What is Public Hearing?

Citizens in a democratic society, developing a human bondage with one another, collectively try to find solution to problems. There could be differences in opinions of the citizens in observing and analysing any issue related to civic society. Until a new concept replaces existent set of perceptions and opinions, they will not cease to prevail. But the axiom is : there is no issue without an alternative. Beam of the sun could be fenced for a while but not the sun itself. the act of fencing cannot oblique the solution. Therefore, there could be innumerable alternatives to resolve the problems, emerging out of civic society. Such alternatives could be of long-term, mid-term or short-term appropriateness, determined by will, necessity, and priority of the members of a particular social setup.

In a democracy, there has to be a place where the concerns of citizens can be voiced and heard. The united civic society can play a vital role in creating a favourable environment where the members of such societies can raise voices against the issues that they have experienced and apprehended such that, they are imcompatible to existing laws and norms. It is evident that the speeches of the leaders and stereotype bureaucratic notes alone can neither reduce the public dissatisfaction nor can it seek to find the solutions of the questions people put forward. Even commonly practiced methods of one-way communication like seminars, symposiums meetings, workshops, talk shows and debate cannot satisfy or solve the inquisitiveness of citizens.

Therefore, one of the best ways of exploring the solution of the problems, or queries and dissatisfactions, of the people has proved to be an opportunity provided to every citizen to directly ask question to the concerned authorities. It is because every free citizen has the right to be furnished with answer to every question that is congruous to the constitution, laws and acts in effect. One has every right to counter question, repeatedly if required, until a satisfying answer trickles on. Such a process Of public
and authorities getting together and trying to seek a solution to issue in question through live interaction is called Public Hearing.

Therefore, one of the best ways of exploring the solution of the problems, or queries and dissatisfactions, of the people has proved to be an opportunity provided to every citizen to directly ask question to the concerned authorities. It is because every free citizen has the right to be furnished with answer to every question that is congruous to the constitution, laws and acts in effect. One has every right to counter question, repeatedly if required, until a satisfying answer trickles on. Such a process Of public and authorities getting together and trying to seek a solution to issue in question through live interaction is called Public Hearing.

Public Hearing is a medium of making respondents accountable. This is not an elaboration of an epic. That's why unless the question asked receives a satisfactory answer the organiser has to support to the questioner. Public Hearing expects civilized answers to complex questions. And, the participants are prepared to demand elaboration on the deceit and complexity hidden behind the polite answers.

Public Hearing creates a platform even for generally voiceless mass to reach close to the representatives of perceptively indomitable authorities and, provides them with an opportunity to ventilate dissatisfactions. Public Hearing can also be rephrased as "Access of people to powerful authorities." This gives the general Public an opportunity to get satisfying answers of the straightforward questions put to the authorized persons, This reduces the chances of chronic red-tapism in the layer-sensitive administrative structure. With this abridged gap and made-to-sit different hierarchical levels on the same platform, means of solving burning as well as long-term problems could be devised.

Why Public Hearing?

There is a continuous evolution of thoughts in the society about the devices of judicious handling of power-of-the-state and effective utilisation of public resources and amenities. And, opinions are continuously volunteered on how the civic society and individuals can meaningfully participate in governance. But, there is a perennial inclination amongst the people-in-power to retain the Status quo. They are always conscious not to give-up for change, until they are in power. They are always at panic about change-induced consequences, and are not willing to take risks for change. They just want their job tenure to be stress free. This type of dormancy is rampant mostly in government employees. They tend to advocate the status que, by obscure and camouflaging citation of existing rules and laws. This type of anti-professionalism, rather than constructive ideas and thoughts of making a new history, has been an unsurprising conduct of these employees. Generally, government servants lack the temptation of heightened popularity and capitalising the same to further their career, say, like winning the elections.

That's why, nothing dramatic can be expected from these agents of conventionalism. Given the political personalities' inevitable compulsion of facing periodic elections, they should have been more conscious in understanding the public aspirations. But, alas, our experience of over a decade now does not portray a much optimistic scenario. The politicians also could not elevate themselves up from the common people's plank. Far-sightedness could not be found in political leaders, regardless of their political affiliations. These are the reasons, and time is ripe, to leave the petty party politics to politician themselves and start, what we may call the. "civic politics".

This new proposition should be developed as a practical tool to change the politicians who are so far preoccupied in meaningless petty politics into responsible agents of civic politics. Or, they should be ready to face the collapse of their political future. The situation created thus would compel the politicians to objectively focus on the problems of citizens. By the consolidated efforts to end the partisan mindless crowd can be made to stand on practical grounds and make them understand about the importance of objective reasoning which is very necessary right now.

