![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
During the re-democratization process that followed the 1964–1985 military dictatorship in Brazil, a variety of institutional innovations designed to provide citizens with the ability to directly influence the conception and drafting of laws, regulations and policies, and to monitor their execution have been implemented. Such initiatives vary significantly: they aim to carve out political participation and accountability at different state levels and branches, to allow for societal influence during various phases of law-making, and to safeguard the deliberative power of citizens. Also during the re-democratization period, Brazilian municipalities (which total more than 5500) became federative entities, with political, administrative and financial autonomy. Autonomy allowed cities to create citizen councils (in areas such as healthcare, welfare and housing) through which civil society participation and consensus-building among stakeholders became possible. One remarkable and recent participatory experience was the review process of the Master Plan of the city of São Paulo (urban planning legislation and regulations), which embraced a complex participative development process, engaged both the Legislative and the Executive branches, and called for citizen input for various law-making steps. Despite (or perhaps because of) its unusual scope, the São Paulo Master Plan participatory experience is valuable for identifying achievements, current and future challenges, as well as failures and legitimacy deficits that ultimately play a relevant role in shaping democracy in contemporary Brazil at the legal and institutional levels. Bearing that in mind, this article provides an overview of existing participatory mechanisms in the country, and presents the São Paulo urban planning legislation as a case study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Leonardo Avritzer, Participatory Institutions in Democratic Brazil (Johns Hopkins University Press 2009).
2 Janette Hartz-Karp and Brian Wampler, ‘Participatory Budgeting: Diffusion and Outcomes across the World’ (2012) 8 Journal of Public Deliberation 1.
3 Numerous political scientists have concerned themselves with the design of participatory institutions and stressed their impact on outcomes. See, for instance, Archon Fung, ‘Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres – Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences’ (2003) 11(3) Journal of Political Philosophy PL 338; Vera Schattan Coelho, Barbara Pozzoni and Mariana Cifuentes, ‘Participation and Public Policies in Brazil’, in John Gastil and Peter Levine (eds.), The Deliberative Democracy Handbook (Jossey-Bass 2005); James Fishkin, ‘Deliberation by the People Themselves: Entry Points for the Public Voice’ (2013) 12 Election Law Journal 490. This, of course, doesn’t mean that rules are the only relevant variable in the performance of participatory arenas – other contextual factors, such as political willingness and social mobilization matter as well.
4 Roberto Mangabeira Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement: Another Time, a Greater Task (Verso 2015).
5 Cf. Diogo R. Coutinho, ‘Linking Promises to Policies: Law and Development in Unequal Brazil’ (2010) 3 Law and Development Review.
6 Back in 1971 Henry Steiner accurately described the prevailing academic pattern in the Brazilian legal education and scholarship: formalistic and doctrinal. Almost 50 years later it would not be an exaggeration to say that, as a rule, things did not change much. See Henry J. Steiner, ‘Legal Education and Socio-Economic Change: Brazilian Perspectives’ (1971) 19 The American Journal of Comparative Law 39.
7 During the last three decades, ‘Participatory Governance’ has been widely analysed, both theoretically and empirically, by researchers from many countries and fields. For more on the concept, see: Archon Fung and Erik Wright, Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (Verso 2003); John Gaventa, ‘Towards Participatory Governance: Assessing the Transformative Possibilities’ in Samuel Hickey and Giles Mohan (eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? (Zed Books 2004); Andrea Cornwall, ‘Making Spaces, Changing Places: Situating Participation in Development’ (2002), IDS Working Paper 170, <http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Wp170.pdf> accessed 27 April 2017.
8 Denise Vitale, ‘Democracia Direta e Poder Local: A Experiência Brasileira do Orçamento Participativo’ in Vera Schattan Coelho and Marcos Nobre (eds.), Participação e Deliberação: Teoria Democrática e Experiências Institucionais no Brasil Contemporâneo (Ed. 34, 2004).
9 Leonardo Avritzer, ‘Transition to Democracy and Political Culture: An Analysis of the Conflict between Civil and Political Society in Post-Authoritarian Brazil’ (1995) 2 Constellations 242.
10 Brian Wampler, ‘Entering the State: Civil Society Activism and Participatory Governance in Brazil’ (2012) 60 Political Studies 341. For more about Brazilian social movements action and democratizing struggles see: Evelina Dagnino, ‘Culture, Citizenship and Democracy: Changing Discourse and Practices of the Latin American Left’ in Sonia Alvarez, Evelina Dagnino and Arturo Escobar (eds.), Cultures of Politics, Politics of Cultures: Re-Visioning Latin American Social Movements (Westview Press 1998).
