learning democracy by doing - estudo geral variable... · martha barriga “i can ... pablo montero...

LearningDemocracybyDoing:

AlternativePracticesinCitizenshipEducationandParticipatoryDemocracy

TransformativeLearningCentre,OntaroInstituteforStudiesinEducation,UniversityofToronto

July2009

TransformativeLearningCentre,OISE/UT252BloorStreetWest,

Toronto,OntarioM5S1V6Tel:(416)923‐6641est.2595

Fax:(416)926‐4749Email:[email protected]:http://tlc.oise.utoronto.ca

ThisprojectwasmadepossiblebyacontributionfromtheSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncil(SSHRC).

TableofContents

Introduction.....................................................................................................................iSection1:CitizenshipLearningandParticipatoryDemocracy:Debates,ConceptsandIssues ......................................................................................................................................1‘ActiveLearningforActiveCitizenship’,CommunityBasedLearningandDemocraticCitizenship ...................................................................................................................................................................1JohnAnnetteLearningforDemocracy:ResuscitatingtheArgument .........................................................................11JimCrowther,IanMartin&MaeShawParticipatoryDemocracyandtheRenewalofRadicalPolitics ..........................................................22StephenD'ArcyParticipación,PrácticasenSaludyProcesosdeAprendizajes:InvestigacionesenPsicologíayDemocracia ...........................................................................................................................................................30LeticiaGrippo,CarolinaScavino&CristinaChardonLearningDirectDemocracybyParticipatingandVoting:TheRelationshipbetweenPoliticalCultureandDirectDemocracy.........................................................................................................................39RolfRauschenbachCitizenshipParticipationandParticipatoryDemocracy:LimitsandPossibilities....................50DanielSchugurenskyDiscoursesofCommunityandParadoxesofParticipation:ChallengesforCitizenshipEducation...................................................................................................................................................................64GrietVerschelden,GreetDeBrauwere,LucDeDroogh&SvenDeVisscherAdvancingDemocracyandHappiness:TheLeadershipDevelopmentFrameworksofDifferentTypesofCharismaticPoliticalLeadership..............................................................................73JohnnyWelch

Section2:LearningDemocracyinSchools ...........................................................................85AHistoricalReviewofCitizenshipEducationinBC’sSocialStudiesGuides ...............................85CatherineBroomTeachingCitizenshipEducationinOntario:AHandbookforTeachersofElementarySchoolAgedChildren..........................................................................................................................................................98ElhamFarahDeliberativeMethodologyanditsRoleinDemocraticLearningintheProjectCitizenInitiative.................................................................................................................................................................. 104GabrielMurilloCastaño&NathaliaCastañedaAponteOnBecominganActiveandParticipatoryCitizen:AStudyonEducationandPoliticalSocializationinHongKong............................................................................................................................. 118ShunWingNgEducationalPolicyandChildren’sParticipation:AVoicetoConsider ........................................ 130CarolaArrúe,NoraE.Elichiry&CarolinaSavinoFromAuthoritarianSchoolstoDemocraticSchools:TheRedLatinoamericanadeConvivenciaEscolar........................................................................................................................................... 139PatriciaCarbajalPadillaStudents,Bricks,andMortar:ExaminingtheInter‐relationships................................................. 148MeganConwayTheQualityofEducationinPublicSchoolsandtheJeopardizingofCitizenship:ImplicationsforBrazilianDemocracy .................................................................................................................................. 157RanliceGuimaraesIosifStudentCouncilsatElementarySchoolsinIran:OneSteptowardsCitizenshipEducation................................................................................................................................................................ 166SamadIzadi&ZahraGooyaBuildingDemocracy:ImplementingRestorativeCirclesinBrazilianSchoolsasaNon‐violentConflictResolutionStrategy ........................................................................................................... 173PatríciaKriegerGrossi,BeatrizGerhensonAguinsky&MárioLimaGrossi

TheTransferofHistorical‐CriticalSkillsfromSocialStudiesClasstoPoliticalandCommunityPractice .......................................................................................................................................... 185DavidLefrançois&MarcAndréÉthierLaTecnologíaSocialdeMediacióncomoEstrategiaparaPromoverlaParticipaciónCiudadanaDesdelaComunidadylaEscuela.......................................................................................... 200MarcelaMagro,MaríaIsabelRamírez&MaríaE.FernándezdeC.ConstruirCiudadaníadesdeelNivelInicial ............................................................................................ 216AdrianaB.MurrielloLearningandPracticingDemocracy:AnalysisofClassroomPracticesandDiscourseinPakistaniSecondarySchools ......................................................................................................................... 225KarimPanahLearningtoParticipate:ConsiderationsforPromotingCollectiveActionduringSchoolActivity .................................................................................................................................................................... 241CarolinaScavino,NoraE.Elichiry,CristinaChardon&CarolaArrúeTheRoleofUNICEFinFosteringDemocraticValuesandIdeasthroughEducation:ACase‐StudyofSokotoStateinNigeriaVaffiF.Sheriff………………………………………………………………………………………………………..........249Education,DemocracyandSocialJustice:TheAustralianExperience–DoingThickDemocracyintheClassroom ......................................................................................................................... 259DavidZyngier

Section3:LearningDemocracyinHigherEducation............................................... 275LearningDemocracythroughDialogue:Re‐imaginingthePotentialofHigherEducationInstitutionstoSupportProcessesofPositiveSocialChange ........................................................... 275FelixBivens&PeterTaylorTheCriticalPedagogyofUnderstandinghowFutureEducatorsRelatetoDemocracy....... 285PaulR.Carr&GinaThéséeNowWhat?GettingPoliticallyActiveWithinandBeyondtheClassroom................................. 296LisaChild,AlysonDaly,MichelleHerbert,KristaHunt&GeneieeRitchie

EducaciónCiudadanaUniversitariaDemocrática:AmbitoparalaReflexión‐Acción‐TransformacióndesdelaCulturadePaz.................................................................................................. 304OlgaCarolinaMolanoLucenaDemocracyandCampusLife:AUniversityoftheWestIndiesExperimenttoIncludeCommutingStudents......................................................................................................................................... 314JosephPereiraLaDemocratizaciónPedagógica:UnaExperienciaenEducaciónSuperior .............................. 323SilviaRibotdeFlores,CarmenVarguillas&ErnestinaBáezMeaningfulRelationshipsinPost‐SecondaryEducationalPractices:IndigenousStandpointPedagogy ................................................................................................................................................................ 331SuzanneL.Stewart

