis reflects on how the perceptions of politics and the ability to influence decision making shape the motivations of individuals and groups to take part in the business of governance. Further, it examines how district assemblies educate community members to improve their civic knowledge and competence and the techniques employed in communities to engage community members in decision making.

1.3 Purpose of the study

The purpose of the paper is to ascertain the views of citizens and public officials view of key issues in public participation in decision making. Specifically, the paper will

1. examine the power dynamics in decision making in Ghana.

2. explore the citizens' knowledge on civic education.

3. explore the benefits and barriers of effective public participation Ghana.

4. examine the techniques employed by public official during public participation.

1.4 Research questions

The paper centres on the following questions.

1. How are power shared during policy formulation, implementation and evaluation?

2. What level of knowledge do citizens have on citizenship education?

3. What are the possible barriers and benefit of public participation in Ghana?

4. What techniques are employed by officials to involve citizens in decision making?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The research aims at contributing to already pool of knowledge in public participation which equally aims at advocating for citizens' involvement in decisions that directly affect them as well as finding ways to improve participation. Also, this research hopes to bring to lime light the determinants of effective participation in communities which would serve as a policy dimensions applicable to all communities in order for stakeholders of participations to effectively develop policies capable of improving participation.

The researcher hopes to argue that citizens understanding of how power in community creates spaces for them to be involved in decision making which eventually influence final decisions; their level of civic knowledge and competence and as well as, techniques employed to involved them in decision making work hand in hand to motivate them to participate in local decision makings thereby improving public participation.



1.6 Delimitation of the Study

The study is delimited to citizens of Ghana. In terms of content area, it will be delimited to only the meaning of participation; power dynamics during public decision making; civic knowledge and competence of community members; benefits and barriers to participation, and the techniques that can be adopted to effectively involve citizens in taking part in decision making. Although, the study will be delimited to citizens of Ghana, other places with similar characteristics can equally adopt the findings.

1.7 Limitation of the Study

In this study, the researcher is to encountered financial constraints since the researcher was not based in the country in which to studied, the cost in administering and retrieving of questionnaires, interviews was be enormous. The researcher resorted to Skype interviews to amass the research data. Also, there was a limited access to interviewees. The researcher faced respondents' apathy during data collection; and lastly, the issue of time-consuming on the part of interview guide construction since the researcher did not rely on only semi-structured interview guide developed by previous researchers.

1.8 Organization of the Rest of the Study

Chapter Two of this study reviewed related literature. Chapter Three discussed the methodology - research design, population, sample and sampling procedure instruments, data collection procedure and data analysis of the study. Lastly, Chapter Four and Five covered research findins discussion; and summary, conclusion and recommendations respectively.



CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction

This chapter dealt with some of the existing literatures and theories on the subjects that are relevant. The literatures and theories were reviewed to give the study a conceptual framework. The review was treated under the following sub-headings: power dynamics in policy making, influence of civic education, the relevance and constraint of public participation, and techniques to engage public in decision making.

2.1 Power dynamic is decision making

Despite much governments' effort to improve public participation, opportunities for participation for the marginalised and unorganised groups in societies are extremely limited or unavailable. Most policies formulations are therefore characterised by top-down approaches (Mohammed, A. K. 2013). Power has however been seen as complex topic scholars try to explain and just as Veneklasen and Miller (2002) put it, “power is both dynamic and multidimensional; changing according to context, circumstance, and interest and it expression can range from domination and resistance to collaboration and transformation”.

With a focus on providing opportunities for citizens to gain the required power to take crucial role in decisions that directly affect, Veneklasen and Miller (2002) drew some distinctions about power in order to help advocators of public participation to clearly define powers citizens require to effectively pursue their goals. These power distinctions are `power over', `power with', `power to' and `power with'. In elucidating them, Veneklasen and Miller (2002) wrote that power over focuses on the seizure of power from others and using it to dominate or oppress them instead of them gaining from. As a result, in communities whereby people have power over others, those without powers are discriminated against or either abused since they cannot influence decision making. Also, with respect to power to, they explained that it is a unique platform where individuals can directly influence their world. In such a case, individuals who open up for mutual support also open the possibilities of a joint action or more particularly, power with which happens to the another distinction of power. Shedding light on the power with, they made it clear that it has to do with the ability of different individual with different interest who are able to come into consensus and to build a collective strength. Lastly, power within is about the ability of a person to have sense of self-worth and self-knowledge while promoting tolerance among individuals.

