Is participatory local policy development possible? the case of Çanakkale

Abstract

Participation became a sort of password for a more democratic, more egalitarian and freer society. However, on its own, participation and a participatory democracy are no guarantee for a more democratic and just society. On the other hand, debate on participatory democracy is nothing new. Its importance has been stressed by different actors for a long time. International organizations have issued declarations based on the principle of participatory democracy. Rather than conducting a theoretical debate concerning participatory democracy or delving into the different uses to which the concept is put by different actors, the present study aims to discuss a concrete experience of participatory practice in Çanakkale, Turkey. Focusing on the practice of developing participatory local cultural policy between 2008 and 2011 in Çanakkale, this study investigate the participation of citizens in the decision-making process and the methods and practices adopted in order to increase the level of participation and describe the problems and difficulties encountered on the field, so as to assess the quality of the participation that was achieved. Relying on observations in the field, this paper will strive to elucidate the meaning and reflect on the practice of participation in decision-making, given the need for analyses of the experiences of different localities and practices for further recommendations towards encouraging a radical change in the system.

Keywords:

• participation
• Çanakkale
• local policy

Notes

1. This article relies on observations and experiences acquired during the implementation of the project “Strategies for Local Cultural Policy” conducted between the years 2008 and 2011 on the basis of a partnership between Anadolu Kültür, Istanbul Bilgi University, Boekman Foundation and supported by the European Cultural Foundation (ECF) and the MATRA fund of the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands. The present author acted as the field coordinator of the project, which was conducted in the cities of Antakya and Kars as well as Çanakkale. The activities carried out in the course of the project set out in the same manner in the three cities, with focus group meetings and meetings where the reports prepared about the focus groups were shared. However, the activities that were to be implemented in each city after the completion of these meetings were decided upon by the citizens themselves. While Çanakkale opted for an active step in the area of participatory local cultural policies, the work carried out in the other cities was confined to support being extended to small projects conducted by NGOs. This was the main reason why Çanakkale was selected as the case further analysis in this paper.

2. Authors like Dahl, Sartori, Hayek and Eckstein defined democracy as a political method or a set of institutional arrangements characterized by competing elites and their concept of participation referred to voting. Theories that are inspired by theoreticians like Schumpeter followed an idea of democratic elitism whereby democracy is interpreted as a method whose central feature was competition for leadership in the elections See, Pateman (1970), Schumpeter (1943), Hayek (1976), and Budge (1993).

3. According to Habermas, communicative action and the lifeworld are the key notions for understanding the potential for more rational forms of social order. The idea of “lifeworld” expresses the insight that a kind of sacredness never completely disappears from modern social life. Communicative action is complementary to that notion.

4. Reservations concerning the central-local government relations have slowed the pace of these efforts. Here, the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ECLSG) envisaging the reinforcement of local government bodies as against the central government can be given as an example. Relations between central government and local government and the reasons for the reservations require further analysis and also a focus on the Kurdish question, which fall outside the scope of this study.

5. Promulgated in the Turkish Official Gazette - No. 25874, 13 July 2005.

6. Legal measures towards the restructuring and strengthening of local administration in Turkey were not limited to the municipalities and reform also entailed new laws regarding metropolitan municipalities and the special provincial administration. Thus, in mentioning changes in local administration in Turkey in 2005, Law No. 5227 on The Law on the Basic Principles and Restructuring of Public Administration; Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 (12 July 2004) and Special Provincial Administration Law no..5302 (22 February 2005) should also be considered.

7. At this point it is crucial to note the difference between Municipal Councils, local elected bodies and the City Councils that are open to public participation and became to the agenda in 2005 with the aim of making the local administration more participatory.

8. The by-laws relating to the institution of the City Council, whose draft was prepared with contributions from LA21 project partners, came into effect on 8 October 2006. At this point, it is crucial to underline the importance of the LA21 project in Turkey, since Çanakkale is one of the pilot cities where the project was implemented. LA21 can be said to have been one of the important grounds for participatory local policy development in the country even before negotiations started with the EU. The intention was to mobilize local government and local stakeholders to seek control over their cities. In subsequent years, the project ensured the support of the Ministry of Interior – General Directorate of Local Authorities as well. The various phases and sub-projects of LA21 have been supported by corresponding decisions of the Council of Ministers and have been published in the Official Gazette of Turkey as “International Agreements”. The project LA21 closed down in August 2011.

9. www.canakkale.bel.tr.

10. Both the first visits and interviews and the focus groups were conducted by the researchers from Istanbul Bilgi University and Doğuş University and the report is prepared by Aslı Çarkoğlu from Doğuş University.

11. The European Capital of Culture is designed by the European Union for a period of one calendar year during which it organizes a series of events and Istanbul was one of the Capitals in 2010. For further information http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/european-capitals-of-culture_en.htm.

12. The financial support was mainly from the MATRA Social Transformation Program of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the ECF. There were also other in kind grants from the city, such as the accommodation support granted by the Municipality.

13. This was also in line with the arguments of deliberative theorists like Habermas and Benhabib, as well as Arendt, who underline the importance of interaction with others of differing views. See Habermas (1989), Arendt (1968), and Benhabib (1992).