Section4:LearningDemocracyinNonFormalEducaiton ................................. 341PoliticalLearningthroughWomen’sExperiencesinLocalGovernments:TheCaseofCentralAmericanPathtoLearning............................................................................................................................. 341MarthaBarriga“ICanSeetheChange”:TheCommunityTrainingPlanatTorontoCommunityHousing .. 352CarmenDownes,MarciaWilson,MarionThomson,TraceySeaward&KatherineJefferyNon‐FormalCitizenshipEducationinCapeTown:StrugglingtoLearnorLearningtoStruggle? ................................................................................................................................................................. 363KristinEndresenGivingSpacetoParticipateandReflect:AdultLiteracyWorkersDoingResearch‐in‐Practice ......................................................................................................................................... 373GuyEwing&SheilaStewartEnablingActiveCitizenshipthroughanAdultLeadershipDevelopmentProgram............... 382SharonZivkovicFormaciónDemocráticaparalaViabilidaddelosConsejosComunales:UnaExperienciaVenezolana............................................................................................................................................................. 394CarmentVarguillas,SilviaRibotdeFlores&ErnestinaBáez

IfIWerePresident:UsingPopularEducationasaToolforBuildingaDemocraticSociety............................................................................................................................................. 402RebeccaJanzenFormacióndeCompetenciasparalaConsolidacióndeCooperativascomoVíaparaelAprendizajeDemocráticoenelLugardeTrabajo:ElCasodeVenezuela .................................. 409ErnestinaBáez,CarmentVarguillas&SilviaRibotdeFlores

Section5:LearningDemocracyinSocialMovementsandPoliticalParties .................................................................................................................................................................. 420LasPolíticasParticipativasdesdeelPuntodeVistadelasOrganizacionesSociales............ 420MartínCarné,AlbertoFord,CintiaPinillos,ValeriaSassaroli&ValeriaVenticinqueLearningCivicEnvironmentalismbyDoing:ReflectionsfromActivists’ExperiencesinRuralOntario..................................................................................................................................................................... 427SuzanneL.CookTheRootsofEngagedCitizenshipLearning:ConfrontationswithMurderousInjustice,withReferencetoArgentinaandColombia....................................................................................................... 439DieterMisgeldParticipatoryDemocracyandEcojustice:FramingaViewofHealthyLearningOrganizationsthroughComplexityScience ............................................................................................ 451DarrenStanley&KellyYoungProgramadeCapacitaciónyFormaciónenCulturaEscolarparalaPaz .................................... 460BelkisMendozadeGómez&DanielaDonadiTheStruggleofNGOsinPakistanforPro‐PeopleLegislation......................................................... 470MirzaAbdulShakoorHowandWhydoWomen’s/FeministMovementsinEcuadorUsetheInternet? .................. 475MariaSvenningDemocracyinSocialMovements:LearningthroughProtest .......................................................... 483L.DeborahSword

PoliticalPartiesasVoluntarySocialServiceOrganisations:AlternativeProcessesofRecruitmentforQualityParticipationinPoliticalPartiesinIndia ............................................... 492VinaySahasrabuddhe

Section6:LearningDemocracyinLocalCommunities .......................................... 503PraxisandPlaceinFedUp:Windsor'sLocalFoodActivism ............................................................ 503JameyEssex&MayaRugglesWorksplaceDemocracyandSolidarityDevelopment:AnEmpiricalStudyofVenezuelanCooperatives ......................................................................................................................................................... 510CamilaPiñeroHarneckerLearningDemocraticCitizenship:NeighbourhoodsasKeyPlacesforPracticingParticipatoryDemocracy................................................................................................................................. 525LakeSagarisLearningInterculturalUnderstandinginPublicPlaces..................................................................... 543LindaDaleBloomberg,ChristinaCataldo,MariaCseh,BridgetO'onnor,VictoriaMarsick,PeterNeaman,RuudvanderVeen,MarieVolpe,JanetW.YoungbloodMobilizingforDemocracythroughNurturingDemocraticIntelligence..................................... 551KathleenKevanyGrupoArteNuevodeParaguay:ReservadePrácticasDemocráticasenunContextoAutoritario ............................................................................................................................................................. 561ÁngelMarianoJaraOviedoCitizenEngagementandElectionsinNigeria:LearningDemocracythroughTransformativeTheatreandSoccer............................................................................................................................................. 567TorIorapuuOpeningSpacesforAlternativeCitizenship:BringingInvisibleBodiestothePublicthroughArt.............................................................................................................................................................................. 580MabelLlevat

AprendiendoaTransgredirNormasDemocráticas:UnEstudiosobrelaSocializaciónPrimariaenArgentina ...................................................................................................................................... 589AnaVernengoVillaElisaDemocraticPracticesandTransitionalSpacesinaPublicArtProject........................................ 597AstridvonKotze

Section7:LearningDemocracythroughGovernance ............................................. 607FromObjectstoSubjectstoParticipants:WomenandGenderedGovernanceinKerala’sParticipatoryDemocracy................................................................................................................................. 607ManjulaBharathiTheVariableGeometryofParticipatoryBudgeting:WhichLessonsfromthenewPortugueseExplosion?......................................................................................................................................623NelsonDias&GiovanniAllegretti

VariationsandEffectsofExperimentalDemocracy:NeighbourhoodAssembliesandParticipatoryBudgetinginRosario ............................................................................................................ 638AlbertoFordParticipatoryDemocracyandPoliticalLearning:LessonsfromtheBrazilianExperience ........................................................................................................................................................... 650LígiaHelenaHahnLüchmannCivicLearninginState‐SponsoredInstitutions:AccountingforVariationintheBritishColumbiaandOntarioCitizens’AssembliesonElectoralReform................................................. 663AmyLangDemocracy,ParticipationandLearning:TheCaseofVenezuela................................................... 677ManuelLarrabureLearningDemocracythroughParticipatoryBudgeting:WhoLearnsWhat,andSoWhat? ....................................................................................................................................................... 686JoshLernerConstruccióndeCiudadaníaDemocráticayProyectosEducativosUrbanos:LaExperienciadelasCiudadesEducadoras…………………………………………………………………………………….......694PabloMonteroSouto

CivicLearningandPoliticalEngagementthroughParticipatoryBudgeting:TheCaseofGuelph,Canada .................................................................................................................................................... 706ElizabethPinnington&DanielSchugurenskySchoolsofDemocracy:HowOrdinaryCitizensbecomeCompetentinParticipatoryBudgetingInstitutionsinEurope................................................................................................................. 721JulienTalpinParticipativeDemocracyinMunicipalGovernance............................................................................. 735DonaldW.deGuerre&AndrewS.Trull

Section8:LearningDemocracyinGlobalContext ...................................................... 746Citizenship,GlobalizationandMigration:ImplicationsforGlobalCitizenshipEducation. 746KatherineDalyNorth‐SouthCity‐to‐CityCooperationinthefieldofSustainableDevelopmentandLocalAgenda21:TransformativeCitizenshipLearningthroughInternationalPartnerships ..... 757UlrikeDeversKanogluTheGlobalisationofCitizenship:ExploringtheRelevanceof‘Citizenship’forYoungPeople ........................................................................................................................................................ 767SamanthaRatnamBetweenCitizenParalysisandPraxis:TowardaCriticalPedagogyforConfrontingGlobalViolence................................................................................................................................................................... 777AdamDavidsonHardenDemocraticAccountabilityinEducationforDevelopmentCanadianINGOsandClaimsofParticipatoryLegitimacy ................................................................................................................................. 795GaryW.J.Pluim

TheVariableGeometryofParticipatoryBudgeting NelsonDias&GiovanniAllegretti

623

TheVariableGeometryofParticipatoryBudgeting:WhichLessonsfromthenewPortugueseExplosion?i

NelsonDiasiiandGiovanniAllegrettiiii

Introduction

Asseenelsewhereinthisbook,ParticipatoryBudgeting(PB)experienceshaveacquiredanimportantsignificanceinlessthantwodecades.Manygroups,includingpoliticalclassesinnumerouscountries,internationalorganizations,suchastheWorldBankandtheUnitedNations,differentacademicsectors,aswellascountlessorganizationsfromsocietyatlarge,haveshownagreatinterestinthisnewdemocraticexperiment.PBhasthusundergoneanastonishingworldwidedissemination.