Taking a candid at view at the power relation surrounding the democratic agenda of public involvement, Gaventa (2006), asserted that development actors who are seeking change must know the relevance to engage and comprehend the phenomenon called power. How specific power is adopted determines who possess specific authority and specific individuals who can be included and excluded in decision making. It clearly helps to determine how decisions are influenced by external actors such the World Bank, International Monetary fund and other international agencies as they allocate resources which are more of international or national focus rather on community focus. Gaventa (2006), whose main work focused intersection of power with processes of citizens engagement in governance at all levels, explained spaces, levels and forms of power which are though separate, but interrelated and influence how citizens participate in decision making in their respective societies. However, this research would focus on only space and forms for power.

Explaining the spaces for participation Gaventa (2006, p. 26) reviewed in his article the usage of space to mean political spaces, policy spaces and democratic spaces. The notion of participatory space generally expressed as "...those opportunities, moments and channels where citizens can act to potentially affect policies, discourses, decisions and relations that affect their lives and interests ". The spaces identified were;

a. Closed spaces. The form of space makes it possible for set up groups to make decisions behind closed door. These groups are the specific the bureaucrats, experts or representatives of the people. They however execute their respective role without any consultation or a greater public involvement. b. Invited spaces. This form of space makes it possible for citizens or beneficiaries of a policy take part in decision making. Citizens are therefore invited by various authorities to participate in matters that directly affect them.

C. Created or claimed spaces. This form of space is created by the less powerful groups either from or against specific power holders.

Involving citizens in decision making faces invisible and hidden and visible powers that continually affect how they are represented in the various spaces in the communities. These forms of power either lead to marginalization or powerlessness of citizens and in some cases can lead resistance or conflict if not properly instituted. Invisible powers tend to keep not only immediate issues and problems from the decision making table, but also from the, minds and the very consciousness of the stakeholders involved. The hidden power therefore influences the socialization processes and controls information thereby conditioning the processes, practices, cultural, and customs that continuously shapes citizen's comprehension of their roles and responsibilities, as well as, opportunities they possess as citizens.

The feeling of dependence, powerless and apathy within citizens can largely be attributed to the kind of information citizens receive as members of a society. On the other hand, the visible powers are the observable powers exhibited during decision making process.

They are therefore the visible and the defined aspects of political powers that include the formal institutions and officials such the legislature, executive, the judiciary, International Monetary Fund, World Bank etc and the instrument such as the policies, rules and regulations etc they operate through. Citizens inclusion in or exclusion from decision making is largely determined by laws and policies that have been adopted in various communities.

These institutions, in as much, determine whether decision making are closed or invited (Veneklasen and Miller 2002).

Figure 1: Spaces of Participation

Source: Gaventa (2005: 11)

Moyahin (2003) also pointed three levels in which participation can take place. The levels suggested were pseudo participation, full participation, and partial participation. In explaining them base on their representation in decision-making, he gave out broad and narrow view of the levels by explaining that broadly, with pseudo participation, decisions are made by the public official while public participation is merely seen symbolic involving a large group of citizens. Also, with respect to partial participation, public participation has limited influence on the decision made by public officials while decision making in full participation, public participation has a significant influence on the decision made by public officials. Focusing on the narrow view, public officials decisions tend to lack transparency in the pseudo level while decisions made in the partial level by public officials has a limited influence of a chosen interest group. Decision making is however made by both public officials and a chosen interest group in the full participation.

	Representativeness
Level	Narrow	Broad
Pseudo:	Decisions: lack transparency, made by public officials	Decisions: made by public officials public
	Participation: symbolic, using a handful of citizens	Participation: symbolic but involves large diverse group of citizens
Partial	Decisions: made by government elite with limited influence of chosen interest groups	Decisions: made by public officials, with limited influence of participate
	Participation: interest groups exert influence; most citizens lack opportunity to participate	Participation: large diverse group of citizens engage in limited discourse with to government
Full	Decisions: made by public officials and chosen interest groups	Decisions: made by public officials with chosen strong influence of participation
	Participation: interest groups exert influence; most citizens lack opportunity to participate	Participation: large diverse group of citizens engage in meaningful discourse with government

Figure 2: Levels of representation in decision making

Source: Moynihan (2003 p.170)