11 Natália Neris, ‘A Voz e a Palavra do Movimento Negro na Assembleia Nacional Constituinte (1987/1988): um Estudo das Demandas por Direitos’ (Master of Laws thesis, FGV 2015).
12 Brian Wampler, v. sup. note 11; Brian Wampler and Leonardo Avritzer, ‘Participatory Publics’ (2004) 36 Comparative Politics 291.
13 Ibid.
14 Natália Neris, v. sup. note 12.
15 Article 24 of the National Constituent Assembly Internal Statute (Resolution no. 2/1987).
16 Carlos Michiles et al., Cidadão Constituinte: A Saga das Emendas Populares (Paz e Terra 1989).
17 Brian Wampler and Leonardo Avritzer, v. sup. note 13.
18 About PT’s role in the early development of participatory governance in Brazil, see Rebecca Abers, ‘From Ideas to Practice: The Partido dos Trabalhadores and Participatory Governance in Brazil’ (1996) 23 Latin American Perspectives 35.
19 Ibid.
20 Felix Lopez and Roberto Rocha Pires, ‘Instituições Participativas e Políticas Públicas no Brasil: Características e Evoluções nas Últimas Duas Décadas’, in José Celso Cardoso Jr., 2010. Brasil em Desenvolvimento: Estado, Planejamento e Políticas Públicas (IPEA 2010); Rebecca Abers, Lizandra Serafim and Luciana Tatagiba ‘Repertórios de Interação Estado-Sociedade em um Estado Heterogêneo: A Experiência na Era Lula’ (2014) 57 Dados - Revista de Ciências Sociais 325; Leonardo Avritzer, Impasses da Democracia no Brasil (Civilização Brasileira 2016).
21 Roberto Rocha Pires and Alexandre Vaz, Participação Social como Método de Governo? Um Mapeamento das “Interfaces Socioestatais” nos Programas Federais (IPEA 2012).
22 Abers, Serafim and Tatagiba, v. sup. note 21.
23 According to Fung, public participation may foster three democratic principles: legitimacy, justice and effectiveness. However, as the author points out, ‘no single participatory design is suited to serving all three values simultaneously; particular designs are suited to specific objectives’. Archon Fung, ‘Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance’ (2006) 66 Public Administration Review 66.
24 José Álvaro Moisés, ‘O Desempenho do Congresso Nacional no Presidencialismo de Coalizão (1995–2006)’ in José Álvaro Moisés (ed.), O Papel do Congresso Nacional no Presidencialismo de Coalizão (1995/2006) (Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 2011).
25 Some examples of the Executive’s law-making powers are the exclusive legislative initiative in some matters (such as the budget), right to demand urgency procedures and power to issue provisional decrees (which go into effect immediately). See Argelina Figueiredo and Fernando Limongi, ‘Presidential Power, Legislative Organization, and Party Behavior in Brazil’ (2000) 32 Comparative Politics 151.
26 There is no room to detail the complex proceedings here. For a detailed account, see Brian Wampler, Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation and Accountability (The Pennsylvania State University Press 2007).
27 Baiocchi found that, besides managing to include the city’s poor in its decision-making process, Porto Alegre’s PB led to considerable positive redistributive effects and stimulated associative activity. Gianpaolo Baiocchi, ‘Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment’ in Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright (eds.), Deeping Democracy – Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (Verso 2003).
28 Leonardo Avritzer, ‘The Different Designs of Public Participation in Brazil: Deliberation, Power Sharing and Public Ratification’ (2012) 6 Critical Policy Studies 113.
29 Adoption of PB appears to be generally related to increased social spending, reduction of child mortality and changes in governance and associative practices. Marcelo K. Silva et al., Bootstrapping Democracy: Transforming Local Governance and Civil Society in Brazil (Stanford University Press 2011); Sonia Gonçalves, ‘The Effects of Participatory Budgeting on Municipal Expenditures and Infant Mortality in Brazil’ (2014) 54 World Development 94; Michael Touchton and Brian Wampler, ‘Improving Social Well-Being Through New Democratic Institutions’ (2014) 47 Comparative Political Studies 1442.
30 Wampler, v. sup. note 27.
31 Adrián Gurza Lavalle and Leonardo Sangali Barone, ‘Conselhos, Associações e Desigualdade’ in Marta Arretche (ed.), Trajetórias das Desigualdades: Como o Brasil Mudou nos Últimos Cinquenta Anos? (Unesp/CEM 2015).
