Examining culture-specific differences
Examining culture-specific differences
Part one: The West Georgia Community Mobilization Initiative (W-GCMI).
The West Georgia Community Mobilization Initiative (W-GCMI) was a project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in West Georgia between 2000 and 2004. The project was scheduled to run for four years under full implementation by CARE International. The W-GCMI project targeted vulnerable communities. It aimed at mobilizing the communities through their leaders towards various projects that improved their lives. CARE provided various grants through community based organizations as a way of enhancing community mobilization. Through this initiative, the communities were empowered to manage finances and develop mechanisms to end suffering. While supporting this initiative through USAID, the United States government wanted to achieve four results which include enhancing the communities’ ability to meet their needs, increase the capacity for the communities to access healthcare services, give these communities a sense of identity and ensure participation of vulnerable groups in the economy. This initiative underpinned the centrality of the United States in enhancing social justice and restoring world order. In addition, it was meant to improve diplomatic relationships between the United States and Georgia and unite them against Russia.
The success of the project
W-GCMI was meant to reduce human suffering and improve the lives of vulnerable communities in this region. CARE used various indicators to ensure accomplishment of its fundamental goals. The project became successful with over 100% accomplishment of various initiatives. The project targeted 550,000 individuals who could not access basic services. By the end of the project, 1,148,976 people had access to basic services. This figures is 152% of the initially projected figure. The number of women that benefited from the project rose to 200% of the initial projection.
The project increased the strength of local NGOs and created 90% of jobs through activities that USAID sponsored. The W-GCMI identified and successfully implemented various community activities. It is estimated that the community mobilization initiative was replicated in 300 communities in West Georgia. Despite these achievements, W-GCMI failed to meet two objectives. The initiative intended to complete 550 community projects. However, this objective was not achieved since only 535 projects were completed, representing 97% of the projects. The second failed objective was to create 3500 jobs through activities sponsored by USAID. Only 3148 jobs were created. This figure represents 90% of the jobs targeted. The projects targeted under this program include health and social welfare, economic activities and agriculture.
Sustainability
Even though the W-GCMI was a successful initiative, it had faced various challenges that threatened its sustainability. Some of these challenges include partnership challenges, project start-ups, the prevailing corrupt environment and awarding small grants. The project required the participation of three partners which include USAID, CARE and Horizonti. In this regard, the implementation process slowed down in the initial stages due to placement of personnel in key positions. Disagreements on the focus areas for Horizonti delayed the program schedule for 18 months. Georgia’s climate of corruption led to incidences of corruption. However, the fiscal policies and strong financial systems by CARE prevented major incidences of corruption. In the event of corruption challenges, CARE worked with various agencies such as USAID, the government of Georgia and CBOs to find a solution to the problem. The initiative suffered implementation backlog in the initial stages due to inconsistencies. The implementation plan supported by IMC and Horizonti did not match with that of SPIG, yet the combined plan by these units was necessary in achieving the mission of W-GCMI. This project marked a significant milestones in the lives of people in the vulnerable communities in Georgia. Not only did the project improved their lives through empowerment, it instilled in them the financial and farming skills that was necessary sustaining the future generations.
Part 2: Deliberative democracy and civil participation
This section discusses the subject of deliberative democracy and civic participation across the globe. It focuses on the culture-specific differences in various countries. The paper examines governance peculiarities in European, Asian, Latin American and African models of civic participation and assess the practices and variations in governance. Most countries in the world have embraced democracy as a model of governance. The advent of democratic governance across nations led to the disappearance of other types of social contracts. Democracy led to the development of institutions to check on the excesses of executive authority. Finnermore and Sikkink identified normative lifecycles as involving norm emergence, norm cascade and norm internalization. The authors argued that the change of a norm in one sphere led to normative spillovers in other areas. The authors observed that deliberative democracy and civil participation experience dynamics across nations in the globe. They observed that some countries adopt existing forms and structures as the frameworks of democracy rather than allow democracy to evolve.
Deliberative democracy in Europe
The British Government, while responding to the calls of participatory democracy, proposed the use of citizen juries in local politics (Luskin et al. 2002). Across Europe, there has been significant push for citizen participation in important national issues. Deliberative democracy leads to good decisions because it reflects the will of a majority of people. In Europe, this form of democracy is viewed an enhancement of the political system. Although the British government is centralized around London, there has been an increasing attempt to increase devolution outside London and give people more power to determine their destiny. For example, the greater Manchester region has had increased flexibility and resources for the people around it. Morales (2006) added that with increased devolution across the country, people would have more opportunities to deliberate and create decision making structures to govern their participation in matters of public interest.
