n theory, a democratic system has the advantage of governance in accordance with the wishes of the people. Despite this notional advantage, democratic systems sometimes fall short of this ideal in practice. A system that allows people the opportunity to cast vote in elections at regular intervals is believed to be a democratic system. However, it is not sufficient to achieve the spirit of democracy i.e. a democratic governance.

The insufficiency of mere electoral participation to achieve democratic governance stems from a real possibility that elected representatives may vote in parliamentary forums in accordance with their vested interests and not in accordance with the desires of the people they are meant to represent.

Elected representatives may become a tool in the hands of powerful lobbies and interest groups. The prospect of failure in a re-election can sometimes deter elected representatives from violating their contract with citizens, but not always. There are two familiar reasons for this: one, elections are an infrequent event so that the elected representatives are more focused on short-term survival and interests; two, citizens do not get timely and necessary information on consequential issues to hold their representatives accountable. These obstacles explain low levels of public trust in governance institutions even under democratic regimes.

To overcome these challenges, it is important to engage citizens with the government’s decision-making between election cycles. This allows them to have a say in policy decisions which impact their lives and, thus, hold governments to account. States that have long-standing tradition of democracy have evolved various mechanisms to build an engaged citizenry. While our country still underperforms on several democracy indices, we can learn from other countries’ experiences to improve the participation of citizens in decision making at state institutions.

There is a wide gap in contemporary Pakistan between citizens and service providers. Apart from elections, the institution closest to providing a connection between citizens and government is the complaint lodging mechanism. The previous government established a citizen’s portal, but it fell short of achieving meaningful progress.

Citizen’s experience suggests that it often took several months for authorities to take notice of the complaints. Even where it is efficient, complaint re-dress is a reactive mechanism in which the government can take action to address concerns after a citizen has been wronged. States need to actively engage citizens in the process of decision making.

An essential condition to achieving an engaged citizenry is transparency and open government. For citizens to develop informed views, they must have access to the processes and decisions of the government. Take the example of decisions regarding the use of public funds. At all levels of government, decisions regarding the use of public funds are shrouded in mystery. Citizens remain unaware of where their tax rupees are being spent and how spending priorities are set.

An essential condition to achieving an engaged citizenry is transparency and open government. For citizens to develop informed views, they must have access to the processes and decisions of the government. 

Some countries have introduced participatory budgeting to involve citizens in the process of deciding how public money is spent. Participatory budgeting allows the community to identify needs and set priorities for spending of public money.

At the neighbourhood level, it enables citizens to voice their preferences regarding specific capital investments. More generally, it allows empowerment of citizens, improves transparency in the use of government funds and helps to make the quality of service-delivery better.

In India, the state of Kerala adopted participatory budgeting in 1996. It has been implemented across all levels of government horizontally and vertically. An evaluation of the Kerala experience has revealed that participatory budgeting resulted in huge improvements in infrastructure and reduced levels of poverty in the state. Further, the practice of participatory budgeting made great headway in the inclusion of marginalised communities in decision making as it considerably improved the empowerment of Dalits and women in Kerala.

Sceptics may object to the idea of citizens’ participation citing concerns regarding their capacity. However, citizens’ capacity can only improve over time through their inclusion in these processes. Keeping them out of the loop will only widen the gulf.

Besides the participation of individual citizens, participatory budgeting entails the involvement of civil society organisations, which are typically better informed and more organised than individual citizens. Thus, concerns regarding the quality of input should not be a barrier to empowering the citizens.

If the government wants to bridge the chasm between state and citizenry, it should take concrete steps to improve citizens’ participation in decision making. As a first step, the government can launch participatory budgeting programmes at local government level. This can take the form of holding citizens meetings that are open to all.

Concerned citizens can present their suggestions in those meetings and vote on the determination of spending priorities. Local governments may earmark a portion of the budget for participatory budgetary programmes. The program can initially be adopted in a few cities and replicated later in other.

The government should also make public its revenue and spending plans in a machine-readable format. In the United Kingdom, a law passed in 2015 made it mandatory for local authorities to make public any information regarding their spending above 500 pounds.

Similar laws can be enacted in Pakistan to introduce transparency in spending decisions at various levels of government. Such initiatives can help restore people’s confidence in the ruling elite’s capacity and motivation.

The writer is a Rhodes Scholar and is currently an academic based in the UK. He can be reached at naumanlawyer@gmail.com