32 Despite this freedom, it appears that most legally mandated councils (especially in small towns) have very similar designs, which were copied from existing councils and models created by central authorities. Thus, unlike municipalities where participatory institutions were constructed with citizens involved in an experimental process (such as the health councils of São Paulo), they are top-down federal policies. Débora Almeida and Eleonora Cunha, ‘Conselhos de Políticas e Desenho Institucional: Potencialidades e Limites do Isomorfismo Institucional nas Áreas de Saúde e da Assistência Social no Brasil’, in: Eleonora Cunha and Hildelano Theodoro (eds.), Desenho Institucional, Democracia e Participação: Conexões Teóricas e Possibilidades Analíticas (D’Placido, 2014).
33 Luciana Tatagiba, ‘Os Conselhos Gestores e a Democratização das Políticas Públicas no Brasil’ in: Evelina Dagnino (ed.), Sociedade Civil e Espaços Públicos no Brasil (Paz e Terra 2002).
34 Roberto Pires and Alexander Vaz, ‘Participação Faz Diferença? Uma Avaliação das Características e Efeitos da Institucionalização da Participação nos Municípios Brasileiros’, in Leonardo Avritzer (ed.), A Dinâmica da Participação Local no Brasil (Cortez 2010); Maureen Donaghy, ‘Do Participatory Governance Institutions Matter? Municipal Councils and Social Housing Programs in Brazil’ (2011) Comparative Politics 83; Vera Schattan Coelho, ‘What Did We Learn About Citizen Involvement in the Health Policy Process? Lessons from Brazil’ (2013) 9 Journal of Public Deliberation 1.
35 Vera Schattan Coelho, ‘Brazil’s Health Councils: The Challenge of Building Participatory Political Institutions’ (2004) 35 IDS Bulletin 33; Orlando dos Santos Jr., Sergio de Azevedo and Luiz Ribeiro, ‘Democracia e Gestão Local: A Experiência dos Conselhos Municipais no Brasil’ in Orlando dos Santos Jr., Sergio de Azevedo and Luiz Ribeiro (eds.), Governança Democrática e Poder Local: A Experiência dos Conselhos Municipais no Brasil (Revan 2004); Lígia Lüchmann and Carla Almeida, ‘A Representação Política das Mulheres nos Conselhos Gestores de Políticas Públicas’ (2010) 13 Katalysis 86.
36 See Thamy Pogrebinschi and David Samuels, ‘The Impact of Participatory Democracy: Evidence from Brazil’s National Public Policy Conferences’ (2014) 46 Comparative Politics 313.
37 For an example of the interplay between local and national levels participatory/deliberative processes in Brazil (in the social policy field), see Diogo R. Coutinho, ‘Targeting within Universalism? The Bolsa Família Program and the Social Assistance Field in Brazil’ (2014) 47 Verfassung und Recht in Übersee (VRÜ) 43.
38 Ibid.
39 Leonardo Avritzer, ‘Conferências Nacionais: Ampliando e Redefinindo os Padrões de Participação Social no Brasil’ and Eleonora Cunha, ‘Conferências de Políticas Públicas e Inclusão Participativa’ in Clóvis de Souza and Leonardo Avritzer (eds.), Conferências Nacionais: Atores, Dinâmicas Participativas e Efetividade (IPEA 2013).
40 Luiza Reis Teixeira, ‘Legislativos Municipais: Dilemas entre Representação e Participação’ (PhD thesis, Fundação Getúlio Vargas 2016).
41 Ibid.
42 Luís Gustavo Henrique Augusto, ‘Participação Social no Processo Legislativo Federal: um Estudo da Comissão de Legislação Participativa (CLP), da Comissão de Direitos Humanos e Legislação Participativa (CDH) e da Iniciativa Popular de Lei’ (Master’s Thesis, Fundação Getúlio Vargas 2015). It’s worth noting that congressmen have in some cases taken up prominent popular initiative proposals and presented them themselves.
43 Permanent committees are collegiate bodies composed by congressmen that perform specific functions in the legislative process. The House of Representatives’ committee is called the Participatory Legislation Committee, and the Senate’s, is called the Human Rights and Participatory Legislation Committee. In addition to submissions from civil society organisations, the Senate’s committee allows submissions from parties without representation in Congress and from ordinary citizens (although citizens’ suggestions must receive at least 20,000 votes at E-Cidadania, the Senate’s online participation tool – see below).
44 Rony Coelho, ‘Legislação Participativa: Atores, Iniciativas e Processo Legislativo’ (2015) 17 Interseções: Revista de Estudos Interdisciplinares 189.
45 Ibid.
46 Augusto, v. sup. note 43.
47 Cristiano Faria and Maria Rehbein, ‘Open Parliament Policy Applied to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies’ (2016) 22 Journal of Legislative Studies 559.