In conclusion, power determines the spaces created to decision making to take places as well determines the levels of citizens' participation which affects how their views and opinions are represented in final decisions. The forms of powers operating in a society either influences the development of effective public participation in decision making. The formal rules and institutions determine the rigidity or flexibility of structures that need to be restructured to improve public participation. Citizen's alacrity to participate in decision making also is determined by the levels in which they participate. These levels determine whether citizen's views influence final decisions or they are mere participants of the decision making process or are seen as symbols. The level determines the motives behind how citizens are represented. However, irrespective of how flexible formal structures maybe, they cannot readily be concluded that they are capable of incentivizing citizens to participate in decision making since how citizens are socialized influence their attitude towards public participation. With socialization playing a massive role in participation, it shapes how citizens generally view participation and hence, their enthusiasm to participate in decision making is particularly due to the customs and values citizens have internalized.

2.2 Understanding of civic of education

Most scholars have advocated for the provision of civic education to citizens to promote political participation in decision making (Agarwal 1982; Galtson, 2004; Finkel 2002). According to Ministry of Education (2007), the teaching syllabus of citizenship education in Ghana aims at producing citizens who are competent, reflective, concerned and participatory so as to be able to contribute to the general development of communities and the country in the spirit of patriotism and democracy. In similar view, according to Aggarwal (1982), citizenship education leads to the developing ideas, habits, and behaviours and useful attitudes which help individuals to be useful members of their societies. Deducing the meaning of citizenship education, however, Adams et. al (2013, p. 19) explained that citizens education equip learners with the requisite knowledge and skills and positive attitudes to enable them discharge their roles as true members of a society. They further expressed that it '' emphasizes civic responsibilities and service rendering”.

Adu-Gyamfi and Yartey (2013), on the other hand, cited in their article that the political and economic consciousness of citizens must be awakened if there is the need to build a united and strong nation. They realized that such a strong nation can be built through citizen training.

Also, accounting on the relevance of civic knowledge, Galstson (2004, p. 21) explained that civic knowledge promotes effective political participation and aid citizens to learn more about civic affairs. He further explained that as citizens tend to have an increased knowledge in civic affairs, they therefore have less generalised mistrust as they are able to offer constructive criticism on issues to better understand them. It is in this vein he stated, "Ignorance is the father of fear, and knowledge is the mother of trust ". This is to say that citizens with civic knowledge become courageous to face public life and participate in all spheres of life in the community. Also, Pattison (2012) also explained citizenship is about co-operating to change the community which could be the local community or the worlds as a whole. He further explained that for one to make a change in his or her society, the person has to comprehend how decisions that affect are made, who makes the decisions and above all how to influence those decision. It is mandatory for such change seekers to know how institutions such as their local council and community or state systems as well other international organisations that influence local decisions operate. These therefore explain the need for citizenship education (Pattison 2012)

In order to determine citizens knowledge on who a citizen therefore is, Point of light (2012) in their video interviewed some American citizens in three different states. According to the people they interviewed, a citzen is some who follows the laws; pay taxes; has a voice in the society; informed and educated and also, aims at making his or her community a better place to live.

To find out the impact of citizenship education, Finkel (2002) examined the influence adult civic education has political participation in the Domican Republic and South Africa and he found out that civic education programs have significant effects especially on local level political participation. In a similar vein, a research conducted by Abudu and Fuseni, (2014) showed that community members who have citizenship education are more likely to participate in community activities compared to those without citizenship education. According to their results, the difference existing in awareness of civic issues between those with citizenship education and those without citizenship education is significant and that those with citizenship education expressed higher desire to participate in community services.

To conclude, citizenship education tends to play a crucial role in citizens' effectiveness in decision. Citizens' competence and enthusiasm to participate during decision making can be said to depend on their knowledge in civic affairs of their community and nation as a whole. Participation in local community decision making therefore partly depends community members' awareness of their roles in the community. It also depends on their level of knowledge on how decisions are made locally

2.3 Benefits and barriers of citizens Participation

This section focus on the general benefits and barriers of participation as brought forward by scholars of public participation which may not be reviewed under power dynamics, citizens understanding of citizenship education and techniques to effective participationn

2.3.1 Barriers to Participation

Ahenkan, Bawole and Domfeh (2013), in their study about improving citizens' participation in local government planning and financial management in Ghana, realised when a respondent asserted there is the lack of transparency in the awarding of contracts for developmental projects to specific society especially when the leaders are not from the ruling party. In such instances, full information about vital policies is not revealed to people. However, party loyalists are the people likely to attend meeting and forums regarding the planning process of policies. Also, it was revealed that most members of the community were reluctant to attend the meeting because they are of the belief that their various assemblies cannot provide for their needs and hence it is a waste of time to attend forums and meetings. Also, in assessing the structures for community engagement in monitoring of development, it was revealed that procedures and structures to engage the community in monitoring and evaluation seldom existed in the district assembly level which is as a result of a poor relationships with the community members, mistrust and a perceived lack of capacity of the rural population in monitoring and evaluation of project. However, a respondent revealed that the assembly has done so little to establish a good relationship and that the process has not been transparent causing the mistrust. Some respondent accused officials of conniving with contractors to steal funds.