WhentravellingacrosstheAmericanContinent,wecanfindexperiencesinpracticallyallcountriesfromCanadatoArgentina.Africahaskindledastronginterestinthistheme.ManyofitsStatesaretryingtoencourageeconomicdevelopment,tocreatemoreconsolidateddemocracies,tocarryoutdecentralizationpoliciesinhomeaffairstowhichtheynowwanttoassociateparticipatoryprocessessuchasPB.InEuropethethemehascometotakeonincreasingrelevancewiththeemergenceofcountlessinitiativesandwiththegrowthofplacesfortraininganddebate.ThefirstPBexperienceshavebeguntoappearinAsiaandAustralasiaaswell,includingregionswithdistinctpoliticaldemocratictraditions,suchasChina,Korea,Indonesia.

Insomecases,ashashappenedinPeruandtheDominicanRepublic,“PBasanexperience”hasgivenwayto“PBasapublicinstitutionalisedpolicy”,becominganintegralpartofthelegislativemarksofthesetwocountries.Togetherwiththeinternationaldynamicsthatwehaveseen,theseexamplesleadustobelievethatPBisbeingtransformedinto“AThemeonaLargerScale”(Dias,2008),capableofinfluencingtheagendaofdifferentpoliticalclasses,offeringalternativestocounteracttheliberaldemocraticcrisisandfavouringagreaterproximitybetweencitizensandpublicmatters.

LocalgovernmentinPortugalhasnotremainedimmunetothisinternationaldynamic,beingoneofthecountriesinEuropethathasshownthegreatestinterestinthetheme.Inthepresentarticle,weaimtoreflectontheadministrativeandsocio‐politicalcontextsinwhichtheseexperienceshaveemerged,theirmaincharacteristicsandtendencies,aswellasthechallengestheyface.Datashownistheresultofresearchcarriedoutbytheauthorsaspartoftheproject“ParticipatoryBudgeting:themoretheparticipation,thebetterthedemocracy”,financedbytheEuropeanUnionCommunityInitiativeEQUAL.

TheAdministrativeContext

Accordingtothe1976ConstitutionofthePortugueseRepublic(whoseseventhrevisiondatesfrom2005),thedemocraticorganizationofthecountry’spoliticalpoweratalocallevelisnowadaysplacedintheexistenceoftheso‐called“LocalAuthorities”(or


624

“autarquias”,Art.235).TheseLocalAuthoritieshavetheirownpropertyandfinances(Art.238),theirownpermanentstaff(Art.243)andtheycanholdreferendumsfortheirrespectivevotersonsubjectsincludingthecompetenceoftheirownbodies(Art.240).

Theadministrativestructureismadeupof308municipalitiesasitsbase.Thesearesubdividedinto4259parishes(“freguesias”),whicharedecentralizedpoliticaladministrativebodiesthatderivefromtheformerterritorialdivisionsofchurchparishes.

Theelectedbodies,representativesoftheParishesandtheMunicipalities,aretheCabinet(thedecisionmakingbodyelectedbyuniversalsuffrageinadirectballotbythevoters,whosenumericalcompositiondependsonthenumberofvotersregisteredintherespectiveterritory)andtheParishCouncilortheMunicipalCouncil(thecollegiatelegislativebody).Bothalsoincludememberselectedbytheoppositionparties,alegacythatmakesthepoliticallifeoftheexecutivedifficult.Thissituationbecomesunderstandableinthelightofthepostrevolutionarysituationwhentherulewasconceived.Itsobjectivewastogivevaluetoallthedynamicforcesofsociety.

AMayor(or“Presidente”),thatistosaythecitizenwhoheadsthelistofthemostvotedforparty,coordinatestheexecutivebodyinMunicipalitiesaswellasinParishes.

Theelectionsoftheexecutivebodiesandthedecisionmakingbodiesareseparatebutsimultaneous,exceptinthecaseofby‐elections,thatistosaywhenoneofthetwobodies(aswasthecaseofLisbon’sExecutiveCabinetin2006)hastoterminateitsmandateforpoliticalorjudiciaryreasons.

IntheMunicipalAssemblyonlypartofthemembersaredirectlyelected.ThishastobeahighernumberthanthenumberofParishCouncilChairmen,whoarealsoanintegralpartas“membersbyright”.

ThefunctioningoftheParishesisguaranteedbyapercentageoftheNationalBudgetthatistransferreddirectlytothem.Itscapacitiesareboundtothecarryingoutofsomedecentralizingadministrativetasksandthoseofthemanagementofelectoralprocesses.However,otherresponsibilitiesforservicesandpublicspacescanbeaddedonthebasisofspecificagreementsbetweeneachParishanditsrespectiveMunicipalCouncil.Asthesizeandorganizational/functionalstructureoftheParishesisverydifferent(rangingfromafewhundredto65,000inhabitants)thedistributionofitscapacitiesandresponsibilitieshastobe“avariablegeometry”asaresult.

ThemandateforthebodiesoftheLocalAuthoritiesisafour‐yeartermofoffice.Portuguesepoliticalculture,upuntilthepresentday,isbasedonthetraditionofhavingastrongcontinuityofpeopleand“politicalfamilies”.TheMayorselectedas“independents”,awayfromthespreadoftraditionalparties,arefewandfarbetween.Since2005,themandateofthechairmenoftheexecutivebodiesoftheLocalAuthoritiescannotberenewedformorethanthreeconsecutiveterms.

Theadministrativedivisions,onahigherlevelthantheMunicipalities,includethe18districtsofContinentalPortugalandthecreationofcontinuousterritorialunitsmadeupof


625

LocalAuthorities:theUrbancommunities(ComUrb),theGreaterMetropolitanAreas(GAM)andtheInter‐municipalityCommunities(Cominter).

AstothecreationofAdministrativeRegions(asforeseenintheConstitution),‐afterconsultingtheMunicipalities–thebrakeswereappliedbythereferendumofNovember1998inwhichthemapofeightregions,madeofficialintheLawbydecree18/98,wasnotpassed.Atpresent,theislands(MadeiraandtheAzores),madeupofvariousParishesandMunicipalities,areseenastwotrueAutonomousAdministrativeRegions.ThisisincontrasttoContinentalPortugal,wherethe“MapoftheRegionplans”(North,Centre,LisbonandtheTejoValley,theAlentejoandtheAlgarve)onlycorrespondstofiveregionalcommissionsforcoordinationanddevelopment(CCDR),withnoelectedbodies.

