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 justification .............................................................................................................. 6
1.5. Research method ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.6. Limitations and problems ............................................................................................................ 8
2. The theory of citizens’ participation .................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2. Representation: does it work? ........................................................................................................ 9
2.2.1. Representative democracy and direct democracy .................................................... 9
2.2.2. Quorum of participants ........................................................................................................ 12
2.3. Analytical framework ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1. The obstacles and conditions for citizens participation .................................... 13
2.3.2. Types of participation ........................................................................................................... 15
2.4. Decentralization .................................................................................................................................. 16
2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 17
3. Practicing participation in Suriname ............................................................................................... 18
3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 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 local government program ................ 20
3.3.1. Goal and Components of the program ........................................................................ 20
3.3.2. The framework for citizens 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 has 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. Conclusions and policy recommendations ................................................................................... 31
6. References ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

Annex 1: New organization structure of the districts

Annex 2: Questionnaire

Annex 3: focus of interview


Acknowledgment

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
May 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 bodies 1 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
Suriname. Although this law authorizes the local government to do different things

1 Regional bodies has the responsibility to represent the citizens


2 within 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
wants to be informed and wants to participate.
The 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
to make participation work.

• 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
of seats it gets within the districts council.

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
investment program.

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
media.

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. (n.d.). Wet Regionale Organen, SB. 1989 No 44 zoals laastelijk gewijzigd bij SB 2002
N0 54 . Suriname.
2. Ackerman, J. (2004). Co‐Governance for accountability: beyond "exit" and "voice".
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. London:
University of California press.
5. Bergh, S. (november 2004). Democratic decentralisation and local participation: a
review of recent research. Development in Practice, Volume 14, Number 6 , 780‐790.
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.
7. Districtspan Wanica dienstjaar 2008. (2007, maart). Wanica, Suriname: Dsitictsraad
Wanica.
8. Elkin, S. L., & Soltan, K. E. (Eds.). (1999). Citizens comptence and democratic
institutions. 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.
11. Gaventa, J., & Valderrama, C. (1999). Participation, citizenship and local gvernance.
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.). United
Kingdom: Polity Press.
15. International reations and security network. (n.d.). Retrieved juni 20, 2009, from
www.isn.ethz.ch.
16. McCoy, D. a. (Ed.). (2004). The unraveling of representtive democracy in Venezuela.
Baltimore and London, UAS and Great Britain: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
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).
20. Warren, M. E. (1999). Democracy and trust. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cmbridge
University Press.
21. Wijdenbosch, J. (1985, oktober 25). openngscollege van de faculteit der
maatschappij wetenschappen, studiejaar 1985/1986 . Paramaribo, Suriname.
22. Wijdenbosch, J. (1985, oktober 28). Openngscollege van de Faculteit der
Maatschappij wetenschappen, studie jar 1985/1986. Paramaribo.
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

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. ......

6. DISTRICTSBESTUUR 4. DISTRICTS-COMMISSARIS 3.DISTRICTSRAAD
(DB) (DC) (DR)
99
12. Kabinet DC 13. Secr .

5. Distr. Mgt Team
DMT 2.RESSORTRAAD

1. Burgers

8. 10. Beheer
Administratieve Bestuurs Ressorten 7. Districts Financiën en
Diensten (AD) 9. Districts Secretaris Planning
Districts Civieltechnische (Afdelingshoofd) (DFP)
Secretaris Dienst (CTD) Districts-Administrateur
(Afdelingshoofd) - -Bestuursressorten (Afdelingshoofd)
Regulier -Bevolkings-
-Administratie onderhoud participatie PLANNING
-Agenda en Commissie -Voorbereiden Districts
expeditie - Gebouwen -Bevolkings Info Strategisch Plan, Jaarplan,
-Archief en - Zandwegen Center Meerjaren Districts
documentatie - Bruggen -Voorlichting Ontwikkelingsplan
-Vergunningen - Sluizen -Hoorzitting -Informatie, Communicatie
-Domeinzaken - Dammen en Technologie
-HRM dijken BEGROTING EN
- Toezicht FINANCIEEL BEHEER
- Logistieke -Voorbereiden Districts-
zaken Ontwikke- begroting
-Coördinatie en lingsdienst -Zelfstandig Begroting &
bemiddeling (sectoren) Financieel beheer
11. Milieu en DISTRICTSINKOMSTEN
- Wegennet Gezondheids- Dienst -Inning, registratie en
- Vuilophaal (MGD) administratie belasting- en
- Drinkwater Districts-Secretaris niet- belasting middelen
- Openbare (Afdelingshoofd) -Beheer Districtsfonds
markten Reguliere taken

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

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

1. Uw leeftijd valt tussen:
 18‐25 jaar     25‐40jaar  40‐55 jaar  55‐70 jaar
 ouder dan 70 jaar

2. Geslacht:  man  vrouw

3. Uw (hoogst) genoten opleiding:

 GLO  VOJ(MULO, LBGO, LTS)  VOS

 Universitair  anders:……………….   geen

4. Hoe lang bent u woonachtig in het ressort Domburg?

 Korter dan 1 jaar  tussen de 1 ‐5 jaar

 5‐10 jaar  langer dan 10 jaar

5. Bent u lid van een organisatie of vereniging
 neen ja Zo ja welke……………………………………..

6. Kent u de RR leden van het ressort
 Ja Noem tenminste 2 namen: 1. ………………….. 2……………….
 Neen

7. Heeft u wel eens geparticipeerd in wekelijkse vergaderingen van de RR
 neen ja

8. Heeft u wel eens geparticipeerd in een hoorzitting 1 van de RR
 neen ja

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

9. Waarom besloot u naar de vergadering 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.

Anders:………………

10. Op welke manier bent u te weten gekomen dat er een hoorzitting is
door een medeburger van het ressort Door een RR lid zelf
Via de media Anders:……………………

11. Om welke reden bent u niet op een van de hoorzittingen geweest:
Niet bekend dat er wekelijkse vergaderingen zijn
Niet geïnteresseerd Anders: …………………..

12. Heeft u wel eens geparticipeerd in een van de volksvergaderingen 2 van de Districtsraad?
 neen ja

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

13. Waarom besloot u naar de vergadering te gaan
 Om een klacht door te geven Uit nieuwsgierigheid
Anders:………………

14. Op welke manier bent u te weten gekomen dat er volksvergaderingen zijn
door een medeburger van het ressort Door een RR of DR lid zelf
Via de media Anders:……………………

15. Om welke reden bent u niet op een volksvergadering van de DR geweest
Niet bekend dat er wekelijkse vergaderingen zijn
Niet geïnteresseerd
Anders: …………………..

16. Indien u eer en probleem in uw omgeving is, naar welke instantie gaat u het eerst?
naar de politie   naar de RR of DR
naar de media    naar de bestuursdienst Anders:……………………

17. Wat vindt u van de volgende stelling:` De RR komt op voor de belangen van het ressort`
oneens neutraal   eens

18. Hoe omschrijft u het contact tussen u en bestuursdienst

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

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

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.

Annex 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

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

• Vindt u dat u genoeg feedback krijgt van de burgers

• Wat kan beter of anders bij de Ressort raad

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

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

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

• 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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to Bijlhout s

Similar to Bijlhout s (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bijlhout s