Participation can be seen as “the inclusion of a diverse range of stakeholder contributions in an on-going community development process, from identification of problem areas, to the development, implementation and management of strategic planning” (Schafft and Greenwood, 2003, p. 19). In true democracy, there is no doubt that voices will rise against the ideas for public participation. Over the past years, certain visible feature relating to public participation and the increase and there had been a rise on the decision making process where citizens get involved. The public participation in the policy process, to truly implement the principles of democracy of the public process should aim to be rational and fair to achieve effectiveness. Public participation relieve doubt that citizen's offerings will affect the policy process. It is of the assumption that a person who will be impinged by a decision, has the right to be associated in decision making.
“Wise democratic processes are those which utilize a community's or society's diversity to deepen shared understanding and produce outcomes of long-term benefit to the whole community or society. Not all public participation serves this purpose. Public participation can either enhance or degrade the collective intelligence and wisdom involved in democratic processes such as making collective decisions, solving social problems, and creating shared visions. The principles below offer some guidance for designing wise democratic processes”. Tom Atlee, Co-Intelligence Institute This paper will begin by highlighting aspects of citizen participation showing the advantages and disadvantages it has on the policy process and discuss how citizen participation in the policy making process can be addressed in Jamaica.

Some Advantages of public participation

Participation in the policy process percusses “the energies and resources of individual citizens, providing a source of special insight, information, knowledge and experience, which contribute to the soundness of community solutions” (Cahn and Camper Cahn, 1968). It also ensures that the fairness of the distribution of resources to communities (Gamble and Weil, 1995). To add, the public participation in decision-making “may serve as a vehicle for empowerment” (Hardina, 2003). Public participation in the public policy process “seems to hold a sacrosanct role in [most] political culture[s]” (Day 1997, 1) and the growing need for the incorporation of the public into decision making is not limited to only first world countries. There are arguments approving the enhancing of citizen participation, frequently focuses on the benefits of the process itself. Nelson and Wright (1995), illustrates the participation process as a commutative apparatus for social transition. In addition, citizens' involvement in the process, is aimed to produce better decisions, and therefore produce more efficient benefits to the society (Beierle 1999; Thomas 1995). In this manner, we have two echelons of benefits to turn over in our minds; 'the process and the outcomes' and two persons who gain; 'the government and the citizens, in appraising the effectiveness of public's participation in the policy process. A comprehensive public-participation process can avail to go beyond the barricades to effective policy created by our blurb media culture. “Informed and involved citizens become citizen-experts, understanding technically difficult situations and seeing holistic, community wide solutions” (Irvin, 2004). Blackburn and Bruce (1995), Sabatier (1988) and Pateman (1970) state the importance of the educational advantages of citizen participation. Administrators are able to account for their reasons for badgering policies that, would not be familiar to the public. It is deduced that more contributor with a increased disenchanted level of understanding will respond better policy decisions, and along these lines have better social outcomes “We envision that these relationships established with regional and community organizations will bring about a better understanding of environmental problems” (Irvin, 2004) Persons who manage the policy process also benefit from receiving development of knowledge on specific groups’ positions. The administrators, through common form of communication with citizens who might not be interested in the policy-making process, might learn which policies are likely to be abhorred and how to avoid such policy failures.(Irvin, 2004) “A policy that is well grounded in citizen preferences might be implemented in a smoother, less costly fashion because the public is more cooperative when the policy is implemented” (Thomas 1995; Vroom and Jago 1988). What stimulate government organizations to abjure part of their decision making obligatoriness to participating groups may not have been a honest admiration to make better, policy outcomes by enhancing education about community inclinations. Alternatively, the more powerful simulation factor may be the outlook of a more cooperative public. Thomas makes clear, “more often than not, the impetus for public involvement comes from a need to obtain acceptance as a prerequisite to successful implementation” (1995, 113). Howard, Lipsky, and Marshall (1994) demonstrate this in the archival context of modern politics, where state and local policy built 'in response to the urban protest movement of the 1960s”.
Sometimes, the whole notion of public-participation in the policy process can be seen as mainly protocol, in that the feedback received from the citizens sometimes is not regarded in the formulating of policies. It was only to make the public feel as if their voice is being heard. Rourke supports, with an instance of a bureaucracy unwilling to admit control; “The truth of the matter is that agencies in the field of national security affairs give a good deal of lip service to the idea of consulting with the public, but in practice this consultation commonly consists of getting groups of citizens together so that they can be indoctrinated with the official point of view” (1984, 54). Disadvantages in citizens-participation Frequent arguments of the value of 'public participation' omit a big impediment; cost. Although approximate costs have not been liable to be subjected close examination, “the low end of the per-decision cost of citizen-participation groups is arguably more expensive than the decision making of a single agency administrator, even if the citizen participants’ time costs are ignored” (Irvin, 2004). One administrator, methodologically prepared and politically perceptive enough to identify the probable outcomes of his or her decision, “may come to the same decision that the community group chose and it may take him or her one month of work, one day, or even just one hour of consideration”. (Irvin, 2004) Lawrence and Deagen (2001) denote the ample time pledge that 'the citizen-participation processes' require, and Echeverria (2001) describes is as a “collaborative process that is deliberately designed to slow down environmental decision making to favor the status quota”.
“Decisions happen slowly enough in government organizations” (Rourke 1984) without, firstly assembling a 'public forum', educating the public on the complications of the problem. Specifically if matters coming before the courts are unlikely, an embellished 'public participation process' may in fact pull resources away from the agency’s mission and decrease basic results. On the other hand, the costs conveyed earlier do not account for the possibility of more productive 'policy implementation' if public recommendation leads to intelligent resolutions, nor are they adapted for the social-capital value that 'citizen participants' gain by becoming involved. The charisma and evidence of interest of the policy-makers by meeting with the citizens regularly and eventually gaining their trust shall be the only approach for policy-makers to promote new policies to the public, where anti-government sentiment runs high. Ostrom (1990) suggests collective decision making are great when groups are comparable, which is most likely found in rural areas. In larger areas, however, expecting few to share public opinion may be artless. The public participants make up a small amount of the population,” and unless they are known to represent a constituency, there are no guarantees that each citizen participant is influential in his or her community”.
Included in some of the “citizen-participation” literature is an acceptance that when the public is involved in decision-making, it will inevitably lead to more unselfish concern for others. Others, nevertheless, see natively constructed decision making as a favourable circumstance to act upon policy for personal gain. Economists are extensively berated (Barber 1984; deLeon and Denhardt 2000) for their “Hobbesian assumption of “economic man” as a selfish creature” (Levy 1995). As hostile as “economic man” appears to some scholars, it would be foolish to disregard the steadfastness of self-interest. Citizen participation in policy making process in Jamaica

