Participation as an aspect of democracy

The general definition of participation entails taking part or being practically involved in any activity. Naidoo (2012), who highlights that participation has a direct bearing on shared decision making, deems both actions central to democratic life. In similar vein, democratic education sees learners not as passive recipients of knowledge, but as active participants in their own learning. Learners are not viewed as the products of an education system, but rather as valued participants in a vibrant learning community. Carr and Hartnett (1997, p. 42) maintain that participation is rooted in extending meaningful challenges to learners, which will allow them to develop into self-sufficient and responsible members of their community and the larger world. Such opportunities help individuals and communities to find their voice.

As regards participation, Steyn (2001) maintains that learner involvement or participation should unfold according to a hierarchy of seven steps (from optimal involvement to minimal participation:

 Participation in decision making, initiation of action  Implementation of solutions and evaluation of outcomes

 Consultation on the definition of problems and the preparation of decision-making processes

 Cooperation with others in carrying out programmes

 Involvement in designing strategies or planning programmes  Contribution through attendance at meetings

 Basic information and passive reception of decisions.

As highlighted in the above steps of participation, learners need to be involved, from the outset, in all matters concerning their learning.

52

Participation, like democracy, is a political principle (Sarason, 1995, cited in Stofile, 2005) which is easy to verbalise but difficult to put into action. Stofile (2005, p. 11) adds that the word ‘participation’, in its truest sense, should not be restricted to the top management of an organisation, but should apply more broadly throughout the organisation (Harber & Mncube, 2011, p. 9). Smith (2003, cited in Joorst, 2007, p. 9) argues that the significant ideology of a participative approach is that all those groups and individuals who are to be directly affected by the outcomes of a change process, or the implementation of decisions, should actively participate in that process from the start. Mncube and Harber’s 2009 study, entitled “Learners’ democratic involvement in school governing bodies in South Africa”, aimed to explore whether learners who are regarded as voiceless, can in fact make themselves be heard. His findings suggest that learners must be given a platform from which they can exercise their participative right to be heard in SGBs, to a degree where they can deliberately engage and flourish.

Rapcan (2013) maintains that there are numerous factors, broadly speaking, which concern the functioning of SGBs and can hinder the nature and extent of learners’ and parents’ participation and decision-making in schools. One example is an inflexible implementation of the rules. The argument is also made that the roles and responsibilities stipulated in the SASA may suppress cultural diversity, power relations in terms of gender, individual customs and values, variations in socioeconomic status and historical contexts that impact school communities and may prevent learners and parents from openly voicing their opinions and thoughts. In every democratic organisation, participation is the norm and must always prevail. However, practically speaking, in schools there is a lack of agreement as to what democratic decision-making entails. Therefore, learner and parent stakeholders tend to be unable to govern in accordance with the rights afforded them by SASA. Principals, in turn, are often reluctant to create a space for parents and learners – as stakeholders – to enter into debate and dialogue, so as to ensure broad-based participation. In Mncube (2009a), one of the learner respondents mentioned that learners do participate, but not in the way they are supposed to. He maintains that parents and learners are seldom given an opportunity to take meaningful decisions on matters pertaining to the school; that decisions are made by the school principal and teachers, rather than being made collectively by the SGB.

Rapcan (2013) cautions that learners are vulnerable in that they are faced with barriers which undermine their capabilities and hinder their meaningful participation. These barriers include

53

difficulties in challenging traditional procedures and power relations between adult stakeholders and learners (minors), as well as a lack of support and guidance in truly understanding the concepts of participation and participative democracy.

The scholarly literature (Furman & Starratt, 2002; Dürr, 2005) argues that participation can never be separated from democracy, which leads to the natural merging of the concepts as ‘democratic participation’. In outlining this idea, Hart (1992, cited in Steyn et al., 2005) explains that it entails having a say in those decisions that influence your life, the life of your community and the society in which you live. This means, in the school context, that all stakeholders must participate and be effectively involved in the decision-making process. Moreover, engagement and freedom of speech mean that everyone can talk freely.

The South African education system pre-1994 was marked by the exclusion of learners from school governance. School management systems followed a top-down approach which resulted in rigid control mechanisms that more often than not alienated the learners, staff and communities from formal structures of authority. This left teachers and learners without any formal powers in terms of school governance (Mda & Montana, 2000, cited in Joorst, 2007. p. 10). In contrast, however, after the political struggle South Africa became a truly democratic country, which meant that schools had to be run along democratic lines and previously silenced voices could now be heard. Everyone was now welcome to participate in school governance-related matters (and everyone was given space to do so).

How does participation link to a code of conduct for learners? Now that public schools have been given the authority to govern themselves through the implementation of SGBs, they are responsible for issues around governance. One of the functions of an SGB is to draft a code of conduct as a tool to discipline learners in the school. Moreover, as stated in SASA, an SGB must be representative of all stakeholders of the school, learners included. But according to Bray (2005), learners are not deemed sufficiently able and therefore cannot be regarded as intellectuals, given their limited intellectual ability. Having said this, however, it does not mean that learners must be excluded – they should participate and be involved at whatever level they can. The SGB must consult with the learners, parents and educators of the school before adopting a code of conduct. When such a code has been drafted and is finally adopted, it must represent the efforts of all stakeholders. This where participation fits into the equation: participation is indicative of democracy, transparency and inclusiveness, as is

54

reflected in democratic principles. Bray (2005) emphasises that if a code is ever amended, there must once again be wide consultation. Any code of conduct must be clear and unambiguous for the people (learners) whom it affects: the code must not only be understandable to learners, it must not exempt any learner in any way.