Withoutanydoubt,thiscomplexarchitectureneedsarevisiononashortormediumtermbasis.Proposalsforreformthatarepresentedneverarriveatthepointofbeingtrulysharedandagreedupon,norresultfromcarefulstudiesontherealfunctioningofLocalAuthorityinstitutions.Theynormallycorrespondto“ideological”positionsorpoliticalpartymaps.Theseproposalsare,ontheonehand,moreinterestedinreducinginstitutionalmanagementcostsandontheotherhand,securingterritorialdivisionsthatcorrespondtopotentialpoliticaladvantagesofthedifferentpartiesinfutureelectoralacts.Proposalsthatguaranteeanunmistakablerespectfortheprincipleofsubsidiarityhavenotbeendealtwith.

Atpresent,areformoftheLocalAuthoritiesElectoralLawisintheprocessofanalysis(ithasalreadybeenpassedbytheParliamentonJanuary18th,2008).Thisreformpointstoamore“presidential”modelforlocalGovernmentandforeseestheelectionoftheMayorandtheChairmanoftheMunicipalCouncilasajointrole.InthiswaytheroleoftheMayorisreinforcedandthelatterisfreetochoosehis/hercabinetmembers.Thisreducesthe“collective”characteroftheexecutivethatwasdrawnupafterthe1974revolutioninordertoguaranteethegreaterinvolvementofalltheactivepoliticalforcesinthevariousLocalAuthoritybodies(evenincludingitsownoppositionintheexecutive).ThenewlawequallyreformstheParishes,proposingtheirreduction.

SociopoliticalContext

NewformsofcitizenparticipationinlocalpoliticallifeinPortugalhavebecomeimportantforasetofreasonsthatareworthbeinganalysed,evenifsuccinctly.

Inthefirstplace,thesedevelopmentsmustbeunderstoodwithrespecttoacentralisttraditionofpower,withconsequencesinthepoliticalanddemocraticcultureofthoseelectedandthoseelecting.ThefirstfreeelectionsfortheLocalAuthoritybodiesdatefrom1976,thusmarkingthetransitionoftheMunicipalitiesasauxiliaryextensionsofthecentralGovernmenttoamodelofLocalAdministrationwithagreaterautonomyandcapacityforintervention.ThistransitionclearlymadeLocalGovernmentmuchmoredemocraticandledtoaprogressivereinforcementoftheState’scapacitytointervenein


626

areas,suchasthecreationofinfrastructuresandpublicamenities,aswellasitsabilitytoprovideservicestothepopulation.

However,arealprocessofparticipationbycitizensinpublicmattersdidnotaccompanythischangeinthePortuguesepoliticalandadministrativeorganization.Citizensweretoalargeextentconsideredasbystandersinlocalgovernmentsthatprogressivelyhadassumedkeyrolesinthefieldofterritorialdevelopment

TheimplementationofparticipatoryprocesseslikePB,thatimplytheadoptionofnew,moredemocraticandtransparentformsofgovernment,representsaclearparadigmaticchangeinthisrespect–thepassingoftheparadigmofpublicaidtotheparadigmofco‐responsibilityforthemanagementof“publicmatters”.

Thistransformationmaybeidentifiedastheoutcomeoftheadoptionofanewpoliticalculturebyelectedrepresentativesandcitizens,ontheonehand,and,asalreadyindicated,therethinkingofthepoliticalinstitutionaldesignthathassustainedthedecentralizationprocessinPortugal,ontheotherhand.

Indemocraticculturethepoliticalclasstendstobeconsideredlegitimatebecauseofitselectoralstatus,andthereforeoftendoesnotrecognisetheneedtoinitiateparticipatoryprocessesorrenderaccounts.However,thecitizensthemselveshavestoppedbeinginterestedinpoliticallife,reducingtheirinvolvementbothincommunityactivitiesandinelections(thelast2006by‐electionsandthenationalreferendumonabortionregisteredanalarmingriseinabstentionrates,especiallyintheGreaterLisbonarea).

Oneofthelessonsthatwecandrawfromcountrieswithconsolidateddemocraciesisthatitisnotenoughtosetupgeneralprinciplesoflibertyandcivilrightstoestablishdemocraticorder(Fedozzi,2001).“Thecarryingoutoftruedemocraticelectionsisnotsufficientinordertoguaranteegoverningformsappropriateforamoderndemocracy,formsbasedonthetransparencyofadministrationandthecredibilityofitspublicservices.Itisnotenoughtoassuretheexistenceofdemocraticinstitutionalisationinordertodevelopapoliticalanddemocraticcultureforitscitizens“(Dias,2006:84).

Portugalfacesabarelyconsolidatedcultureofparticipationonthepartofitsassociativemovements,morespecifically,andofthepopulationingeneral.Participationisnormallytheresultofratherspontaneousand“reactive”processes,asisthecaseofindividualpeoplewhoemergewhenconfrontedwithunpopulardecisionsfrompoliticalbodies,awayofreplyingtosituationsonaone‐offbasis.Fortheirpartassociativemovementsareverysectorbasedandlittleornotatallorganized,makingproactiveactionsindefenceofglobalinterestsdifficult.Thesemovementsareoftencoupledtothedynamicsofpoliticalpartiesthattakefromthemthecapacitytointervene,theircredibilityandtheirlocalembeddedness.

ThefeebledevelopmentofPortuguesecitizenship,withdirectimplicationsofthepopulations’attitudeinrelationtopolitics,isvisiblenotonlyonanationallevelbutalsoonalocallevel.ThedecentralizationoftheState,viathecreationofmunicipalities,wouldnormallybringwithittheexpectationofawiderdemocratisationofpoliticallife,but,infact,someexpectationswerefrustrated,aboveallfortworeasons:1)ontheonehand,


627

becausetheinstitutionaldesigninwhichtheprocessofdecentralizationisplaced,hasnotcreatedasufficientlyexpressiverupturewiththecentralisttraditionofGovernmentand,ontheotherhand,2)becausethearchitectureoflocalgovernmentinPortugalwasdrawnuphavingasitsbaseinstitutionalmodelswithstronghierarchies.Thissignifiesthattheprocessesofdecentralizationandtheinstitutionalbasisoflocalauthoritieswerenotconceivedwithaconcernforcitizen’spoliticalinvolvement.

CasesofcorruptioninLocalAuthoritiesareotherelementsthatmarksocio‐politicalcontextswherenewprocessesofcitizens’participationareemerging.Thesehavebeenamplyreportedinthemedia,oftenwithoutverysolidproof,generatingtheideaofLocalGovernmentshavinganimmoralnature.SituationsofcorruptioninLocalAuthoritiesnormallyemergeassociatedwithillegalitiesintheurbansector,suchasconstructionlicencesandlicencesforland‐usealteration,towhichareaddedcasesofillicitfinancingforthepoliticalpartymachineandalsothegainingofwealthandpersonalfavours.

