Позитивные изменения. Том 2, №4 (2022). Positive changes. Volume 2, Issue 4 (2022)

Mikhail Shevelev, director of the Alliance of Initiative Budgeting Consultants, also notes the need for a proactive attitude on the part of the public: “In this format, projects are created and implemented together, in a participatory manner, rather than with someone breathing over one's neck and giving instructions for execution. If we consider initiative budgeting in relation to budgetary relations, the interaction between the government and the society, this is the case when the government manages certain territories together with the people. It doesn't even manage, but transforms the life and the place in a way that is convenient, comfortable and interesting for those living there.

TRUST: A PREREQUISITE OR CONSEQUENCE?

The whole technology of initiative budgeting is designed so as to ensure that the authorities and the public hear each other: with its help, an official can show any resident what local self-governance is, how the city is managed and what the limitations are. “After all, the public doesn't need to know all the intricacies of the law, which can be very complicated. And so in the course of solving a particular problem faced by the local community, the official has an opportunity to explain how everything works, in layman's terms, and the resident has an opportunity to understand what conditions need to be met to make this particular area comfortable for life,” Mikhail Shevelev says.

He notes that, in principle, the main result of initiative budgeting is not about solving the problem, but the trust that arises between all the process participants living in a particular territory. And in order for trust to emerge between government representatives and society, the citizens' involvement must not stop with merely taking their opinions into account. “You know how it often happens? “We let you vote, you voted, and we did what you voted for.” The thing is, you haven't given us the opportunity to discuss the options, or the time to go into the essence of what you're going to do, or a chance to present our own options,” the expert continues. “And then again, you want us to thank you for doing what you are supposed to do as part of your job duties. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.”

Of course, building a dialogue based on trust between officials and the residents, or between local residents themselves, is no easy task at all.

“Initiative budgeting is based on discussion,” Nikolai Plyusnin, a member of the Alliance of Initiative Budgeting Consultants, agrees. “In order to do something, we have to agree and unite, but it is really hard to connect people who are very different from each other.” But when all these nuances are worked out, and the work is based not on fear but on conscience, taking into account modern technology and scientific knowledge of the initiative budgeting, very high results are obtained, the experts agree.

In particular, Plyusnin says, a large sociological study was conducted in Kirov after five years of IB practices, which included a question about trust in the regional, district and local authorities. The researchers found that trust in the authorities in the territories without IB had not increased at all, and in areas where IB was practiced, the trust level increased significantly.

At the same time, Vladimir Vagin does not consider trust to be a primary element in the process, because people go into initiative budgeting primarily because they have a problem that needs solving, not because they want or can negotiate with someone. “The resident understands that he or she can solve their problem courtesy of the state, although that implies meeting a number of conditions and procedures that the state has put forward in order to do so. This is the root cause, and trust develops merely as a result of joint activities.”

SAME MECHANISM FOR CITIES AND SMALL TERRITORIES?

In this regard, it seems that this practice is easier to implement in small urban settlements or villages, where people have closer personal and intimate relationships than in large cities, and the problems they have are very relatable.

“When people live close to each other, it is easier for them to get together and do something good: lighting a street, paving a road, erecting a monument or, for example, setting up a hiking trail. This becomes a good reason for joint positive action,” says Nikolai Plyusnin.

In addition, villages often have a larger number of social and infrastructural problems. And the opportunity for residents to change their living conditions through personal participation, without waiting for the authorities to include a particular locality in some kind of program, becomes a very big growth driver, because people see that they can finally have the power to influence something.