But, social change does not come as easily as political. By realising the fact that the party politics in the country could not bring about positive change in the society to the expected level, the concept of Public Hearing was put forward as a beginning of civic politics. It is considered; this concept was first tested in 1992 through a television talk show called 'Ek Apas'. Most of the episodes of this programme primarily helped overcome and make public problems, queries, and experiences of the citizens. In the programme public voice used to get outmost importance and questions on responsibility and accountability of the people in government positions were raised. It made all-out efforts in transpiring the elements of accountability, transparency and right to information. Its invariable transmission for five years was successful in uniting the people against corruption, and making it one of the main present day agendas. It is said that this programme played a vital role in building public opinion, as appears highly consolidated at present,against corruption.

This model of 'Ek Apas' programme aired through Nepal Television was transformed into Public Hearing or stage, on February 8, 2000 by Pro Public. The very first trial of the Pubic Hearing gave very positive results. For the first time in the constitutional history of Nepal, a person recommended by the civil society, through that historical programme, was appointed the Chief Commissioner of ClAA.

From that first Public Hearing, names of ten well-known and credible personalities were recommended as potential candidate for the then vacant post of the chief commissioner, after a lively debate on ability, integrity and nature of the persons in question. If the same model of Public Hearing is replicated at the local levels, the authorities could be made more accountable. With this conviction, it is proposed the model be pushed forward.

What happens in Public Hearing?

The world is revolving in a cycle of questions and `n search of answers to them. Asking questions itself is fifty percent of the work done and the rest lies in answering them. Therefore, as important are the questions asked by the public, getting answers from the concerned authorities to the questions asked is also equally important. If a new concept and reasoning, more appropriate and accepted by the majority, regarding any problem in the society emerge, people tend to gradually adapt to the changes shedding their old beliefs. That is why it is said, through the frictions among various ideas, debate and manifestations of curiosities and their analysis, done at one platform the means of solving the problems can be explored instantaneously. This practice provides the citizens with an opportunity to frankly and regularly put the issues of their concern to the authorities and also to the public in general. These opportunities are not only means of one-¬way communication but will create an environment for expressing grievances immediately and intervening repeatedly, if required. Citizens' questions cannot go unanswered. Questions are weapons. It is a plain scientific truth that when something strikes against an object that is bound to generate sound. The vibrancy of sound and its echo depends on the nature of the both-the weapon and the material that is hit. Embracing the spirit of this scientific fact, Public Hearing is modeled to suit the inherent practicalities. For a long time now, Nepali citizens have wasted their time by mechanically clapping their hands over the grandiose of speeches of political leaders. The status of the citizens could not rise above that of mere spectators. Likewise, the so-called intellectuals also spent valuable resources received as international assistance in cocktail workshops and useless seminars. Such practices never provided citizens with the much needed opportunity to raise their curiosity, queries, and express their sentiments. And, as a result, the leaders and the civil servants were never propelled to be accountable and honest towards their responsibilities. Considering these factors, it is aimed to conduct the public hearing sessions at the local level, particularly to enthuse the civic society in general to start the tradition of two way communication instead of so far practiced one way rhetoric.

The Public Hearing at the local levels can be expected to remove and correct the weaknesses of the local governing bodies and, solve the problems at that level through public Participation. The local level programmes can be conducted even with relatively little resources. It can hopefully be utilised as an effective weapon for solving problems. This will encourage the concerned authorities to act contemporaneously and augment public energy to put forth timely and reasonable demands. Public Hearings make those in power constantly aware of their accountabilities and importance of transparency in governance.

Organising Public Hearing can also be held in the places like school compound, V.D.C, building, or any peaceful place that is amicable for concentration on the topic assigned. As it is, human wants and wishes have no limits and resolutions may have to result from a lengthy and compounded process. But complex the issues as they are, people will be eager to participate only if they get opportunities to present their views and ventilate their curiosities.

How to prepare for Public Hearing?

For long, Nepal has been wasting her valuable time in the name of prograrnmes marred by redundant paraphernalia of distributing monograms, inauguration and welcome speeches, expressing views, wishing success, proposing vote of thanks etc. A halt to these formalities is a must now. Public Hearing can embark right away to polite but meaningful conversation between the citizen and the person accountable. Meanwhile, a two-way communication can be established by presenting different dimensions of the problem.

That's why Public Hearing is not the purposeless crowd but a gathering with set objective(s). This is a forum of asking questions and finding answers, thereby making those in the authority more accountable. It is a witness box of finding ways to solve the problems. So that it is imperative on the part of the organisers of such Public Hearings that they have to have clearly understood the motion and, the presentation itself has to be well investigated. They have to present themselves as an impartial evaluators of the problem. They have to be able to sufficiently facilitate the citizens present their queries to the rightful representatives. The organisers have to keep equidistance between the groups asking questions and those giving answers. Using polite but powerful language, the show should he led to result-oriented direction. There should be enough cautiousness to ensure that the entire event does not deviate from the main agenda.

All the participants, particularly representing the general pubic, should be encouraged to ask questions as far as possible. Even the responding persons should not be allowed to dwell on unnecessary preludes and should be asked to land directly on the subject.