How can urban governance be more inclusive and participatory?

An example I've seen is in Lagos Nigeria where strides have been made in advancing the right to city concept by actually implementing various initiatives. The informal settlement of Makoko has been recognised as an important part of the city's fabric, and efforts have been made to upgrade the infrastructure and provide basic services to residents, without displacing them. Equality for all is one of the SDGs, and urban governance involves public participation.

If it worked (generally not), participatory governance would enable people of all classes to give continuous full-spectrum input on setting the agenda, shaping policy, and guiding implementation when unanticipated problems arise. It would affirm a healthy relationship between government and governed, and promote optimism through empowerment, esp. for the poorest and most disprivileged. Here lies the contradiction: the most vulnerable would NOT be disprivileged if they had real access to policy-framing and policy-making. The existence of sharp inequality is evidence of the failure of regimes to establish real, feasible, effective participation for those most in need.

1. The timing, venues, and terminology of most public meetings make them inaccessible for the poor, and delude the privileged into thinking that their process is democratic. 2. People struggling with insecurity of job, home, health, and relationships do not prioritize facing the steep learning curve presented by public meetings. The uncertain long-term benefit does not look like a worthwhile investment of time and attention in the midst of immediate personal crises.

The challenges associated with urban governance include corruption, different views of individuals among others. Most governments are structured in a way that can be very difficult to control, due to hierarchs, processes can be difficult to handle. Different views can also lead to contradicting perspectives and ideologies which can be a problem.

For most public meetings, the agenda is already set by those in power, and the public is not invited to participate in co-designing the engagement process. The agenda determines what is important and what the priorities are from the perspective of government. Without the inclusion of community members from the start of planning processes, public meetings are likely to just reinforce what government thinks they already know.

Local knowledge possessed by community members is usually qualitative and frequently dismissed as anecdotal by those in power who can fall back on quantitative data that can easily be plugged into a GIS. Another challenge is that even if people struggling with insecurity of job, home, health, and relationships wanted to prioritize investing in attending public meetings and presenting their viewpoints, the local unit of government usually controls most of the relevant data and access to it. Public Participation GIS is an ideal, but the reality is that its reach into less affluent communities is limited.

Provide multiple free services as payment for participation: translation; transportation to and from venue; childcare; pet care; food; mailboxes; wifi; phone charging; medical checkups; and assistance on paperwork for unemployment, tenant disputes, and small claims issues. These are bare minimums before a meeting even on re-zoning can be considered accessible to the full population of an American city today. The rich can take care of themselves. They also have a right to participate; but no more than any other human being. Limit microphone time for property-owners to ensure access to the microphone for those in need.

As a first step, urban government needs to recognize and acknowledge how it has systematically excluded and oppressed groups and individuals in the past. Without this, it is unlikely government can gain the trust of disadvantaged groups.

Inclusion and participation in urban governance requires consideration of the whole process. From consultation before policy formulation to evaluation and monitoring after implementation, there is a need to be more proactive in listening to all voices. For example, when formulating community development policies, priority should be given to encouraging local ideas and giving them more space to think, rather than giving them a set of ready-made options or programmes to comment on and choose from. There also needs to be enough support for all, expertise-wise and in terms of ways of engagement. Helping people identify and understand the problem in a more understandable way is essential for all professionals.

Solutions that can be implemented to improve urban governance are: 1. Public consultation before policy formulation and implementation. 2. Devolution - devolution is the transfer of some powers and the delegation of some functions from a central government to local government. This enables competition promoting efficiency. Devolution also reduces chances of corruption since monitoring can be done by a central authority while decisions are done by local governments.

None in the US. Cities of Berkeley and San Francisco have tried, but must manage privileged older Whites who demand to be heard at the microphone and show no evidence of awareness of how they push aside anyone who has less privilege. The current Jane Jacobs style of public meeting affirms the domination of property-owners. The idea of housing as a human right was being discussed in Latin America and South Asia a full two decades before it even entered the American conversation. So long as healthcare and housing are considered market goods rather than universal rights, Americans are in no position to even begin developing actual participatory governance.

Harare, Zimbabwe: Advancing the right to city. ? upgrading of informal settlements e.g. Hopley and Epworth to promote equity and inclusion for low income earners. ? participatory urban planning approach - involving public in decision making e.g through conducting community meetings. ? promote access to affordable housing - core houses in Budiriro.

Advocacy needs to be the primary tool when embarking on a journey towards inclusive urban governance. We , as a group pf urban activists, have a adopted the battle of participatory planning in our approach while striving to get it adopted by local authorities as well. But the crucial point here is 'advocacy & awareness', unless the people, change makers, stakeholders, citizens alike, realise the importance of inclusiveness and participation in the governance there is a limit to the changes that can be brought in urban governance model.

Advocate housing as a human right, even if it might ultimately reduce the value of your house by half. Teach public policy and planning in high school; and generally, teach in a public institution. Recruit the post disprivileged to work in government, and pay them to make it worthwhile. Adopt an ethnic studies/intersectionality worldview. Rather than accept being divided and ruled by a shrinking minority of White owners, recognize collective strength of uniting across major cultural and ideological differences. Seeing humanity across difference is an optimal practice of true citizenship.

Urban planners or development practitioners should advocate for equality for all. One should gather information about a particular project in a particular area, within a particular time relating to a particular problem. This enables that planners or practitioners have concrete evidence of what's affecting different communities. Such doing will enable decision makers and different stakeholders to consider different groups in Urban Planning and Development.