ThesesituationsreinforcethepresentcrisisoftherepresentativenatureofthepoliticalbodiesthatAlainTouraine(1994)talkedabout,andthatBoaventuradeSousaSantosdeepenedinhislecturesonthecontemporaryworld,whenthedoublepathologyoftheliberaldemocraciesisreferredto.Thelatterinvolvesapathologyofrepresentationinwhichcitizensareincreasinglydistantfrompoliticallifeandtheelected,whomtheyoftendonotevenknow.Meanwhile,thepathologyofparticipationisassociatedwiththecommonideathatthereisnopointinparticipating,ascitizensfeelfartoosmalltoconfrontlargeinterestgroupsandthepoliticalandeconomicagentsthatdominatesociety(2008).

Anotherelementtokeepinmindinthisanalysis,isagrowing“asymmetry”thatisbeingconsolidatedinthetransferoftheGovernment’sinstitutionalcapacitiestoMunicipalitiesandParishes.Thedelegationofthesecapacitieshasbeenmadewithoutthecorrespondingfinancialmeans,causingobviousdifficultiestoLocalGovernmentinthecreationofadequateresponsestothepopulation’sdemands.LocalAuthorities,especiallytheMunicipalCouncils,havebeencalledtointerveneinareasthattheywerepreviouslynotinvolvedin.Thiswasduetothedecentralizingofcapacities,butalso,todemandsmadebythepopulationitself.Theareasofeducation,socialaction,culture,sportandeconomicactivitiesareexamplesofthis.Unabletodisregarddemandsregardingaccesstobasicsanitationandtopublicamenities,LocalAuthoritiestodayfacethesenewandrenewedchallenges.Theyareobligedtothinkofmoreintegratedandintegratinginterventions,sometimesmoreimmaterialthanmaterial.

Thelackof“certainties”or“guarantees”astotheresultsofparticipatoryprocessescarriestheriskoffrustratingthepopulation,especiallyinthedynamicsthatimplymedium–longtermobjectivessuchasAgendaXXIanddiscussionsonurbandevelopmentplans.Thisissuebecomesmoreacuteatinstitutionallevelswithfewcapacitiesandresources,suchasParishes–especiallythesmallerones.

AllofthisishappeningwithinthecontextofaforeseeableandprogressivelossofLocalAuthorities’financialcapacity.Copingwiththissituationwillrequirenewpermanentallianceswithprivateprofitornon‐profitmakingentities,whichallowforanenlargementofthecapacityofactionandtheharnessingofresources.


628

ApredictablerenovationoftheLocalAuthorities’politicalframework,duetothenewelectorallawthatimposesalimitonthemandatesofthoseingovernment,isstillnotaveryvisiblephenomenonwhenlookingat“thoseatthetopofthelists”ofthedifferentparties.Butinanycase,itwillbecomemoreorlessobviousthatintheautumnelectionsof2009partieswillbeobligedtoadvanceprocessesofinternalrenovationoftheirpermanentstaff,possiblysupportedbytherespectiveyouthbranchesofpoliticalparties.Willthisbringtheemergenceofnewpoliticalgenerations,possiblymoreinclinedtowardsdemocraticinnovationandtheconsequentimplementationofparticipatoryprocesses,suchasparticipatorybudgeting?Itisanopenendedissue,althoughthereareincreasingsignsofthispossibility,asdemonstratedbythefactthattheaverageageoflocalMayorsorDistrictPresidentswhohaveexperimentedwithPBislowerthanthenationalaverageage.AnotherinterestingindicatoristhefactthattheimpulsesbehindthemajorityofPBexperienceshavebeenMayorswhoareintheirfirstterminoffice,demonstratingadesiretoconstructa“personalstyle”appropriateinthemanagementofpublicmatters.

ParticipatoryBudgetinginPortugal

Twenty‐fivePBexperiencesareknowninPortugaldatingfrom2002tothepresentday.Twenty‐oneofthesearepromotedbyMunicipalitiesand4byParishes,asillustratedinthefollowingmap.

AquickglanceoverthismapallowsonetoeasilyunderstandthesoutherntendencyofthemajorityofexperiencesinPortugal.Thisrealityreflectsthetraditionalpolitical


629

divisionofthecountry,accordingtowhich,theCentre–RightisthemostdominantpresenceintheNorth,whilsttheSouthislargelypositionedCentre‐Left.However,amoredetailed,chronologicalanalysisofPBdevelopmentinPortugalallowsonetoaffirmthatpartiesacrossthepoliticalspectrum,includingtheindependentmovementsthatgovernsomeLocalAuthorities,areopeningtothesenewformsofdemocraticexperimentalism.

If,intheinitialphase,PBemergedasa“leftwingidea”,withespecialprominenceforLocalGovernmentsledbytheDemocraticUnitarianCoalition(ColigaçãoDemocráticaUnitária)(CDU)iv,todaythetendencyisincreasinglyrelatedtotheemergenceofPBinareasledbytheSocialistParty(PS)vorbytheSocialDemocraticParty(PSD)vi.ThefirstsignsofawilltoimplementPBinmunicipalitiesgovernedbyPSDandthePopularParty(CDS‐PP)viiarealsoperceptible.Accordingtotheknowledgethattheauthorsholdatthemoment,anenlargementofPBexperiencesinterritoriesgovernedlocallybythePSandthePSDistobeexpectedsoon.Asamatteroffactitisthesetwopartiesthatcontestthemajorityoflocalgovernmentsinthecountry.

Atpresent,ofthe25LocalAuthoritiesindicatedonthepreviousmap,44%aregovernedbyCDU,24%byPS,thesamepercentageforPSD,whilst8%aregovernedbyIndependentMovements.

AnotherelementthatallowsustothinkthatPBwillnotberestrictedtoaspecificpoliticaltendency,hastodowiththefactthatnoevidenceexistsatthemoment,thatallowsustodistinguishformsoforganizationandtheimplementationofPBthatdependspecificallyonthepoliticalpartythatpromotesit.Furthermore,thecharacteristicsofPBinPortugalseemtorelymuchmoreonthechangeablestructuresrelatedtotheinstitutionalandsocio‐politicallegacy,dealtwithintheprevioustwopointsofthistext.Thefollowingparagraphstrytosyntheticallysumupthesecharacteristics.

ModelsofparticipationThemajorityofPBexperiencesinPortugalareofaconsultativecharacter.This

meansthattheyarenormallycentredonthediscussionofproblems,needsandproposalspresentedbythecitizens,withoutthisimplyingarealdebateonbudgeting.Insomecases,ashashappenedinPalmelaandSãoBrásdeAlportel,theprocessbeginswithaninitialproposalofprojectselaboratedbytherespectiveExecutiveBodies.Alterationsmaythenbeintroducedduetocontributionsgivenbythecitizensinthe“deliberationarenas”orinthedifferentareasfordiscussionandthehandinginofsuggestionsthatareopentotheinhabitants(thismaybeinfacetofacemeetings,enquiriesontheInternetoronpaper).

