Politics of Participation

1. Politics of Participation Case study of the form and power dynamics of participation in two villages in southern Thailand. Masters Thesis 2010 Development Studies Lund University, Sweden

2. Background information Causes: economic deprivation and poverty? cultural and religious? Failure of state assimilation policies internal rifts between army and police? Or POLITICAL?

3. Political causes • Centralized state bureaucracy • State dis-embeddedness • No channel for participation of local population in running their own affairs • McCargo “participatory legitimacy”

4. Development to the rescue • 63 billion baht Special Development Plan for the Five Southern Border Provinces (2009-2012) • Innumerable development projects • improving quality of life, justice, human resources, investments, trade, reconciliation, • Emphasized on “participatory” development

5. Research Questions 1. what is the form of participation in the development project? -how is the space for participation created? -who took part? How? Why? 2. What are the mechanisms of power at play in shaping that form of participation and how do they challenge or maintain the status quo in the village?

6. Arnstein’s ladder of participation

7. Methodology • Fieldwork in 2 villages: Red and Green • Qualitative research methods: -Semi-structured interviews -Key informant interviews -Focus groups -Direct observation

8. Findings • Nominal and tokenistic • Level not above the placation rung of participation ladder • Village forums were conducted that allowed villagers to voice their interests, in fact anything they wanted but retained for local elites the right to determine its legitimacy and thus the real decision making power.

9. Village forum in Green Village • Window dressing ritual of rubber stamping predetermined choices. • “mobilized and “recruited” to participate • One-way flow of information • Villagers were passive informants • People attend “for the sake of it” • Everything has been “prepped” • Sick and tired of participating • Hopelessness and resistance (especially amongst Malay Muslims • At most a place where information is disseminated and where villagers can voice their interests but had no access to decision making power

10. Village forum in Red Village • High levels of tokenism • Merely to prove that villagers have “taken part in participation”. • Villagers lured into participation by promise of material reward • “Hunting” for names of participants to get 70% • Villagers were allowed to voice their interests • No decision-making power • Participation likely to lead to more conflict in the village

11. VeneKlasen & MillerAnalysis of power 3 Dimensions of power • Visible power – Observable decision making Examines power in its most visible manifestation i.e formal rules, authority structures, procedures of decision making. 2. Hidden power - Setting the political agenda Who gets to the decision making table, what gets on the agenda, whose issues are addressed, controlling access to information 3. Invisible power-Internalized power, diffused through processes of socialization, culture, tradition- difficult to discern

12. What makes these villager forums the way they are: what mechanisms of power are at play in shaping this tokenistic form of participation? Visible Mechanism of power • Village headmen, village committee and their monopoly over decision-making in the forums The administrative structure envisaged by the state to cater for the needs of villagers ultimately become a close-knit power based preserving the dominance of the village headmen. Role of See Saow Luk – de facto mechanism • Village headmen or sub-district headmen • Leader of the TAO • Religious leader (Imam or monk) • Natural leader (someone respected in the village for this knowledge)

13. In theory, not practice • Nominal and symbolic roles • little impact in curbing the power of the village headmen in the forums, let alone champion the needs of the marginalized villagers. • State in a catch 22 position The broader administrative structure of centralized State authority clearly bares influence on the tokenistic form of participation at the micro level whereby power is maintained it the hands of the village head vis-à-vis the larger public.

14. Visible mechanism of power 2. Rule of “majority wins” and marginalization of the minority The rule of majority wins that on the surface seems broadly inclusive and fair, became a tool that entrenched existing patterns of control and dominance in the village. • same groups gaining benefits • exacerbates conflict of interests instead of cooperation • blames of project failures displaced onto villagers and not the people who masterminded the choices in the first place.

15. Why were the rules of majority wins and voting techniques employed in the forums in the first place? Who decided on it? Hidden Mechanisms of power: • Roles of state officials A) setting up ground rules i.e majority wins/ vote B) Inadequacy and lack of capacity and knowledge to facilitate participatory activities • top-down nature of bureaucratic work • time constrains, other work load • emphasis on end product rather than process NGOs/CSO in the region who have extensive knowledge of participatory methods were not included in the team at all.

16. Hidden mechanism of power 2. Control over access to information Power holders limit the influence of average villagers by controlling who gets to know what and thus whose ideas actually get to the decision-making table.

17. Invisible mechanisms of power • Internalized social norms and mannerisms in a hierarchical society Phu-noi thong kow rop phu-yai The smaller should respect the one bigger/higher Creates a sense of awe, fear and also susceptibility to follow in the footsteps of the phu-yai without courage to question their culturally sanctioned authority. Kraeng-jai or deference towards another person higher up in the social hierarchy, at the expense of muting ones own desires. From this we can a participatory method that is based on participants verbal contribution might not be the best practice given that participants can succumb to self-censorship.

18. Informing villagers and allowing them to voice their interests is no doubt an important step for genuine participation and good governance. As some villagers say they would still prefer having these forums instead of nothing at all. However, as illustrated in this thesis, if these procedures are not combined with other modes of participation that would allow average villagers to par take in decision-making, then participation remains just a sham, a window dressing ritual. THANK YOU!!!!