“One of the biggest public participation challenges facing government today is the need to balance the views of both individuals and the groups who may represent them. Who is interested? How do we know? Do we want to include emotion and uninformed opinion in our analysis along with views based on careful consideration of data, facts and information? How can we be sure that our processes are fully inclusive, especially of those individuals and groups who may have been excluded, intentionally or unintentionally, in the past”? (Bowen, 2005)

How citizen participation can be addressed in Jamaica A number of appearing 'public participation' methods provide the circumstance for shared commitment, which has been hard to accomplish with usual methods. This section provides an overview of both traditional and emerging techniques. Traditional techniques include print publications, public meetings, open houses, advisory committees, workshops, bilateral meetings, and focus groups. Emerging techniques include open space technology, future search conferences, policy dialogue, and a suite of electronic techniques. The section concludes with a summary of the important characteristics that make these emerging techniques especially appropriate for the work of citizen and community engagement. All consultants should produce copies of publications describing the problem or situation and provide suitable feedback from readers of their views and possible alternatives and solutions. This is ideal given that information will be seen as direct feed back of the public's view. This can then lead to public meetings. These are open sessions to members of the public who are interested in addressing issues and giving solutions, highlighting flaws and agreeing to or show support of the intended policy. They normally offer a technical overview of the policy in process, then provide to give feedback. This is even more direct than the magazine or publication mentioned. An example of this in Jamaica is the television program “Your issues live” which opens the floor for persons across Jamaica to project their view and any disturbing situation. This could also be classified as an 'open house'. “An open house usually communicates information about a project or proposal through a series of displays”, IRVIN presenting answers to questions and providing clarification on any issue.
“Citizen participation is seen as an essential element of all funded sub projects in Jamaica, and communities are required to cover at least five percent of the cost of each sub project (JSIF, n.d.). The social fund agency, Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF), has promoted participation to reduce the risk of failure. In particular, the agency has used vignettes to stress the need for equitable participation – even if only consultation – by men and women.” (Bowen, 2004) Also, toll free calls provides a personal opportunity for members of the public to provide feedback. Staff can answer questions and directly converse and discuss issues with the caller. It would be almost exactly like the “100” mobile customer service number for customers from their mobile provider network (e.g.: Digicel, Claro, LIME). Some times these customer service representatives, instead of waiting until the customer calls, call them to find out if they are satisfied with the level of service. These individual discussions with the public or representatives can be classified as interviews'. They allow participants to provide information on a questionnaire to identify new issues or concerns not previously considered. Survey, like an interview is another method used to increase the level of public participation in the public policy process. It is used to collect data and build an outline of the groups involved. “They provide information to the public and help focus public attention on specific issues”.
Bowen (2004), in his article also mentioned, “public hearings” these are similar the is a real life forum at which the public “can make formal statements about the issue at hand”. Oral statements are often conducted by written, short arguments; “a panel representing the sponsoring agency may ask questions of the presenter. The panel generally submits a final report with findings and recommendations”
This paper, while defined and highlighted advantaged and disadvantages of public participation in the policy process, gave suitable ways in which citizen participation can be increased in Jamaica. Public participation in a democratic society is vital. The diversity of perspectives from individuals, will lead to an increase in public feedback for effective policies. It increases democracy, and aims to achieve and maintain good governance.