48 Ibid.; Patrícia Gonçalves Rossini and Vanessa de Oliveira ‘E-Democracy and Collaborative Lawmaking: The Discussion of the Political Reform in Brazil’ (2016) 10 International Journal of Communication 4620. See also Carlos Affonso Souza, Fabro Steible and Ronaldo Lemos ‘Notes on the Creation and Impacts of Brazil’s Internet Bill of Rights (2017) 5 Theory and Practice of Legislation 1.
49 Faria and Rehbein, v. sup note 47.
50 José Afonso da Silva, Direito Urbanístico Brasileiro (Malheiros 2012).
51 Ermínia Maricato e Orlando Alves dos Santos Junior, ‘Construindo a Política Urbana: Participação Democrática e o Direito à Cidade’ in Luiz Cesar de Queiroz Ribeiro e Orlando Alves Santos Junior (eds.), As Metrópoles e a Questão Social Brasileira (Revan 2006).
52 Leonardo Avritzer, ‘O Estatuto da Cidade e a Democratização das Políticas Urbanas no Brasil’ (2010) 91 Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, PL 218.
53 ‘Art. 293 – The Executive Branch shall submit to the City Council the project for reviewing the Strategic Master Plan in 2006, adapting the strategic actions envisaged therein and adding areas for application of the instruments provided for in Federal Law No. 10257/2001 – Statute of the Cities’, Municipal Law No. 13430/2002 (former PDE of São Paulo).
54 In 2006, the then-mayor Gilberto Kassab (PSD-SP) initiated a process of revision and sent to the City Council the Draft Bill No. 671/2007. The project, however, was taken to the courts by civil society, which denounced the non-observance of the principle of democratic management of cities and the lack of popular participation in the reviewing process (Public Civil Action No. 053.08.111161-0, 5th Public Treasury Court of the Central Forum of the Region of São Paulo). This legal dispute has prevented the project from being put to a vote by the House, and the Draft Bill was later shelved.
55 Prefeitura de São Paulo, Exposição de motivos do Projeto de Lei de revisão do Plano Diretor Estratégico do Município de São Paulo (PDE), instituído pela Lei Municipal 13.430, de 13 de setembro de 2002 (2014).
56 Ibid.
57 Open data are defined as ‘data that can be freely used, re-used and redistributed by anyone – subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share alike’, according to the Open Knowledge Foundation, Open Data Handbook, available at: <http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/what-is-open-data/> accessed 30 December 2016.
58 Beatriz Kira, ‘Planejamento urbano e participação social: o processo de revisão do Plano Diretor Estratégico do Município de São Paulo’ (2016) 32(1) Revista da Faculdade de Direito do Sul de Minas 325 <http://www.fdsm.edu.br/adm/artigos/a6f491b906963c18ecbb1186047043b3.pdf> accessed 13 January 2017.
59 Nelson Saule Junior, ‘Estatuto da Cidade e o Plano Diretor - Possibilidades de Uma Nova Ordem Legal Urbana Justa e Democrática’ in Letícia Marques Osório (ed.) Estatuto da Cidade e Reforma Urbana (Antonio Fabris 2002).
60 Kira, v. sup. note 59.
61 Prefeitura de São Paulo, Exposição de motivos do Projeto de Lei de revisão do Plano Diretor Estratégico do Município de São Paulo (PDE), instituído pela Lei Municipal 13.430, de 13 de setembro de 2002 (2014).
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Câmara Municipal de São Paulo, Conheça o novo Plano Diretor Estratégico de São Paulo (2014).
65 Telma Hoyler and Samuel Ralize de Godoy, ‘Conteúdos Políticos do Plano Diretor: Por Que, Onde, Como e que Diferença Faz?’, IV Seminário Discente da Pós-Graduação em Ciência Política da USP <http://www.fflch.usp.br/centrodametropole/upload/aaa/706-SD_2014_%20Hoyler_Samuel_%20158-552-1-PB.pdf> accessed 13 January 2017.
66 Kira, v. sup. note 59.
67 Fung, v. sup. note 4.
68 Kira, v. sup. note 59.
69 Avritzer, v. sup. note 53.
70 Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Leonardo Avritzer, ‘Introdução: Para Ampliar o Cânone Democrático’ in Boaventura de Sousa Santos (eds.), Democratizar a Democracia: os Caminhos da Democracia Participativa (Civilização Brasileira 2002).
71 On the other hand, this ease of access may have compromised the depth of contributions in some cases, since they were not necessarily developed in a context of debate and maturation, such as those provided by in-person public hearings.
72 Kira, v. sup. note 59.