A Citizens Jury in India

On June 25, 2001, twenty “marginal-livelihood” farmers, small traders, small food processors, and consumers—mostly women and mostly “untouchables”—converged on the village of Algole in India’s impoverished Medak District. They came from all over the state of Andhra Pradesh, whose rural diversity they embodied in their group. Some of them had never left their local villages before.   Although many could not read or write, they were determined to learn and to make their voices heard about an issue that would have a profound effect on their lives: the future of agriculture in their state.  They were concerned with the direction of economic development and the genetic engineering of food crops.  They had come to participate in a Prajateerpu, a citizens’ jury or “People’s Verdict,” organized by two UK-based non-governmental organizations—the International Institute for Environment and Development and the Institute of Development Studies—along with The Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity, the leading forum for discussing different agricultural options for the state’s future.

For some time the British government, the World Bank and some North American consultants had been working with state officials to develop a twenty-year strategy to mechanize, consolidate and genetically engineer Andhra Pradesh’s agriculture to produce cash crops for export, and to reduce the farming population from seventy percent to forty percent, freeing workers up for industry.  None of these powerful people had formally asked the impoverished Indian citizens, who were supposed to benefit from these developments, whether they liked this new direction or not. The citizens’ jury was designed to correct that omission.

The jurors were given three scenarios to consider: One was that official plan, put forward by Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister and backed by grants and loans from the World Bank and the UK government. . The second scenario, supported by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements and the International Trade Center (a shared project of the UN and the World Trade Organization to promote trade in developing countries) involved developing environmentally friendly agriculture to produce cheap organic products for domestic and Northern supermarkets.  The third vision, heavily influenced by Gandhian and indigenous ideas, involved increasing local self-reliance and sustainability in both agriculture and economics.

Each vision was presented through videos illustrating key features of life under that vision, followed by a summary of the policies and institutions that steered Andhra Pradesh in that direc­tion. Jurors then heard testimony from, and cross-examined, expert witnesses, including key government officials, scientists, corporate and civil society representatives from all levels—state, national and international.

Sometimes passions ran high. Having heard from one expert that a genetically engineered plant contained a gene from a deep-sea fish, one juror retorted: “I think these scientists and all their equipment should be thrown into the bottom of the sea.”

The fairness of the process, the materials and the selection of expert witnesses were overseen by an outside panel chaired by a former Chief Justice of India’s Supreme Court. The World Bank and the UK’s Department for International Development had also been invited to act as independent observers, although The World Bank refused to attend.

The jury members – impoverished in material wealth, but not in skills, experience or perspective – considered the pros and cons of each vision, based on their own knowledge, priorities and aspirations. Free to choose any of the three visions, they were also encouraged to use them as raw material with which to craft their own unique vision. They explored their choices, and the likely consequences of their choices, for days, and then came to their conclusion.

In their recommendations, released on July 1, they said they wanted self-reliant food and farming, and community control over resources. They wanted to maintain healthy soils, diverse crops, trees and livestock, and to build on their indigenous knowledge, practical skills and local institutions. They wanted to maintain the high percentage of people making their livelihood from the land, and did not want their farms consolidated or mechanized in ways that would displace rural people. Most of them could feed their families through their own sustenance farming. They did not want to end up laboring in dangerous brick kilns outside of Hyderabad, like so many who had left their farms. They also rejected genetically modified crops and the export of their local medicinal plants. They provided many suggestions for practical steps that could be taken by various parties to help realize their vision.

The People had spoken. Their voice was heard loud and clear by the sponsoring organizations. Whether they will be heard by the powers-that-be remains to be seen. Organizers hoped that "the remarkable achievements of the nineteen jurors will inspire those who seek to experiment with deliberative methods that work towards socially just, ecologically sustainable and citizen-shaped futures. We urge opinion-formers and decision-makers in India and internationally to respond to the results of Prajateerpu by reviewing their assumptions about rural futures and by engaging in further democratic processes of this kind." (Pimbert and Wakeford, 2001) Pimbert, Michel, and Tom Wakeford. “Prajateerpu: 􏰂A Citizens’ Jury/Scenario Workshop on Food and Farming Futures for Andhra Pradesh” (International Institute for Environment and Development, 2002).

Downloadable Here