From Presence to Decision-making: Understanding ‘Participation’

Community ‘participation’ or ‘consultation’ or ‘discourse’ are a fewterms that always mark their presence in the policy documents preparedunder present welfare programmes. There are legal provisions meant toensure people’s participation in both rural and urban areas to promotedemocratic governance procedures. The target population is oftenencouraged to engage in dialogue with the recognized ‘agents’ ofchange belonging to both government and non-governmentorganizations. However, there is a difference between the idea ofparticipation as understood in democratic governance and how it isreally practised. Instead of taking initiative in planning, based on theirneeds and culture, people generally end up doing ‘role plays’ or beingdummy participants. This paper tries to arrive at the core of the conceptof participation as understood by NGOs, funding organizations and thegovernment. It brings into focus the right/power of members to takedecisions as an important element of participation. With the help of datagathered during the field work around the creation processes ofcommunication material on a national health programme (i.e. NationalVector Borne Disease Control Programme), the study aim to reflectupon the standardized procedures that are developed and maintained bya private communication agency to ensure participation by the targetedbeneficiaries

Process Matters: Specialization in Federal Appellate Review of Noncapital Section 2254 Cases

This Note assesses the need for specialized review in the federal circuit courts of noncapital habeas cases brought by state prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It first argues that the complexity of federal habeas law, the substantial disuniformity between circuits, the conflicting visions proffered by the Warren Court’s habeas jurisprudence and Congress’s recent statutory enactments—together with the greatest stakes possible at issue, liberty—are all factors warranting the creation of a national court of appeals that would hear only habeas cases. Recognizing, however, that creating such a court is a low priority for Congress at best and simply unfeasible at worst, this Note also makes another recommendation for injecting specialized review into appellate adjudication. Specifically, the circuit courts’ use of line staff attorneys to screen petitions can be much improved by creating a career staff attorney position dedicated solely to review of noncapital § 2254 cases. A formal position will attract better candidates, have lower rates of turnover, and concentrate experience and expertise to the benefit of judges and litigants