Citizen Participation in Local Budget Process in Ukraine

Participatory Budgeting in Asia 163

In the Philippines implementation ofthe local government framework is uneven:the case ofNaga City suggests that national legal provisions for participation may need to be supplemented with more-detailed legal instruments to regulate the direct participation interface between citizens and the state.Politics has not favored strong accountability or local constraints on central power (Azfar,Kähkönen,and Meagher 2001).The traditional system has been described as neopatrimonial,combining the decentralized power offamilies and clans with a centralized bureaucracy that coordinates the implementation ofpolicy.These dynamics put civic participation in local government at risk.Still,several social changes have facilitated effective democratization and decentralization,including civic participation in local government.

In Thailand the implementation ofthe Local Government Code,with its provisions for participation,has been uneven (Suwanmala 2004).The Thai case nevertheless illustrates how enactment ofa national framework can stimulate change at the local level.

State ofCivil Society Civil society has been successful in bringing about large-scale political change in some Asian countries by deploying conflict-driven mechanisms ofprotest and mass action.The region is also characterized by large national NGOs that deliver services parallel to those provided by the state.This phenomenon developed in reaction to the state’s failure to deliver basic services on the ground.In Bangladesh,for example,the strength ofcivil society delivery organizations is a feature ofnational life.

Citizen participation in a cooperative relationship with government in local-level public decision making is relatively new.However,there is some evidence in the case studies that a history ofexercising public voice may have left citizens with some capacity to take up a meaningful role.

This is perhaps best illustrated ifthe case studies in this chapter are contrasted with those from Central and Eastern Europe (see chapter 4).The first striking difference is that the Asian case studies illustrate activities that are almost exclusively initiated and carried out by domestic actors (the local government or local civil society).International actors play a much smaller role as initiators and managers ofinitiatives than they do in Eastern Europe, where almost all initiatives have been sponsored by development partners or international NGOs.This difference may relate to Asia’s longer traditions of accountable governance and civic engagement,which have given citizens and (local) governments a different view ofthe relationship between citizens