Can the claim to foster broad participation hinder deliberation?

Abstract

This article presents a case study of one of the state Legislatures in Brazil, which has become renowned for promoting several participatory experiments. These newly designed initiatives have changed dramatically some of the procedures of the institution, and have enabled the effective political participation of thousands of civil society actors. However, the claim of fostering broad participation has often led to several shortcomings as regards the possibility of deliberation, as well as of actual participation. In order to develop this argument, the researchers: (1) observed mini-publics held at the institution during the second semester of 2011; and (2) conducted 70 interviews and 4 focus groups (with public servants, deputies and participants). The qualitative analysis of this material has been organized in five sections: selection and mobilization of participants; exchange of ideas; interconnection of discursive arenas; effectiveness; use of information and communication technology.

Keywords:

• political participation
• deliberative democracy
• mini-publics
• legislative studies
• Brazil

Acknowledgments

A previous version of this article was presented at the Deliberative Democracy in Action Conference organized by the Social Science Research Institute at Åbo Akademi University (5–7 June 2012, Turku, Finland). The article was written as part of a project funded by the Assembleia Legislativa de Minas Gerais that sought to enhance the participatory experiences organized by the institution. The project received a grant for the production of: (1) a diagnosis of participatory events from a deliberative perspective; (2) two workshops with public servants; (3) a report with suggestions for the enhancement of participatory institutions. The article expresses the views of its authors, and was not subject to any type of interference from the Assembleia Legislativa de Minas Gerais.

Notes

1. It is important to remember that the great majority of Brazilian participatory experiments (such as councils, participatory budgeting and conferences) are connected to the Executive Power.

2. It is important to highlight that the practices mentioned do not encompass all the sorts of popular participation that happen within and around the MGSL.

3. The Mesa Diretora is a collegial body, composed of seven members of parliament, who are elected to direct legislative work for a 2 year term. Among its functions, it can: set limits and powers for public expenses; apply penalties to MPs; organize the legislative flows; promulgate amendments to the state constitution and represent the MGSL in its institutional relations.

4. In the Legislative Seminar on Poverty and Inequalities (2011), regional meetings were held in 12 municipalities, involving a total of 3168 persons from 1457 institutions.

5. It is important to explain that the second phase of the seminar is open to everyone who wishes to participate, because its main purpose is to foster the amplification of the number of participants in the whole process. The first and third phases are more limited, both due to spatial constraints and to the goals aimed: planning the process (in the first phase) and voting on a final report (in the third phase)

6. The Seminar on Poverty and Inequality (2011) had 537 persons in this final stage, involving 153 institutions. Among the participants, 187 were delegates from regional meetings.

7. ‘Highlight’ (Destaque) is a technical term used in Brazilian plenary sessions to refer to a participant’s intervention that is intended to challenge a particular proposal. This usually results in the participants presenting an alternative option, or they simply recommend the proposal’s suppression.

8. In the 2011 seminar, this commission had 48 members, representing 26 institutions.

9. Data from the Final Report on the Registration and Participation in the final stage of the Legislative Seminar on Poverty and Inequality, produced by GRI/CAC (MGSL)

10. For some examples, see Wales et al. (2010), Bächtiger et al. (2009), Black et al. (2009), Rosenberg (2007), Dryzek (2007), Stromer-Galley (2007). Steenbergen et al. (2003). Mendonça and Pereira (2012).

11. Available at: http://www.MGSL.gov.br/acompanhe/noticias/arquivos/2011/12/16_balanco_atividades_abertura.html. Consulted on: 16 January 2012 at 3:29 pm.

12. Available at: http://www.MGSL.gov.br/acompanhe/noticias/arquivos/2011/12/16_balanco_atividades_abertura.html. Consulted on: January 16, at 3:29 pm.

13. Minas Gerais has 853 municipalities and a population of almost 20 million people.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça

Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça is Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, and coordinator of the Research Group on Digital Democracy. His work focuses on democratic theory, critical theory, the politics of recognition, social movements and political communication. Some of his recent publications have appeared in Constellations (forthcoming); Political Studies; Policy & Society; Brazilian Political Science Review; Opinião Pública; Dados; Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais and Lua Nova.

Eleonora Schettini M. Cunha

Eleonora Schettini Martins Cunha is Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil and a researcher at the Center for Participatory Democracy (PRODEP) and at the Center for Social Studies (CES-AL). She is the author of three books (Efetividade deliberativa de conselhos de assistência social, Conferências de políticas públicas e inclusão política and Democracia participativa e reinvenção do Estado: lições do Brasil e da Índia), as well as numerous book chapters and articles in the field of democratic theory and public and social protection.