Despitethisbeingthetendencyinthemajorityofcases,wearebeginningtoseetheemergenceofasecondgenerationofPBinPortugalatthemoment.Thisislayingitsbetsontheimplementationofadecision‐makingprocesswithapreviouslydefinedcomponentinthebudget.ThissecondgenerationisatpresentplayedoutbyexperiencessuchastheMunicipalitiesofLisbon(thecapitalofthecountry)andSesimbra,aswellasbytheParishofSantaLeocádiadoGerazdoLima(VianadoCasteloLocalAuthority)inthenorthofthecountry.


630

Apartfromthelearningdimensionthatthistypeofprocesscouldhaveforthecitizens,aswellasgainsintermsofdemocratictransparency,PBpromotedbytheParishCouncilsis,aboveall,putintoperspectiveasatoolofparticipationthathelpsreinforcetheroleofthisadministrativelevelinthepoliticalmediationprocesswiththeirrespectiveMunicipalCouncils.TheParishCouncilsinPortugalhaveverylimitedinvestmentcapacities,,unlessspecificannualagreementsaremadewiththeMunicipalitiestowhomtheybelong,attributingnewrolesinthemanagementoflocalservicesandinfra‐structures.ThismayleadParishestoseePBasatooltowardsreinforcingitsnegotiationargumentswiththerespectiveMunicipalCouncils,urgingthelattertocontemplatetransferringinvestmentswithintheirbudgetstotheParishinquestion.

AllthePortugueseexperiencesfavourtheparticipationofpeopleactingindividually,althoughsome(suchasBraga,oneofthelargestcitieswithaSocialistLocalGovernmentintheNorthofthecountry)alsoallowsystemsofrepresentationvialocalcollectivesandassociations.Thisisanimportantaspect,giventhatlocalassociationsareexcessivelydependantonfinancialhelpandlogisticsprovidedbytheLocalAuthorities,andareoftensubjecttointerferenceandinfluencefrompoliticalpartystructures.Fromthispointofview,PBpartiallysymbolizesthereturnoftheindividualactor,verymuchabandonedbythelogicofrepresentativedemocraticsystems,whonormallyaccordsocialandpoliticalrelevancetopre‐organisedstakeholders.Theperspectiveofthissmall“revolution”startsmainlywiththeindividualusingspecificneedsordesiresasits“drivingforce”inordertoguaranteepresenceinthepublicspacewheremorecollectivevisionsmaybenegotiatedand“commongoods”identified.

ThefocustakenbyPBinPortugalhasaterritorialtendency.Thismeansthatthedynamicsofdecentralisedparticipation(onthebaseofneighbourhoodsandvillageswithineveryparish),thatallowdifferentdimensionsoflocallifetobeincorporatedindebatesarefavoured.Wereferspecificallytothepossibilityofdiscussingdifferentareasofinterestinpeople’sliveswithintheseprocesses.Areas,amongstmanyothers,suchasforexampleeducation,health,transport,theenvironment,culture,sport,urbanproblemsandtheeconomy.Thisfocushasthetendencytorevealdifferencesamongterritoriesandasymmetriesbetweenmunicipalities,asforexample,theneedtounderstandthespecificproblemsofurbanorruralareas,ofthemorerundownhousingestatesorthecentralareaswiththeirmorevaluedheritageetc.TheadoptionofthisfocusrelatestothefactthatMunicipalitiesinPortugalhaveprogressivelycometotakeoncapacitiesinnearlyallthematicareas,fromthecreationofbasicinfrastructuretothedevelopmentofthelocaleconomy.Thefactthatthisfocussometimeshasalimitedperspectivethatdoesnotallowadiscussionon“strategicchoices”fortheinterestedterritory,partiallyjustifiestheinsertionofPortuguesePBinthecategoryof“proximitydemocracy”(Allegretti/Sintomer,2009)withrespecttocomparisonsamongdifferentfamiliesofEuropeanOP.

Paralleltothistendency,wealsobegintoseetheemergenceoffirstinitiativeswhosefocusis,abovealldirectedtowardscertainactorsorsocialgroups,ashashappenedwithchildrenandyoungpeople.ThisisthecaseofSãoBrásdeAlportelthatimplementedthefirstexperienceofChildren’sandYoungPeople’sParticipatoryBudgeting(OPCJ)in2007.ThisinvolvedthestudentsofthetwomainschoolsoftheMunicipalityinaterritorial


631

partnershipthatinvolvedtheMunicipality,theInLocoAssociationandtheschoolsthemselves(Dias,2008).TheexperiencesoftheParishofCarnideinLisbonalsobegansoonafterwards,involvingprimaryschoolchildrenagedbetween6and10yearsold,aswellasthatofBragaintheNorthernregionofthecountry.Theseexperiencestakeonanimportantrole,beingamomentofsocializationandtrainingonthethemeofdemocracyandcitizenship,aboveallinasettingofalmosttotalabsenceofinstitutionsthatclearlytakeonthisfunction.Theyalsohelptogivesubstancetoapanoramaoffragmented,pseudoparticipatoryinitiatives.InPortugal,theseinitiativeshavehadtheambitiontoworkonsometopicsofinterestwithintheschoolcommunityinaconsensualway.Theyaretobefoundin“Charters”and“EducationCouncils”:adevelopmenttool–oftenaweakone–ofsocialdialoguewithstudents(rarely),teachersandotheractorsinvolvedintheeducationfield.

TheInstitutionalDrawingThestrikingmajorityofPBprocessescorrespondstoasetofmeetingsheldbetween

ExecutiveBodiesandcitizensthatnormallytakesplaceinthelastquarterofeachyear.Thistimescaleismainlyduetofourreasons:

• The consultative character of the processes that does not imply very complexinstitutionaldesignandarchitecture,northeanticipationofpublicdebateswiththeaimofagreementandvotingonthepartofthecitizens;

• ThisisthetimeoftheyearinwhichExecutiveBodiesfeelmoreconfidentfacingthelocal taxpayers. This is due to the fact that they are able to have amore realisticbudgetforecastforthefollowingyear.Moreover,withrespecttotheyearinprogressmorepublicworkshavebeencompletedfromthecurrentbudget;

• ThemarginalrolethatPBtakeswithintheLocalAuthoritiesprioritiesandwithinthefunctioningoftheadministrationitself;

• OP’s low impact within the decision of the Local Authorities’ Executive Bodies inrelationtothelargescaleinvestmentsthatabsorbthebulkoftheLocalAuthorities’financialresources.

Thislastcharacteristicclearlyemergesintheinquirycarriedoutaspartoftheproject“PBPortugal”(2008),asrepresentedinimagesnumber2,3and4thatshowthemaininvestmenttypologiesdiscussedinPortugueseOPandhow“careful”theincidenceofPBresultsarecalculatedandpresentedtocitizens.


