This research critically engages with existing theories of class and urban governance, and is empirically located in Delhi, India. The paper argues that existing theories of urban participatory governance in the global South, which polarise urban citizens and their mobilisation strategies into the elite, typically understood as guilty of 'capturing' participatory structures; and the poor, conceptualised as excluded from formal governance mechanisms but active in more politicised forms of mobilisation, are incomplete. This research identifies urban citizens who fit neither the 'elite' nor 'poor' conceptual binary, and explores how such 'ordinary' citizens engage in participatory urban governance. Empirically, research addresses Delhi's unauthorised colonies (UCs), residential areas that have evolved mostly on private land that is not classified 'residential' in the Delhi Master Plan. Housing roughly a quarter to one-third of Delhi's population and comprising a mix of classes, UCs are technically illegal locations for residential development, are consequently excluded from Delhi's network of basic urban services (water, roads, electricity) and face potential demolition. UCs are conceptualised as representing India's 'missing middle' both empirically, highlighting the multiplicity of the middle class, and conceptually, revealing the failure of binary concepts to accurately describe participatory urban governance for those in 'the middle'. In addition, analysis highlights how UCs' invisibility (linked to their heterogeneity -i.e. their empirical and conceptual 'middle-ness') functions as both an asset and a limitation in terms of participation in urban governance. The paper calls for greater recognition in academic and policy debates regarding the nuances in everyday life that are overlooked by neat binaries. As the Delhi case shows, a large proportion of urban populations are neither 'poor' nor 'elite', and arguably a similar trend is likely to exist in cities throughout the world where segments of populations demographically in 'the middle' are 'missing' from academic and policy debates.

No abstract

This paper considers how changes in urban governance in Delhi over the last two decades have influenced the provision of health care services. It begins by describing the introduction of, or return to, elected governments for the National Capital Territory of Delhi and for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It then discusses public health care, which in effect serves low-income groups as most higher-income groups now use private services, and how this has changed, drawing on interviews and direct observations of elected representatives and officials at state and municipal levels, political cadres, NGOs, members of residential welfare associations and public health care users. The research focused on four municipal wards that included a middle-class area, a mixed-income area, a ward where many slum communities had been relocated and an "urban village". The research also included an analysis of the priority given to health care issues (and what those issues are) in the Legislative Assembly and in the Municipal Health Department and Municipal Health Committee. The paper suggests that the opening by state government of new invited spaces for resident welfare associations meant that the elected members of the Legislative Assembly and of the municipal government were by-passed. It increased the influence of resident welfare associations, but these are a feature of middle-class areas whose inhabitants use private health care. It avoided contestation, as the state could decide who was invited. The role of NGOs as advocates for the urban poor also diminished, as many were drawn into becoming implementers of government programmes. In effect, this increase in participation can be seen as a new form of centralization, strengthening the position of senior bureaucrats and by-passing the elected politicians.KEYWORDS decentralization / Delhi / health care / neighbourhood associations / NGOs / participation / urban governance I. INTRODUCTIONThis paper considers the provision of public health care services as a case study of the changes brought about in urban governance in India in the past 20 years, with a focus on Delhi. Since the early 1990s, economic liberalization, politico-administrative decentralization and the large consensus around the desirability of "good governance" as defined by the World Bank(1) have doubtlessly transformed urban governance. Recent studies suggest that one of the characteristic features of the contemporary management of urban affairs is the multiplication of actors involved in it.(2) This evolution is particularly striking in Delhi, whose Chief Minister since 1998, Sheila Dixit, has paid special attention to governance issues. It is difficult, however, to distinguish a pattern behind the series of reforms, policies and schemes that have been announced and implemented in quick Stéphanie Tawa LamaRewal is a Research Fellow

No abstract

A strong contention of the “representative turn” is that representation is consubstantial with politics (Saward, 2010). One way to test the heuristic value of this vision is to look for representation in an institution that was historically built against representation, namely participatory budgeting (PB), a democratic innovation that has spread globally with exceptional rapidity. The literature on PB identifies two types of relationships between participation and representation: (i) participation “challenges” (Houtzager & Gurza Lavalle, 2009) existing forms and principles of representation (through “assumed representation” by civil society activists; or through “citizen agents”; Montambeault, 2016); or (ii) participation is “instrumentalised” (Fischer, 2012) by classic forms and actors of representation. On the basis of a comparative analysis of PB experiences in Chengdu (China) and Delhi (India), we argue in this article that a third type of relationship can be observed: participation—as implemented through PB—can also redistribute representation insofar as new, official representative roles are created. Moreover, looking at these new roles provides important clues about the principles of representation that are implemented and therefore about the transformative nature of PB.

One of the many challenges presented by populism concerns its relationship with political representation. What happens when an anti-politics movement wins elections? This article offers an analysis of the exercise of power by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP, Party of the Common Man), which has been ruling the city-state of Delhi since 2015, in order to bring elements of answer to this question. On the basis of discourse analysis as well as direct observation of meetings, the article first identifies a series of populist tropes in the official discourse of the AAP, including a de-emphasis on representation to the advantage of participation. It then describes the two main participatory schemes implemented by the AAP government since 2015, and shows that these generate, in different ways, a magnification of the mediation work that is central to political representation at the local level in the Indian context. Finally, the article argues that the party has been developing, through these participatory schemes, a form of “inclusive representation” (Hayat, 2013), in which inclusion is linked to mobilization.

Democratic theory has recently been marked by a renewed interest in political representation that is manifest in, and proceeds from, a series of theoretical works that radically open up the concept of representation. This introductory article briefly presents some of the key theoretical propositions that are brought forward by this body of literature, but also by anthropological works on South Asia, namely (i) the intrinsic plurality of the meanings and forms of political representation; (ii) the centrality and pervasiveness of representation processes in political life; and (iii) the constructivist dimension of political representation. As I introduce the four papers in this Special Issue, which collectively demonstrate the heuristic value of an engagement with such debates to understand contemporary Indian politics, I insist that what is at stake is not so much a "crisis" of political representation as a series of events and evolutions that question received knowledge about political representation in India.

No abstract