in Local Self-Government

Participatory Budgeting in Central and Eastern Europe 131

BOX 4.1 The Bulgarian Legal Framework for Citizen Participation in Local Self-Government

Like many other countries in the region, Bulgaria is a signatory to the European Charter ofLocal Self-Government. Unlike other countries, its Constitution and national legislation set out mechanisms for citizen participation in local self-government, including referendums, community meetings, subscription mechanisms, and regulated contact with the mayor. Bulgarians also have the right to demonstrate, to attend meetings ofstanding committees ofthe municipal council, and to attend open municipal council meetings.

The Bulgarian Constitution provides for indirect and direct participation in local referendums and community meetings. Referendums can be called by one-quarter ofregistered voters in a locality or by at least one-quarter ofcouncillors. The outcomes ofreferendums are binding on local government.

Local meetings can be called on issues oflocal importance, such as sanitation, public works, use ofmunicipal property, and protection ofthe environment. These meetings can be initiated by the city council, by the mayor, or by one-quarter ofvoters. Decisionsare legitimate ifmore than halfofall voters attend the meetings and the majority ofparticipants vote in favor ofa proposal. The municipal council can reform or revoke the decisions ofmeetings on request ofthe mayor, but only after deliberation and voting.

The subscription mechanism can be used to bring decisions to the attention ofthe municipal council. A subscription can by initiatedby 100 or one-fifth ofall voters, whichever is smaller. A steering committee must be set up to manage the process. The framework allows the initiators ofa subscription one month to collect signatures;the subscription is recognized if at least one-quarter ofvoters support it. The municipal council has one month to consider the subscription; the final decision rests in its hands.

Source: Novkirishka-Stoyanova 2001.

approved at higher levels.This is the case in Albania and Ukraine.The authority and discretion to make expenditure decisions in line with local needs are therefore limited.Roles and responsibilities are opaque,reducing accountability.

As relatively recent structures operating in a murky intergovernmental environment,local governments have little capacity to plan,budget,or implement expenditure responsibilities or to motivate higher levels of government to increase the level ofresources.Local governments in some countries have been restructured more than once in an effort to create viable

132 Alta Fölscher

units or to adjust the emerging power balances between central and territorial governments.Restructuring destroys the emerging capacity to design viable budgets,advocate for funds at higher levels,raise financing,and manage and evaluate budget implementation.

These factors reduce citizens’beliefthat local government can solve their problems,and they diminsh their interest in participating in decisions (Doane, Simpson,and Rabenhorst 2000;Urban Institute 2004).Citizen participation is furtherdiscouraged by limited access to information and lack ofknowledge oflocal government responsibilities and citizen rights.Local own revenues are usuallythe least significant portion oflocal government revenues and the least significant portion oftaxes paid.This undermines the development ofcitizen interest to track how their tax contributions are used locally.Citizens are generally dissatisfied with services,but they mistrust local governments and are unwilling to pay taxes,adding momentum to the vicious cycle.Local governments lack the support oflocal citizens when advocating for more resources at higher levels ofgovernment or claiming their right to autonomy.

Citizens and Organized Civil Society Several factors make citizen participation in government difficult in the region.First,governments developed in a context in which government was traditionally opaque and harshly discouraged citizen participation in public affairs.Second,in rural areas,citizens are often poor,disempowered,and involved in a daily struggle for basic household survival,limiting their interest in communal affairs.Third,many urban residents have little access to power and resources and are excluded from key decisions affecting them.Fourth, fixed attitudes within government and citizens’beliefs about government often hinder enabling environmental factors from developing.Citizens do not perceive social infrastructure to be their responsibility.Indeed,in Moldova and the Russian Federation,citizens are suspicious ofactivities that are collective and contribute to the public good (see,for example,Ovchintseva 2003,Tiurin 2003,USAID 2001).

The literature on governance and social development suggests that intermediary organizations,such as NGOs (or nonstate organizations) and community-based organizations (CBOs),have a key role to play in encouragingsocioeconomic development,improving state effectiveness,and spurring the growth ofmeaningful democracy (Azfar and others 1999; Dongier and others 2002;Krishna 2003;Malena,Forster,and Singh 2004). Organized civil society provides citizens and governments with information, acts as a conduitfor voice,holds government actors to account,and organizes

Participatory Budgeting in Central and Eastern Europe 133

collective action.It can mitigate citizens’own weak capacity for meaningful participation and help develop that capacity.

Organized civil society started emerging in the case study countries only after the collapse ofcommunism.Several patterns are evident (Karatnycky, Motyl,and Schnetzer 2001;Krylova 2005a;Kuts 2001;Ovchintseva 2003; Preci 2002;Urban Institute 2004;USAID 2001;World Bank 2003):

Civil society has developed more rapidly and is better able to play a meaningful role in decision making in countries that faced a range oftransition issues and were not focused on independence from the Soviet Union (Albania,Bulgaria,Poland,Romania). In all countries,national CSOs have more sophisticated organizational structures,better infrastructure,and better capacity in larger cities than in smaller cities,towns,or villages. The role oforganized civil society is still often viewed as replacing government in the delivery ofservices. CSOs face major obstacles to financial sustainability.In countries where civil society development is still low (such as Moldova),the lack offunding is acute. Many countries (such as Ukraine) lack enabling legal frameworks for citizen participation.In others the existing frameworks hinder the development ofcivil society. Competition for scarce resources strains relationships among local CSOs, preventing them from forming coalitions. Not all CSOs adhere to standards ofethics,transparency,and good governance,hindering the development oftrust between citizens and organized civil society and between local government institutions and organized civil society. The development oforganized civil society benefits from cross-border exchanges and exposure to international successful practice.

The Political Context

According to Goetz and Gaventa (2001),the nature and organization ofthe political system help determine the level and quality ofparticipation of citizen groups or lobbies (the civil society environment) and the nature and power ofthe state (the local government environment).An interest group may be equipped with all the preconditions for effective engagement (social organization,relationships with powerful actors,sympathy in the broad population,and “even a crisis event to concentrate public concern on the