632

Main investment typologies discussed in Portuguese OP

Expenditures for upkeeping and maintenance

12%

Expenditures for personnel

3%

Mainly expenditures for

small investments

48%

current expenditures

6%

Expenditures for structural

investments31%

Does it exist a fixed amount of resources specifically allocated for PB to decide?

88,2%

5,9%

5,9%

No

Yes

It just exists a fixed number of prioritieswhich could be accepted, but not their

amount

In 2007 which was the percentage of investment budget decided by PB?

66,7%

33,3%

It was not specifically calculated

Impossible to say

Apartfrompublicmeetings,manyexperienceshavealsocometoadopttheuseofquestionnairesonparticipation,eitherusingpaperortheInternet.OnthislevelwehighlighttheexperiencesfromOdivelasthatinitsfirstyearcombinedthedigitalmethod


633

withreallifedebates,aswellasthatofLisbonthat,in2008,developedatypeofOPexclusivelydevelopedviatheInternet.Nevertheless,inthemajorityofcasestheuseofinformationtechnologyisstilllimited(Allegretti/Matias/Cunha,2007).

SomeinterestinginnovationshavebeendevelopedbytheexperienceofSantaLeocádiadoGerazdoLima,namelythecreationofaParticipatoryBudgetingCouncil(ConselhodoOrçamentoParticipativo‐COP)andaprioritiescaravan.TheCOPismadeupofdelegateselectedinalltheParish’scommunitieswiththerighttovoteandtomakedecisionsoninvestmentstobeincludedintheLocalAuthority’sbudget.Thecaravancorrespondstothephaseoftheparticipationcyclethatprecedesthevotingofpriorities.Inaccordancewiththis,thecitizens’delegates(whoarethespokesmenelectedbytheparticipants)visitallthespotswherelocalproposalshavebeenpresentedbyinhabitantsaspartofthePBsessions.Theydothisinordertobeabletocomparetheneedsofeachcommunityandreducethelevelofignorancethatmanyinhabitantshaveregardingtheterritoryasawholeinwhichtheylive.

Organizationaloutlines:PBasamarginalsectorialpolicy?InPortugal,thegreatmajorityofthePBisbasedintheMayors’SupportOffices

showingthepoliticalwagerthatthisprocessrepresents.ThissignifiesthattheseinitiativesareconductedtechnicallyandpoliticallybypeoplewhomtheMayorstrust.Thisoptionalsogivesevidencethattheprocesseshavestillnotreachedhighlevelsofdemandwithintheadministration,areasonforwhichitbecomespossibletoimplementusingthefrugalhumanresourcesoftheMayors’SupportOffices.Inaccordancewithdatacollectedfromthealreadymentionedenquiryquestionnaires,morethan70%oftheexperiencesfunctionwithoutPBbeingtakenonbyabranchoftheMunicipalorotherservice.Simultaneously,morethan50%ofthePBalsodonotpossessanypoliticalcoordinationthatguaranteesthemanagementandassessmentoftheseprocesses.

Onthecontrary,PBswithagreaterlevelofstructureandcomplexitythatrepresentafirmerpoliticalwilltendtogeneratetheinternalnecessityforthecreationofworkteamsbytheadministration.ThecityofPalmelahasgonealongthispathaftervariousyearsofexperience.IthasoptedtocreateastructurelegallyrecognisedinthegeneralsetupoftheLocalAuthority,responsibleforthecoordinationandthedynamicsofthedifferentparticipatoryprocesses.Atthemoment,LisbonisgoinginthedirectionofthecreationofaprojectteamthatwillbringtogethertechniciansfromdifferentMunicipalityservices.Odivelasisalsoinsertedinthisdynamic,althoughapeculiarityistobehighlighted:PBhasemergedwithintheLocalAuthority’sfinancialdepartment.FromthispointofviewcomestheperceptionthatPBwillalsobeatooltoimprovetheMunicipality’sfinancesandbudget’seffectivenessandefficiency.OtherLocalAuthoritieshavecometocreateworkteams,essentiallyformedbytechniciansfromthefinancedepartment,organizingafirstinternalproposalofthePBmodeltosubmittothepoliticaldecisionoftheelected.Itispossibletounderstandfromtheconsultingandtrainingworkthattheauthorshavedevelopedwiththeseteams,thattheyhaveeasilyconcludedthatPBwillnotbeabletoworkifthedepartment,towhichtheybelong,doesnotknowhowtomobilizeandimplicateotherimportantdepartmentswithintheLocalAuthority,suchas,publicworks,orsocial,youthandassociationalaffairsamongstothers.


634

AnotheroftheaspectsthatcallsforattentionisrelatedtotrainingteamsonPB’sconceptualandmethodologicalissues.LocalAuthoritiesinwhichPBisamarginalactivityoflittlesignificancetendnottoinvestinthetrainingofitspermanenttechniciansandpoliticians.Onthecontrary,LocalAuthoritiesthataremoreconcernedwithdrawingupprocesseswithagreaterorganisationalrigour,usuallyseekouttrainingoffersonthesubjectandorganizevisitstootherPBexperiences.Datafromquestionnairessuggeststhatabout60%ofLocalAuthoritieshaveneverpromotedorlookedfortrainingfortechniciansdirectlyinvolvedintheprocessandthatabout90%haveneversoughttoguaranteethissametrainingforstaffthatdonotdirectlyworkwithOP.

TheProject“PBPortugal”viiihasbeenadecisivefactoronthislevelinpromotingtrainingcourses,workshopsandfreeconsultingworkforLocalAuthoritiesforthefirsttimeinthewholecountry.ItrepresentsaninterestingperspectivefromwhichOPsareinterpretednotonlyas“objects”(organisationalmechanisms)butratherasconstituentpartsofatransformationinprogressinterritorialgovernanceconcerningtheinternalfunctioningoftheadministrativemachineanditsdesiretorelatecreativelytonewformsof“collectiveaction”.

LittlehaschangedoverthelastfewyearsinPortugalwithrespecttothelegalornormativeframeworkofOP:Thesecontinuetodependexclusivelyonthepoliticalwilloftheelected.Thecreationofregulationsorrulesforprocesseshasaccompaniedthedynamicthatisemergingfromthistypeofexperience.Thismeansthat,effectiveformsofPBhavenecessarilyinvolvedthecreationofregulationsornormsfortheirfunctionalframework.Itissomethingthatresultsnaturallyfromthedemandsoftheprocessesthemselves,themanagementoftheunexpectedandfromteamlearning.However,inPortugal(differentlyfromwhathashappenedinthemajorityofSpanishOP)noneofthePBexperienceshashadself‐regulationorratherregulationcreatedordefinedwiththeparticipationofthecitizens.Inmorethan50%ofexperiences,however,PBisstillanon‐formalizedprocess.

