SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND PARTICIPATORY PLANNING - LESSONS FROM THE KERALA EXPERIENCE

1. SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND PARTICIPATORY PLANNING- LESSONS FROM THE KERALA EXPERIENCE S.M. Vijayanand Secretary (Planning & Economic Affairs) & Secretary (LSG-Rural) Government of Kerala

2. INTRODUCTION • Nature of Local Governments in Kerala especially Village Panchayats • Rural-Urban continuum • Large Village Panchayats • Weak Local Governments before 1995 • Approach to Decentralization • Big Bang • Reversals • Campaign to create environment • Participatory Planning as ‘Entry point’ • Activist facilitation by Government

3. KEY FEATURES OF DECENTRALIZATION • CLEAR FUNCTIONAL ASSIGNMENT • TRANSFER OF STAFF • TRANSFER OF SERVICE INSTITUTIONS • TRANSFER OF FUNDS • Untied • Budgetted • Formula based • Free flow

4. FEATURES OF PARTICIPATORY PLANNING • Resource persons as animators • Cascading capacity building • Participatory need assessment • Participatory Data analysis • Collective strategy setting • Projectisation by multi-disciplinary teams • Prioritisation by elected bodies

5. FEATURES OF PARTICIPATORY PLANNING (Contd…) • Vetting by Expert Groups • Approval by District Planning Committees • Implementation with Community involvement • Multi-stakeholder monitoring

6. SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FEATURES • Direct social accountability in Grama/Ward Sabhas • Focussed Social Accountability through stakeholder consultations • Participatory fora • NHG network of the BPL – through Women • Transparent distribution of benefits • NGO Partnership • Watchdog systems • Ombudsman • Appellate Tribunal

7. SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FEATURES (Contd…) • Concurrent Audit with focus on social accountability features • Policy Support • Service Delivery Policy • Social Audit Policy • Strategy for participatory monitoring • Enabling Environment • Legal entitlements • Right to Information • Citizen Charters

8. SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FEATURES (Contd…) • Administrative reforms • Simplification • Transparent financial management • Budgetting • Accounting • Development Reforms • Community contracting • Community management of assets

9. NEW INITIATIVES • SERVICE DELIVERY PROJECT • EXPANDING RIGHT TO INFORMATION • DEEPENING LSG-NGO PARTICIPATION • SOCIAL AUDIT – FORMAL AUDIT LINKAGES • REVISIT WATCHDOG SYSTEMS • ACTION RESEARCH • Social Audit • Integration of excluded group • Mainstreaming the challenged • Gender Development • Next Steps in Participatory Planning

10. NEW INITIATIVES (Contd…) • Restructuring community contracting • Grievance Redressal • IT for Service Delivery

11. ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE • Pro-poor Development • Minimum Needs provision • Increased Public Awareness • Improved targetting of benefits • Need to deepen and widen participation • Need for special attention to the marginalised

12. ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE (Contd…) • Need to Improve Social Audit • Need for proactive right to information • Weak relationship with NGOs • Weak public action • Corruption above comfort level • Need to improve watchdog systems

13. LESSONS FROM KERALA • Social Accountability increases with decentralization • Decentralization offers opportunities for basic governance reform • Need for activist government role to realise social accountability • Public action does not necessarily follow awareness of what is happening –Electoral accountability is sharper • Need for continuing citizen education and creation of fora for public participation

14. LESSONS FROM KERALA (Contd..) • Right to information alone will not do – It has to be supplemented by compulsory disclosure provision. • Social Accountability and formal accountability systems have to be linked • Community based organizations linked to local governance can strengthen social accountability • There is need to overhaul existing systems of administration to suit decentralization • Social accountability has to be separately structured for different aspects of governance. • Capacity building is critical for realizing social accountability • There has to be flexibility for innovations and beacons to emerge

15. QUESTIONS • Does political accountability take away from social accountability? Is too much of party politics and party discipline restrictive of broader social accountability by dividing people on party lines and justifying partisanship and cronyism? • Do civil society groups have to function in opposition to political groups? Would strengthening of civil society mean de-politicization and weakening of rights consciousness? • Does downward accountability reduce the need for upward accountability? Also, does intensified upward accountability reduce the time and space for downward accountability, which is slower, fuzzier and time, and energy consuming. • Is there a trade-off between formal accountability mechanisms and informal accountability mechanisms? Is the principle of “more the better” relevant or should the principle of “chose the few carefully” be adopted? • Does knowledge of facts, understanding of issues and awareness of underlying realities lead to public action?

16. QUESTIONS(Contd…) • Is public action the essential finale of social accountability? Can it stop short of it and achieve its objectives? • Is social accountability generally to the people at large or is it to interest groups. Is the latter form more intense and more realistic? • Can social accountability come up suo motu or has it be structured and facilitated by government? • Will too much emphasis on social accountability reduce project efficiency by frittering away resources and spreading thin on different local demands? • Does social accountability mechanism develop fatigue and fade away? • Is micro level social accountability more realistic than macro level social accountability in the context of a local government? • Can social accountability so consciously structured for local governments ignite the demand for greater accountability to the people of higher local governments?

17. CONCLUSION • Need for State – Citizen synergy • Participation to humanize the State towards a compassionate and caring State • Strong State - Not through power but through Service • More democracy to sort out the ills of democratic State • Power to the People through Local governments.

18. Thank you