Also, most policy implementation failures in developing economies are due to the fact that citizens are not well-informed about the relevance of policies. Most policies come to limelight during the edge of their implementation or likewise, policies formulations are therefore by top-down approaches (Mohammed, A. K. 2013). Birskyte L. (2013) in in study stressed that the success of public involvement is determined by the provision of opportunities to those who propose policy and those affected by the policy such that it becomes less complex for stakeholders to effectively participate and their views taken seriously.

Kathlene, L. Martin, J. A. (1991 p. 48), on the other hand, grouped the barriers to participation in three major levels which were citizens limitation, policy makers' limitation and design limitations. It becomes challenging to effectively involve citizens when they do not have opportunities to official and technical information and they lack access to critical points. Officials perceive citizens' involvement to also be expensive. Also, officials' value of public opinion tends to play a critical role in participation. This is due to the fact that as some officials perceive themselves to possess the requisite skills and hence advocating for minimal or no citizens' involvement, other officials advocate for the inclusion of the citizens in a decision-making process.

Der Bebelleh, F., & Nobabumah, A. S. (2013) however, interviewed stakeholders of participation to ascertain some possible constraint to participation. It was revealed that out 40 assemblymen and women interviewed, in percentages, 82.5, 77.5, 72.5 60, 22.5, responded yes to low incentives, lack of formal education, lack of information, lack of trust for officials, inadequate skills, lack of interest and low socio-economic as major constraints to participation. On the side of the community member, the majority pointed out the lack of information, low incentives, inadequate skills and lack of trust as being the barriers to participation. In similar view, Irvin and Stanbury (2004) also specified that participation tends to be time-consuming to both government and citizens and the feeling of public officials losing their decision-making control to the citizens. They also pointed out the cost involved in participation and the possibility of a bad decision. Muse and Narsiah (2015) also shared the same view with Irvin and Stanbury (2004) when they explain that involving citizens in decision making happens to be expensive and time-consuming. They further went on to argue that the inability to pinpoint those who would be held responsible for the failures of proposed decision or policies. This shows that they would not be any defined authority when public participation is adhered to

Lastly, Lowndes et. al., (2001) in their study also indicated some drawbacks to public participation. The two possible drawbacks identified by authorities were unrealistic public participation which arises when authorities are restrained by financial and legal limitations, and the delays in decision making when the public is involved. Other barriers were the cost which happens to run across all literature, conflict among groups within a community and frequent consultation. With consultation, they explain that several organisation burden citizens when it comes to responding to various issues (interviews) and, as a result, the public becomes reluctant to participate since they (citizens) meet similar issues.

It can be concluded that the constraints to participation could be seen to arise from both public officials, structures and the citizens in general. That is to say public officials' corrupt attitude leads to poor accountability and lack of transparency which intend lead to litigations from citizen making it impossible to build trust between government citizens and officials. Also, it was reviewed financial constraints play a part in effective public participation. Again, it was revealed from the literature that citizens' lack of interest influences effective participation whereby it must be as a result unorganized consultation (frequent consultation) from other agencies which lead no proper result for citizens. Lastly, internal conflict among different groups in communities also influences effective Participation.



2.3.2 Benefits of public participation

The enthusiasm of citizens to play a part in a decision making process can be ameliorated when they are kept abreast of the benefits that will be generated. It is argued that when citizens understand issues, they will fully understand the benefits of policies aimed at their social, physiological and economic well-being. Almost all governments aim at improving the total well-being of their citizens, hence, policies are aimed at achieving that goal and citizens must be made to understand the need for them to take part in decisions that affect them. It is in this vein that Michels (2011) in analysing the relevance of citizens participation from the perspective of participatory democratic theory by Rousseau, social capital theory by Robert Putnam and deliberative democracy theory and concluded that citizens participation in decision making enables citizens to influence decision while they feel included in decision making process. Participation enables the citizens to further acquire skills and virtue necessarily for effective deliberations on issues that directly affect them and as result further increasing the legitimacy of decisions.

