Planning from Below. Marta Harnecker
process was turned into a tool for social mobilisation at several levels, all the way to the grassroots. This movement was called Peoples Plan Campaign (PPC).
As the then Kerala Planning Board Member in charge of the PPC, I was totally engrossed in this process. But at that point I had not yet read about the international experiences of
participatory planning. The PPC was a home grown project and the experience that we were relying on was our own. Firstly, the numerous micro development experiments that were blossoming in the region, particularly initiated by Peoples Science Movement. The second source of inspiration was the studies of the academics and researchers in institutions such as Centre for Development Studies (CDS) in Kerala. Finally, the political debates within the Communist Movement, and the aggressive stand of veteran communist leaders like EMS Namboodiripad in favour of decentralisation, provided the political vision. It was therefore a surprise for me to know that similar experiments were successfully carried out in Latin America, and that it was in fact an important component of Left political parties inthe reg10n.
Later, there were opportunities to exchange ideas about the experiences elsewhere. For instance, I heard of the experiments in Porto Alegre through my participation at a conference in Wisconsin, USA. Subsequently my book on participatory planning experiences of Kerala was translated and published in Spanish and Portuguese. I had known of Marta as an advisor to the Government of Hug·o Chavez in Venezuela and had a great interest in meeting her. I had an invitation to attend the Conference of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defence of Humanity held in Venezuela in 2004, but was unable to travel there. Finally, I met Marta when she travelled to India in March 2014, which is also when I came to know about her books and videos on participatory planning.
During that visit, she travelled across Kerala to understand the process that had taken place here. She interacted with local government representatives, academics, visited cooperatives and we had long discussions and debates on the vision for 21st century socialism. Marta has this student-like curiosity to understand intimately how things were done so that beyond the broad framework, she is able to relate with the experience of a process she seeks to understand. But what struck me most was that she was not working on a theoretical monograph, but on a more practical manual on how best to democratise political processes on the ground.
For socialism to succeed, in the future, it will need a high level of popular participation. It is fulfilling that from mere objects, people can become active agents of their political and social life. There is a lesson in the fact that where the Left is strong, this democratisation agenda is present; this democratisation does not have to wait for socialism to be a reality, rather it can be a powerful instrument in the struggle for socialism. We know how to utilise parliamentary democracy and constitutional rights to mobilise and organise people.pre
Participatory planning deepens the democratic content of our struggles and therefore has the potential to strengthen mobilisation for progressive transformation.
Thus the design of the decentralisation process is very important, along with adequate tools that can be readily understood and used. Building on systematic learning from experiences in different countries, this book offers exactly that.
Such a process of progressive transformation is in constant need to reinvent itself to avoid routinisation and bureaucratic capture and to ensure that one is addressing a ground situation that is always in flux. I cannot emphasise enough, the relevance to have such a perceptive scrutiny of the Kerala experience, as well as provide a comparative analysis of similar experiences.
Finally, it is commendable that despite being faced with immense challenges on the health front, Marta remains consistently involved in our common and collective struggle for progressive transformation towards socialism.
This book is a testimony to her resolve for a just and better world.
—DR. T. M. THOMAS ISSAC
Finance Minister of Kerala State, India
March 2018
PREFACE
1. This book is aimed at those who want to build a humanist and solidarity-based society. A society based on the greatest possible participation of the people. A society built on a model of sustainable development that is directed towards satisfying people’s genuine needs equitably, and not the artificial wants created by capitalism in its irrational drive to obtain more profits. A society that does all this while ensuring that humanity’s future is not put at risk. A society in which the organized people decide what and how to produce.
2. The issue therefore, is how to achieve complete and active protagonism?1 How can we guarantee, as much as possible, that all citizens, and not just activists or leftists, take an interest in participation? How can we achieve the participation of middle class sectors alongside popular sectors? How can we ensure that solidarity prevails over selfish interests? How can we respond to the concerns of the most disadvantaged and neglected people?
3. The authors of this book are convinced that it is through what we have called “decentralized participatory planning” that we can achieve these objectives. We have reached this conclusion not on the basis of books or academic debates, but largely through studying first-hand a range of practical experiences in participatory budgets and participatory planning.
4. We were attracted to the experience of participatory budgeting undertaken by the regional Workers’ Party government in Porto Alegre, Brazil, because we saw it as a new, non-corrupt, transparent way of governing that delegated meaningful power to the people.
5. In Venezuela, we got a strong sense of how individuals and the collective subject flourished as a result of former president Hugo Chavez’s initiative to promote the creation of communal councils — small community governments— and grant them resources for small projects. This was not done in a populist manner, with the state coming in and resolving a community’s problem for them; rather it was the result of a process of participatory planning, whereby citizens in the community carried out what Chavez called “the communal cycle.” This involved a diagnosis of the situation in the community, the development of a plan and budget, the implementation of a project, and the monitoring, evaluation and control over the carrying out of the project. And all this in small geographical spaces made up of no more than 2 thousand inhabitants.
6. Without a doubt, I was also taught some vital lessons from the practical experiences I was directly involved in during my stay in Venezuela, both in Libertador municipality in the state of Carabobo, and Torres municipality in Lara. To this list I should also add the knowledge obtained from participating in: “Planning in the Commune” workshops held with a group of spokespeople from the Union Noreste commune in San Jacinto, Barquisimento, Lara (October 2008); La Azulita commune, Merida (December 2008); and “Planning in the Community” workshops held for facilitators in Falcon municipality, in the state of Falcon (21-22 March 2009) and Rio Caribe, Arismendi municipality, Sucre (16-17 October 2009).
7. Further, our analysis was greatly enhanced by what we learnt from one of the first large-scale experiences in the world of “decentralized participatory planning”, which was undertaken in the Indian state of Kerala. There, an elected communist government decided in 1996 to carry out an important process of decentralization, involving not only monetary resources, but also material and human resources, to aid in the implementation of local development plans and facilitate the active participation of the people. This has led to greater participatory and economic development in Kerala when compared to the rest of India, and a growth in the self-esteem and self-confidence of the people. This type of decentralization allowed for greater local government autonomy when it came to planning their development, which enabled much more effective participatory planning. That is why we have titled our work: decentralized participatory planning (DPP).
8. Such a process can ensure that the people as a whole, and not only an elite, manage the wealth of society and begin to put that wealth at the service of society. That is why we believe that DPP is an essential feature of the new humanist and solidarity based society we want to build.
9. DPP has no political biases because all citizens are invited to participate