The cases represent geographic diversity and distinct participatory movements, but they are also purposefully chosen, successful cases in which participatory democracy emerged within municipal administrations in the 1970s and 1980s. Tranjan investigates the roots of participatory democracy in Brazil through a historical analysis of three case studies: Lages in Santa Catarina, Boa Esperança in Espirito Santo, and Diadema in the metropolitan region of São Paulo. Across Brazil, Tranjan argues that industrialization created new opportunities for political mobilization at the same time that historical exclusion of certain segments of the population coalesced in national movements for democratic institutional reform (4–5). He views participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre as the end result of three processes: incremental steps toward political participation throughout the twentieth century, an attempt to increase citizen participation in the 1970s and 1980s and efforts to restrict direct citizen participation in the 1980s (3). He contradicts conventional wisdom that participatory institutions resulted from the influence of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party, PT) and left-leaning civil society in the transition to democracy. Through his story, Tranjan changes the narrative about how participatory democracy emerged in Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s. In Participatory Democracy in Brazil: Socioeconomic and Political Origins, Ricardo Tranjan argues that Brazil was on course to develop participatory institutions for decades before they became reality. All four of these books address the fundamental question of why there is variation across countries in the advent and implementation of participatory democracy, and all four provide similar conclusions: participatory processes evolve from a very specific set of circumstances in which alignment of political elites and civil society unite toward the goal of inclusion.
#NIKE STRIKE SNOOD STORES HOW TO#
The key is to uncover what it is that participatory institutions can do, and how to create the greatest effect through institutional design. Participatory institutions, however, can only do so much to satisfy the interests of both government and civil society in terms of resource control and responsiveness of policies and programs. It does not seem like hyperbole to claim that without greater citizen involvement in politics, the democratic experiment is set to fail. We need to know, then, where and why participatory institutions can reshape the relationship between citizens and the state. For participation to be worthwhile, institutions must have real power devolved from the state and produce significant policies and programs that improve the lives of citizens. In an era in which trust in government and disaffection among voters appear to be growing not only in Western democracies but also in newer democracies such as Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, participatory democracy should have the power to reengage citizens, but only if they see the value in participating. Reforms that institutionalize participatory practices are meant to reshape existing relationships between the state and civil society. The four books on Latin America reviewed here are integral to this shift toward understanding the variation in the creation, process, and outcomes of participatory institutions. As participatory budgeting and other participatory institutions are replicated in cities around the world, researchers also try to refine the parameters around which participatory democracy arises and is sustained.
3 Since these early studies, researchers have begun to assess in greater depth the impact of participatory institutions, not just in terms of democratic citizenship but in the redistributive outcomes they produce for citizens.
Numerous studies on participatory budgeting attempt to explain why and how the process developed in this one city and the ensuing effects on democratic citizenship in Brazil. While deliberative democracy provides citizens with the ability to voice opinions, come to consensus, and make decisions, Pateman argues that it still “leaves intact the conventional institutional structures and political meaning of ‘democracy.’” 1 Participatory democracy, rather, requires “reform of undemocratic authority structures” in order to “provide opportunities for individuals to participate in decision-making in their everyday lives as well as the wider political system.” 2 Pateman uses the example of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil, to demonstrate the ways in which participation can become institutionalized and viewed as a right of citizens. In 2012, Carole Pateman outlined the distinction between deliberative and participatory forms of democracy.
0 kommentar(er)