In the works of Moynihan (2003), the rise of public participation is supported by three interrelated theoretical arguments which are the postmodern theory, the disillusionist with bureaucracy and the democratic ideals. According to the postmodern arguments, democratic theorists argued for current societal conditions and individuals' understanding of governments in liberal democracies as a major factor for the public to involve themselves in decision-making. Societal conditions such as distrust of governments and political parties called for more participation. Other proposed reasons were the increased mobility of individuals and the weakening of family structure produced a different view of authority. Furthermore, according to Moynihan (2003), the feeling of disappointment with the traditional system of governance made up of a hierarchical bureaucracy and a belief that participation checks administrative powers called for a strong argument for participatory democracy. That is to say, bureaucracy is basically built on expertise and qualifications making it undemocratic from the values that underpin the idea of participation. Representative bureaucracy tends to delegate power and alienate political will to specific people thereby undermining individuals' values and actions. According to Barber (1986 as cited in Moynihan, 2003), we should seek for strong democracy that is characterised by increased citizen participation rather that representatives bureaucracy. In explaining the Democratic ideals, Moynihan 2003 saw the ideals "to evoke affective rather than cognitive repose from individuals". The main aim of participation focuses on the relevance of participation to the citizens and the society in general.

Public participation is identified as a necessary model to serve as a check on a bureaucratic system of governance and drive a nation to a more democratic and collective governance. Participation provides the means to reverse the growing democratic deficit to enhance citizenship, community capacity, and effective policy decisions and enables the citizens to contribute to decision making by providing a realistic support and essential information to professional public official (Spicer M. W., 1995; Moynihan, D. P. 2003; Mohammed, A. K., 2013). Moynihan (2003, p.167) pointed out that participation provides the channel for citizens to take part in decisions that directly affects them by stating, “Participation... calling for decisions that affect citizens to be made by the direct and open involvement of those citizens”. According to Creighton (2005 p.7), "Public participation is the process by which concerns, needs and values are incorporated into governmental and corporate decision making". According to Moynihan (2003 p166), "citizens participation is frequently characterised as an inevitable outcome of a logical movement from insulated and bureaucratic modes of governance to more open, transparent, and participatory approaches".

It must be noted that participation does not focus only on the mere inclusion of the public in decision-making to satisfy democratic quest, however participation must be deliberative and also create legitimate conditions for decision makers to interact with each other so as to make rational decisions (Habermas, 1984) and it not different from EIPP's (2009) instrumental argument that public participation is geared towards making use of citizens' wisdom and knowledge. Creighton (2005 p. 8) also stressed that "participation is best understood as a continuum". He further went to explain that public participations are to inform the public and listen to the public; engage them in problem-solving and to develop an agreement.

Likewise, through public participation, according to Brager et al. (1987), citizens can be educated to increase their competence and serve as a vehicle that the influences decisions that affect them and also serves as a platform for the transfer of political powers. The public therefore tends to perceive that the act of inviting them to participate in a decision-making process is a sign that they have been accepted by the government. “the public is affected by the related development plan proposal, and... participation in the decision-making process from the early stage of related planning procedure will encourage citizens' input in the planning process" (Marzuki, 2015). This will enable the views of the whole community on delicate issues to be known and hence, consequent proposals will reflect their (citizens) aspirations. In addition, Cogan and Shape (1986, p.284) recognised some benefits that could be attained when citizens are involved in decision making. To them, both parties acquire information and ideas on public issues. They also cooperate which builds trust among them. Again, participation helps to avoid prolonged conflicts and costly delay of decision making and lastly, the public tend to fully support planning decisions. Not all, Irvin and Stanbury (2004), on the other hand, pointed out several benefits citizens and governments are likely to benefits when citizens are involved in decision making. In spelling out the benefits, they drew a clear line between benefits governments and citizens derive during the decision-making process and the outcome stage. In the decision-making process, both stakeholders (citizens and government) learn from each other. Citizens are able to influence, inform and clarify government on several issues at stake. Through this, the public acquires skills for active citizenship. The government, on the other hand, is able to persuade citizens decisions build trust and minimise enmity. Also, through this, the government is able to maintain a strong lasting relationship with the citizens and hence gaining some legitimacy of the decision. With respect to the outcome, they listed the avoidance of litigation costs; the breaking of gridlocks and better policy formulation and implementation decisions for both stakeholders. In the view of Creighton J. L., (2005 p. 8), on the other hand, asserted that "Public participation creates a new direct link between the public and the decision makers in the bureaucracy". Public participation bridges the perceived gap between governments and the citizens and enables the public who are supposed to have a say in matters that affect their socio-economics life have a dialogue directly with the government. Creighton (2005), in his book, listed several benefits such as improved quality of decision, minimising of cost and delay, consensus building, maintain credibility and legitimacy and developing civil society. Kpormegbe and Ahorlu, (2014) also concluded that public participation is key to a successful community-based intervention. However, for the community to accept and fully participate in the formulation and implementation of the policy, community members must be made to view the intervention policies as their own and also made to select their own project assistants.

