The right to public participation is the right of each individual to contribute actively to public life. Those who are potentially impacted by any decision should be involved with making that decision, be it a governmental decision or a private decision that has social implications (see the right to property).[1] It is more than the right to vote, run for elections, and participate in referendums. It is the right of individuals to express their ideas and opinions in a public forum freely, and for those ideas and opinions to be heard, respected, discussed and debated by the community. It is the right for citizens’ concerns to be recognized and serve as a foundation for the government’s agenda.

The right to participation is the right for residents living in informal areas to influence the route for a new highway if it transverses their community. It is the right for citizens to help define the building codes and land use restrictions that impact neighborhood development. It is the right for citizens to have a say in the development or destruction of public space, including streets, parks, squares, public markets, mosques and churches. It is the right for citizens to prioritize public spending (see participatory budgeting) in their neighborhoods and to demand an equitable distribution of those resources throughout the city. It is the right of citizens to have a voice in the way public lands are used, developed, or sold and the right of citizens to object to private development that may impact their community. Effective public participation depends on access to accurate and comprehensive public information. In public decision making, knowledge is indeed power and unfortunately, the Egyptian government exercises their power by withholding information from the public.

The international human rights community has defined the right to participation in several conventions. The first was in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which, in article 21(1) affirms that “everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives;” and article 21(3) states that the “will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) echoes the right to public participation established in the UDHR by establishing the rights of citizens to (a) “take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives”; (b) “to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections”; and (c) “to have access to public service.”

The International Association for Public Participation lists seven standards for public participation:

1. The public should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives.
2. Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
3. The process communicates the interests and meets the process needs of all participants.
4. The process seeks out and facilitates the involvement of people potentially affected by the proposed decision.
5. The process involves participants in defining how they will participate–thus how the process will be structured.
6. The public participation process provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
7. The public participation process communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

Participation in Egypt

The New Egyptian Constitution (2012) states that “Citizen participation in public life is a national duty,” but limits participation as “the right to vote, run for elections, and express opinions in referendums, according to the provisions of the law.” This limited view of citizen participation is regrettable since electoral politics and referendums launched by the executive branch will not be enough to absorb the pent-up and ongoing demands of the public for significant political change and greater government responsiveness, accountability, and transparency.

Article 8 of the New Constitution reads:

The State guarantees the means to achieve justice, equality and freedom, and is committed to facilitating the channels of social charity and solidarity between the members of society, and to ensure the protection of persons and property, and to working toward providing for all citizens; all within the context of the law.

If the right to public participation is limited to voting and expressing one’s opinion through referendum, one must ask, how will the State guarantee “the means to achieve justice, equality and freedom” without listening to the public? How will they work “toward providing for all citizens” if they do not understand their needs and wants? If citizens participation in public life is a national duty, then so must be the government’s participation in public dialogue.

What is evident is that rules of the game in Egypt are not yet defined. The democratic spaces that the Revolution has forced open are contested and by no means guaranteed to remain. Despite the democratic outburst, there are powerful undercurrents that are resistant to change and will continue to drag Egypt back into an authoritarian system. Egypt runs the risk of instituting procedural reforms to reflect a democratic government while failing to reshape the existing power structures that govern the country. Will Egypt’s democracy be like Iraq’s where a long-oppressed majority faction dismisses minority party-opinions outright and institutionalize oppressive policies of their own? Or will it be like Brazil’s where the outward appearance of the country is one of a highly progressive democracy under which elite power still holds considerable force?

There are many institutional barriers to implementing the right to public participation in Egypt. Foremost among these is the culture of secrecy that continues to dominate the government and the lack of the public’s access to information. Second, is the highly centralized government structure. In successful democracies throughout the world, local governments serve as the primary interface between public figures and the population. However, the structure of Egypt’s local administrative units is not conducive to supporting public participation. The majority of bureaucrats at the local or municipal level are appointed by central ministries or the central government; governors are not elected by the people; there are no elected mayors at the city level; and locally elected councils currently don’t exist. Even if they did, they hold no legislative or budgetary power with which to respond to local needs.

As for the built environment, planners in the Egyptian government are notorious for ignoring public opinion when implementing new projects. The construction of the October 6^th flyover bridge, completed in 1996, radically changed the fabric of Cairo and destroyed a number of communities and public spaces, including Ramses Square. The plan and its completion is reminiscent of the techniques of Robert Moses, the highly controversial “master builder” of New York City of the mid-twentieth century, who also leveled communities to build major infrastructure projects and eschewed public opinion. There are new plans to remove the flyover bridge at Ramses Square and rebuild the public space, but other plans, such as those contained in Cairo 2050, indicate that the government’s penchant for grandiose projects and disregard for the opinions and priorities of the communities persists.

TADAMUN highlights several successful examples throughout Cairo where the government has cooperated with communities to improve the built environment. These cases demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of public participation in the decision making processes. Above all, these efforts mobilize the resources of the community—either through capital or labor—and the government can be assured that the communities will support these efforts. These are win-win situations. They demonstrate how the government can develop ties with communities, better target public investments to serve the public need, and avoid projects that communities will resist or resent.

The 2011 Revolution was a call for many things: it was a demand for public accountability and transparency, to end to corruption and authoritarian rule, to reform the government and reshape the relationship between the Egypt’s leaders and Egypt’s people. Simply put, it was a demand for the government to listen and respond to the needs of not just a select few citizens with wealth, influence, and power, but to the needs of all citizens. The institutionalization of the right to public participation will be contentious and difficult. Champions of citizens’ engagement both within the government and in communities may be marginalized by powerful interests that still govern the country. But the need for public participation is great. The promise of a just and equitable Egypt depends on it.