Beyond the ballot

Ward committees and other forums exist in India, but citizen engagement remains tokenistc.

Democracy draws its strength from people — their voices, their choices and their participation in shaping liveable cities and villages.

As we mark the International Day of Democracy on September 15, it is worth reflecting on how deep our democracy runs beyond voting once every five years. Democracy, in the true sense, is about engaging citizens in the making of decisions that affect their everyday lives.

In the 21st century, cities face challenges of sustainability, resilience and inclusion that are too complex for governments to solve alone. Many cities around the world have partnered with citizens to co-create pragmatic solutions. Different models of active citizen engagement include Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre (Brazil) and Penang (Malaysia), Participatory Planning in Leuven (Belgium) and Madrid (Spain), and decentralised Ward Committees in Tshwane (South Africa).

More recently, citizens’ assemblies have emerged as innovative democratic practices. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2020 report ‘Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave’, such assemblies in Ireland, France, Australia and many other countries have helped governments set long-term priorities and bridge budget gaps in critical areas such as infrastructure, climate resilience and wellness.

India’s experience with citizen participation in its cities has been disappointing. The 74th Constitutional Amendment (1993) mandated ward committees in cities with populations over three lakh, while the Model Nagar Raj Bill (2008) proposed area sabhas at the polling station level. On paper, many states have incorporated these provisions into municipal laws. In practice, however, implementation has been dismal. 

A CAG audit across 18 states in 2024 found ward committees functional in only a few cities. No data is available on area sabhas, but field observations suggest they fare even worse. Even where these forums exist, they rarely wield meaningful planning and financial powers, rendering citizen engagement tokenistic.

Despite this, there are islands of success across India that offer lessons for adaptation in other cities. In Gujarat’s Bhuj, ward committees prepare biennial development plans, monitor civic infrastructure projects and identify beneficiaries for welfare schemes. Kerala has institutionalised participation through ward committees under the Municipality Act (1994), working groups and ward sabhas under the People’s Planning Campaign, and Kudumbashree’s community organisations. These platforms operate at different levels of the city and work in convergence, keeping the poor and women at the centre of governance. 

Odisha’s Jaga Mission has empowered nearly 3,000 Slum Dwellers’ Associations (SDAs) since 2018 across 115 cities as community-led hyperlocal governance units. With women holding 50% of leadership positions, SDAs collaborate with the civic authorities in planning neighbourhood development and monitor services like water, sanitation and waste management.

With over 7,000 meetings documented between 2019 and 2024, Bengaluru’s ward committees — despite their shortcomings — have emerged as key forums for citizens to seek redressal of civic issues and put forth neighbourhood development demands to officials and elected councillors. The model has spread to Mangaluru, which has registered over 500 ward committee meetings since 2022 across its 60 wards. Inspired by these developments, citizens across other city corporations in Karnataka, including Mysuru, Ballari, Hubballi-Dharwad, Belagavi and Kalaburagi, are pushing for the formation of ward committees and area sabhas, and have met with varying degrees of success. These examples demonstrate that when place-based participatory platforms are designed well and empowered, they can improve the quality of life, strengthen accountability and build trust between citizens and government.

An ongoing study of these models at Janaagraha identifies common features that make participation effective:

Shared Ownership: Success comes when political leaders, officials and citizens see these forums as joint spaces for development. Clear laws should specify their powers, responsibilities and timelines. Representation of women, marginalised communities and diverse stakeholders, including resident associations and trade and industry bodies, is essential.

Operational Quality: Timely information sharing, regular meetings with structured agendas, attendance by elected councillors and officials, publicly available minutes and follow-up reports on actions taken sustain participation and trust. 

Capacity Building: Continuous training equips citizens, elected leaders and officials with the skills and motivation needed to make these platforms meaningful by delivering on their objectives.

Technology and Innovation: Tools and practices that improve transparency, data sharing and feedback loops reflect responsiveness of the government and deepen participation within the community.

Multi-Tiered Design: Participation should not be limited to the city or ward level. Multiple structured spaces at the city, ward and neighbourhood levels are necessary to ensure that participation percolates to the last mile.

The learnings from these models offer vital insights to implement robust participatory platforms across India’s 5,000 cities and towns, co-opting citizens as partners in its journey to becoming a developed nation.

(Aanchal is fellow, Participatory Governance, and Santosh is director, Policy
Engagement, Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.