With respect to a study conducted Yang and Sanjay (2011) majority of their respondent reached some agreement that the involvement of citizens in decision-making bring about new ideas that might have skipped public officials. Contrary to the constraints to publication listed by some of scholars, Yang and Sanjay (2011) realised in their study that majority of the people interviewed objected to the fact participation leads to excessive delays and difficulty in reaching an agreement during decision making. The above views are not contrary to the views of World Bank (2013) and Lerner (2011) on their stake on participation in the form participatory budgeting. In their studies, participation provides solid grounds for democracy; it increases transparency in governments' fiscal policy leading to citizens' trust; improves the effective allocation of resources and improves upon communities ties. These benefits are mostly achieved when opportunities are provided for citizens to clearly spell out their needs. In doing this, citizens attain knowledge, experiences and skills budgetary politics and also understand the status of their communities as well as governments available resources and how they will be allocated.

To conclude, public participation though has been studied by several theorists who aim at divergent goals, its goals are in as much seen as interrelated and connected to each such that if properly structured, there would not be a clear cut dichotomizations of goal it might achieve. It however does not aim at only the democratization of decision making through the involvement of citizens, but aim at making effective decisions that win the support of the people. Therefore, as public participation ensures that citizens have a stake in decisions that affect them directly, it also directly avoids litigations that bedeviled governments' decisions. Participation also provides opportunity to educate the public on issues that will not be out rightly discerned by the public. Participation therefore helps to improve trust between governments and the citizens since the people always have a fair idea how their resources are been managed. Just as Lukeensmeyer, Golman and Ster, (2011), asserted that public participation does not only serve the means of educating the public and creating awareness of a policy, but it prepares a better planning framework where stakeholders' demands and needs which significantly affect resource planning and management are fully understood.

2.4 Techniques to participation

Ahenkan, Bawole and Domfeh (2013) concluded that the promotion of effective, responsive and responsible governments has been constrained by the lack of stakeholder participation in the local levels. Several initiatives and methods have therefore been initiated to involve citizens to participate in decision-making. However, to distinguish between public participation initiatives and participation techniques, public participation initiatives refers to the whole set of activities and processes while public participation techniques refers to the methods selected to engage the public (Maloff et. al, 2000). According to EIPP (2009), for citizens' confidence to develop through the use of public participation, the methods that must be used to attain that objective must be selected and systematically applied.

Creighton (2005 p.2) clarified two mechanisms to improve participation which were `increased access to information' in which citizens have access to relevant documents about public organisation executions and 'public hearing' in which citizens can comment on actions proposed. He, however, stated, “There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all public participation. But there are critical issues that can make a difference between a successful and an unsuccessful program. Public participation becomes effective when it is deeply integrated with the process of decision making and the public is involved in each of the steps that are involved in decision making. Also, proposed program of action must see to the involvement of all stakeholders who may be affected and lastly when multiple techniques which aim at different audiences are used (Creighton, J. L., 2005).

Robert (2000 cited in Marzuki's 2015) studies on Challenges in the Public Participation and the Decision Making Process also highlighted the methods of participation in Leicester City's Agenda 21. The methods used were:

1. Visioning workshops in which certain types of groups which included young people, ethnic minorities, women, older people, disabled people, low-income groups and small business owners, representing a section of the community who voice may not be heard.

2. A Snapshot questionnaire in which a survey was delivered to every household enquiring everyone about their likes, dislikes and aspiration

3. Neighbourhood questionnaire which was a second survey carried out on a random sample basis in several distinct neighbourhoods to get a detailed overview of the view of the people.