Key Insights
- We cannot help but hope for the better of this city, for the day we, too, actively shape the trajectory of this city instead of merely living in it.
- People in Madrid city of Spain can use an open-sourced software called “Consul” to submit their PB proposals, commentaries on law and urban plans, and concerns to the local government directly.
- Bear in mind that participatory process is–and always be–a process. Nothing less, nothing more. It serves us well as long as we utilize it well. And if we are to employ it without considering any caveats, participatory process will become nothing more than an all-purpose bandage instead of a remedy we long for.
- We need to understand the positionality of the demographic who participates in any development plan, not just opinions or results from surveys.
For the longest time, Bangkok has braved myriads of crises. One can think of public health concerns that come with the pandemic. Or the education system’s failure to prevent countless dropouts, and disruptions to the system during the severe spread of COVID-19. Or perhaps the long-standing issues, like lack of a well-connected transportation system that could facilitate flows of the growing population. Or pollution and extreme weather due to climate catastrophe, which constantly puts the city’s infrastructure to test and damages accommodation. Or the ongoing economic recession and poverty that sprawl into so many lives, leading to the meteoric rise in homelessness. This is just to name but a few.
Although the city is plagued with extreme inequality, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) persists with its ambition of progress: the pursuit of Smart City – increasing the quality of life, digitalizing every aspect of life, and improving and expediting the city’s responses to the public needs.
Looking back at the reality of what Bangkok has become, then looking to the future of what it might be, one cannot help but hope for the better of this city, for the day we, too, actively shape the trajectory of this city instead of merely living in it.
A city belongs to everyone, not just the local authorities
To make Bangkok as thoroughly inclusive as possible, information regarding development plans, city initiatives, or stakeholders in each project must be rendered fully and publicly accessible. At the same time, involved communities must be briefed in detail about future proceedings and alternatives to the selected development proposal.
One of the prominent examples of civic engagement is “participatory budgeting” (PB), a process in which people choose policy campaigns and projects to invest or divest. Participants will present their proposals and consider others’, then vote on that which is prioritized and deemed necessary to the needs of the involved communities, with a steering committee closely facilitating and monitoring this process from the beginning to the end.
This type of participation does not only allow people to decide on the collective priorities and take the reins in urban planning, instead of administrative officials. It also draws in pools of newcomers to vocalize their concerns or disagreements, especially those from the disempowered communities who continue to be neglected and drifted to the periphery.
Participatory budgeting first took place in Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1990. At that time, the majority of participants were working class who did not have access to secondary education, received low pay, and lacked experience in civic engagement. To begin with, each district would host assemblies, then elected representatives of each district would go over propo and collective needs. Afterwards, the Municipal Council of the Budget, composed of representatives from every district, would vote on selected proposals. After the voting process ended, the participants would reflect their participatory experience, and offer thoughts on possible amendments to the process.
As of now, the confluence of PB around the world is not a rare sight. Data Justice Lab reports that mega cities such as Paris, New York, and Madrid have allocated millions to PB alone, whereas the Welsh and Scottish governments show great support to PB. Scotland, in particular, dedicates 1% of its budget for the local authorities to this participatory process.
Apart from the workforce, technology can also play a significant role in increasing participation. In Madrid, Spain, people can use an open-sourced software called “Consul” to submit their PB proposals, commentaries on law and urban plans, and concerns to the local government directly. The City Council will review each submission such as public opinions on ordinances. According to Participedia, a hub of knowledge for participatory action, hundreds of the Madrileños have left their comments on draft ordinances.
Read lives and inequalities hidden beneath statistics and data
Bear in mind that participatory process is–and always be–a process. Nothing less, nothing more. It serves us well as long as we utilize it well. And if we are to employ it without considering any caveats, turning participation into an end instead of means to achieve original goals–namely development without leaving anyone behind and political empowerment of the people–participatory process will become nothing more than an all-purpose bandage that conceals inconvenient truth, instead of a remedy we long for.
The very first question we need to tackle is: who are the participants, exactly?
It is a truth universally acknowledged that Bangkok is defined by inequality. This reality is the foundation from which radical interventions develop. The power structure here is not known to be horizontal, it contains multitudes of strata that form a towering pyramid of class. This is precisely why we need to understand the positionality of the demographic who participates in any development plan, not just opinions or results from surveys.
For example, what class do the participants belong to? Are they the working class, surviving with gig after gig, living without job stability or union to look out for them? Or are they the upper middle class, digital nomads, passing the threshold for the top 1% of the entire population? Or which communities are they from? Are their accommodations susceptible to eviction, lease cancellation, or major deterioration, or are they never bothered with any of these concerns? Have they faced any constraints that arise from their citizenship or ethnicity? Do they experience disability? Which age range are they in? Are they from the LGBTQ+ communities? If not, what is their proximity to LGBTQ+ people as well as their history of allyship? These are but a short list of questions for further interrogation and interpretation of data.
By understanding lives behind data, we can see how experiences inform opinions, the way the poll results reflect interests of certain groups. From that point it is possible to ascertain where urban policies are heading towards. Once we recognize those present in the decision-making position, we can read data for absence: who did we fail to include? This question can help us strategize for pulling people back to the process. We can start by finding out the cause of their disengagement, or what conditions allow certain people to join focus group discussions. In this way, anybody will be no longer left behind.
We also have to consider more procedural possibilities that allow as many people to participate. Each meeting requires time, a resource of essence that is usually found in scarcity. As many people are unable to leave their jobs during work hours for a series of meetings, data collection and the participatory process that go beyond the convention of meetings are worth examining.
As data is distilled from real people, relationship-building is a must. Volunteers or workers in social services do not only provide care, but also hear people out. Working closely with the communities they serve, they potentially garner people’s thoughts on policy campaigns or identify the collective needs and reasons for absence from the assemblies. Scholars from the US propose that medical centers, food banks, or schools can be the frontline units for community outreach, as they are already in constant contact with the residents.
Some problems have already led to never-ending meetings with the same talking points repeated over and over again. Hardly have concerns and opinions concretized into policies. If we can solve this issue, the people will no longer be just the inhabitants, they will truly become part of the city.
