Introduction1 Democracy and participation are terms loosely used especially by authorities to mean following what they prescribe. Often it means opportunities for citizens to participate in the voting process during local government or national elections as and when they are held. For the ordinary citizen it means exercising their rights without threats from the state and its agents. Democracy is a system of government under which the people exercise the governing power, either directly or indirectly through representatives in a periodical election (Appadoria. 2004). The essentials of democracy allow free discussion, free association, periodic elections, and continuous participation of the people in the government of a country (Odigwe. 2015). Election-centred definitions are problematic in that they tend to focus on election-day voting and election results, but negate the aspects of active citizen participation and factors that either promote or discourage that participation of citizens in daily activities, including exercising their agency. The notion behind the ―alternation‖ thesis, challenged by Carothers (2002), was that elections, and changes in elected governments, would lead to the deepening of democracy, but, in Africa (and Zimbabwe specifically), there is little evidence that citizens believe that elections lead to democracy (Logan & Cho. 2009). Earlier, Bratton and Logan (2006) pointed out the weak demand by African citizens for accountability from their governments, suggesting that African citizens were clearly voters but not yet citizens. One of the key objectives of participation, critical to the demand for accountability, is to create a healthier and more active democracy (Barnes, 1999: 67). Defining ―democracy‖ as rule by the people presents a big problem. A political system is democratic to the extent that, and only to the extent that, it involves realisation of responsive rule (Betheem. 1994). But this also assumes that the citizens governed are actively taking part and engaging with the leaders who then respond to the needs of the majority. This belief is also based on the assumption that local citizens have an influence over the decisions made by the local authorities especially as it relates to service delivery (Devas. 2003). Full and equal participation requires that all people have voice — meaning the capacity to speak up and be heard, from homes to houses of parliament, and to shape and share in discussions, discourse, and decisions that affect them (Klugman et al. 2014). However, the extent to which citizens engage with their leaders at any level is influenced by the politics and the nature of the local government structures. This report is based on work carried out by the Research & Advocacy Unit (RAU) under its active citizenship and community security programmes. The aim is to understand whether the role of women and young people in local participatory policy-making is contributing to creating a conducive environment for the full enjoyment of its citizens, and also that duty bearers are getting more responsive to the inputs by the community which they serve. We try to answer the question: Does citizen participation in day to day activities of their local authorities imply increased accountability? Even though there are massive programmes to educate citizens and discussing the benefits of participation, this research shows that the role of citizens, especially women and youth is limited (RAU. 2017), serving mainly to provide information on the basis of which the government then makes decisions. 1 This report was written by Lloyd Pswarayi, Senior Researcher, with statistical support from Tony Reeler, Senior Researcher. 3