Deliberative democracy in Asia
Fishkin et al. (2008) observed the existence of deliberative democracy in Athens. The Deliberative Poll allowed voters to choose the candidates for mayoral nomination. This process involved secret balloting in the polling booths. The rules of nomination had been specified that in the absence of majority win, the top two candidates would face-off in a second poll. In this regard, deliberative democracy allows people to have their opinion and voice heard in matters of public interest. Giving voters an equal opportunity to elect their leaders through civic participation is a manifestation of deliberative democracy (Fishkin et al., 2010). By exercising deliberation through an electoral participation, system accords the people an equal chance to take part in a political process. This aspect of political equality is an essential component of deliberative democracy.
Deliberative democracy in Latin America
While working on the subjective of deliberative democracy in Latin America, Fishkin et al. (2010) observed that Porto Alegre observes deliberative democracy through participatory budgeting. The citizens are involved decision making through mass participation, deliberation and policy effects. Mass participation is where majority of the population eligible to vote is involved in the decision making process. Deliberation involves weighing competing reasons for a particular national issue and against the same issue and making a decision for or against based on logic and balanced information. Policy effects implies the effect of policies and how they are discernible through consultation of the people.
The OP in Porto Alegre achieves the three methods of enhancing deliberative democracy. Despite the participation of people in decision making, the OP has been accused of leaning towards the poor. This claim is evident in the survey that has been conducted to determine the participation of people in budget making. A World Bank study found out that while 305 of the participants were from low income areas, only 11% of the participants (Fishkin et al., 2010). The inequality in the participation present a great challenge to fairness in representation. It is arguable that as long as many poor are allowed to participate, they will only advance pro-poor services. This limits the ability of the few middle income citizens to advance their interests because democracy entails will of the majority. In the OP, citizens have fifteen minutes to speak and select four items which they consider top priority from a list during the budget participation.
In a study to find out the preference of democracy in Latin America, Corral (2011) found out that democracy is favoured by both the citizens and elites. This type of government common in countries such as Brazil, Chile and Paraguay. The author observed that citizens in Latin American countries are satisfied with democracy with Countries such as Costa Rica, Chile and Honduras topping the list of satisfaction while Ecuador, Mexico and Peru recording the lowest satisfaction levels. While underscoring the centrality of political institutions in the entrenchment of democracy, the author found out that people in countries such as Uruguay, Colombia and Honduras exhibit high level of trust in institutions. AN impressive public opinion implies that the governments in these countries respect and promotes the will of their people.
Regime mimicry in Africa
The African democratic contexts lies on existing frameworks by her colonial powers. Most African countries are still stuck with the tradition of western powers nearly six decades of post-colonial era. The models that define the political processes and institutions mimic that of western powers. Krause (2013) observed that institutional imitation (isomorphic mimicry) is a problem of developing countries. Even though he points out the importance of countries learning from one another, the danger of mimicry is that countries fail to observe pertinent ideals and values that are fundamental to their creed. The author observes that African governments should be allowed to experiment by “localising” the things that work well elsewhere.
Conclusion
This paper sought to address two parts. The first part was to analyse the United States involvement in W-GCMI while the second part explored deliberative democracy in the global context. The study finds out that the United States initiative in Georgia through USAID was much successful. The assistance of the United States was meant to make a global statement that Georgia is a strategic ally of the US and enable it position strategically against its belligerent neighbour (Russia). On the subject of deliberative democracy, the study reveals that deliberative democracy is a political concept that is emerging across the globe. Most Latin American countries have embraced deliberation as a way of enhancing civic participation in matters of public interest.
References
Corral, M. (2011). The state of democracy in Latin America. A comparative analysis of the
attitudes of the elites and citizens. Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/030711.PNUD_PELA_Report.pdf
Danzoll, C. (2004). West Georgia Community Mobilization Initiative. Retrieved from
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACA943.pdf
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change.
International organization, 52(04), 887-917.
Fishkin, J. S., Camarano, E., Luskin, R. C., & Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative participatory
consultation: The first Deliberative Poll in Porto Alegre. Retrieved from http://cdd.stanford.edu/2010/deliberative-participatory-consultation-the-first-deliberative-poll-in-porto-alegre/
Fishkin, J., Luskin, R. C., Panaretos, J., Siu, A., & Xekalaki, E. (2008). Returning
deliberative democracy to Athens: Deliberative polling for candidate selection. Available at SSRN 1142842.
Krause, P. (2013). Of institutions and butterflies: is isomorphism in developing countries
necessarily a bad thing?. Background Note, The Overseas Development Institute, 1.
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling
in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(03), 455-487.
Morales, A. (2006). Sweden is top democracy; Italy “flawed,” study shows. Bloomberg.
Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aDyVX7V.vwPs