Intimatelyrelatedtotheseissuesistheabsenceofpreviouslydefinedobjectives,aswellastheprocessesofregistering,monitoringandrigorousassessment,capableofprovidingelementsthatallowforlearningwithparticipatorydynamics,understandingwhatrunswellandwhatneedstobeimproved.Insomeexperiences(asisthecaseofOdivelas,Lisbon,SesimbraandSãoBrásdeAlportel),theresultsoftheprocess,namelythepublicwidespreaddiffusionofinformationaboutpublicworksandprojectsagreeduponaspartofOP,isguaranteedviatheInternetorinPublicsessions.InthecaseofSesimbra,wepointoutaninterestingpeculiarityrelatedtothefacttheworkagreeduponbythecitizensisreportedontheLocalAuthority’sInternetpage,illustratedwithphotosandwiththeidentificationofitsstateofdevelopment(launching,carryingoutorcompletion).

InouropinionthistypeofdetailontherenderingofaccountsallowsonetothinkofPBprocessesasdynamicswithtwocyclesofparticipation:thefirstdedicatedtodebatingthebudgetplanandthesecondtothecarryingoutofpriorities.Inbothmoments,citizenshaveanimportantroleintermsofparticipationanddemocraticvigilance.ThistypeofdynamicspromoteslearningonMunicipalmanagementandtheterritorialreality,supplyingimportantelementsforthecarryingoutofaninformedcitizenshipanddemocracy.


635

Somefinalremarks

WhilePortuguesePBshadanessentially“stable”characterinthefirstexperiments(2002‐2005),reproducingorganisationalcharacteristicsthatbarelyevolvedfromoneyeartoanother,theprocesseshavebecomemore“evolved”inthelastthreeyearsviaanincreasingtransformation.Thisispartiallyduetothenumericaldiffusion,thediversificationandtheincreasingcontactsmaintainedwithexperiencesinothercountriesviaconventionsandinternationalnetworkssuchasFAL,UCLGixandtheInternationalObservatoryforParticipatoryDemocracy,basedinBarcelona.

WithrespecttotheanalysisdevelopedbytheInternationalteamcoordinatedbyYvesSintomerx,alreadymentioned,PBsinPortugalhavebeenlargelyworkedwithintheperspectiveofcreating“proximitydemocracy”(geographicallyandcommunicatively),withoutgreatconcernforthepromotionofjusticeorsocio‐territorialcohesion,butasimportantelementsinthere‐establishingofadialoguebetweentheelectedandthoseelectingandinthecreationofanewsourceofpoliticallegitimacy.However,agradualshiftofparadigmsmaybeobservedwhichinthefuturecouldleadPortugalPBstoemulatesomefeaturesofnon‐MediterraneanPBmodels,suchastheGermanoneswhichwerefirstlyinspiredbythenewZealand’sexperienceofChristchurchratherthanbyPortoAlegre.

TheparticipationoftechniciansfromthefinancialdepartmentsofvariousmunicipalitiesinspecifictrainingcoursesonPBhasbeenaninterestingindicatorofthistransformation.WhileinSpainandItalythemajorityoftechnicianstrainedinPBbelongtomunicipalbranchesanddepartmentsconnectedtosocialaffairs,thepromotionofactivecitizenshiporpublicworks,therecentPortuguesewayoflookingatPBpointstoanewhypothesisforinterpretation:participatorybudgetinghasbeguntotakeontheperspectiveofexperimentsthatcanfavouranewwayofdealingwithexpenditureandpublicrevenue,startingfromreformsconcerningwaysofworkingwiththeLocalAuthorities’internalcommunicationandcoordinationwithinbudgetandfinancedepartments.

ThePortuguese“hyper‐realist”frameworkhastraditionallyworkedwithbudgetforecaststhatwereverymuchoutoftouchwiththerealityofrealpublicfinances.TheresultingexcessofunfulfilledpromisesmayhavecontributedtothedistancingoftaxpayersandtheirlossoftrustintheLocalAuthorities’administrationsandinpoliticsingeneral.Withinacountrythathascometoseethegrowthofelectoralabsenteeismtheneedtoregaincredibilityandauthorityintheeyesofthecitizensisbecomingurgentandvisible.Improvingrelationshipsoftrustand“performance”inadministrativeactivitiesstandstoguaranteegreaterefficiencyinthebattleagainstcitizens’alienationwith“publicmatters”.

FurtherconfirmationforthehypothesisofatransformationofPBcouldbefoundininterestingnewdevelopments,whicharestrengthenedbythefirstexperimentsintheScandinavianworld.PortugalhasbeenchosenasaprivilegedinterlocutorforthefirstpilotschemeinSwedeninanunprecedentedrelationshipbetweentheNorthandtheSouthofEurope.Althoughmorecommon,itistobeequallynotedthatCapeVerdehasalsoturnedtoPortugalforsupportwithintheprocessofimplementationofthefirstPBexperiencesinthecountry.ThishasbeenviatrainingandconsultancyforMunicipalteamsandthecentralgovernment.ThisallowstheideatobeadvancedthatPortugalnowadaysholdsaprivileged


636

positionascontributortoanextremelyenrichingdialogueinNorth‐SouthandSouth‐Northrelationships.

ThecaseofCarnide,aParishinLisbon,maybeasymbolforthefuture,duetoitsextensiverangeoftoolsforsocialdialogue(nowadaysentitled“ParticipatoryManagement”).HereinthisLisbonParish,dataforelectoralabsenteeismissignificantlylowerthantheaverageforthecityandthecountry.Thisshowshowacoherentdialogicalapproachmayreconstructtiesofmutualtrustbetweencitizensandtheworldofpolitics.ItmaybethattodayparticipationinpublicpolicieshasanewoptionforholisticdevelopmentwhenindifferentcitiesOPisbeginningtoberelatedtoothermanagementdialoguetools(urbandevelopmentplans,AgendaXXI,thematicadvisorycouncils).InterestshownbydifferentpartiesininsertingPBas“engineofinnovation”intheelectoralprogrammesforthe2009localandnationalelections,maybeanotherindicatorofatransformationtoconsider.

Somechallenges,thathavestillnotbeenfaced,remainforthenearfuture.ThemainonebeingthepossibilitytolookatPBasa“energiser”foracivilsocietywhichisstillweakandlowinaction,andtheopportunitytoconceivemethodsofdiscussionandco‐decisionforparticipatorybudgetingtobethe“enginefortheconstructionofnegotiatedsolidarity”betweencitizensanddifferentpartsoftheterritory.Withthischallenge,itwouldbeexcellenttoestablishadialoguewiththemanyBrazilianexperiences,althoughwecanputforwardtheideathatsomeaspectsofpost‐colonialculture(thatstillhavenotmanagedtoleavebehindtheairofsuperiorityregardingtheexcolonies)makesuchanevolutiondifficultintheimminentfuture.Infact,intheselastthreeyearsmanyPortuguesepoliticiansprefertolookatEuropeanexamplesofOP,culturallycloser,andhavehadtheneedtobesupportedby“culturaltranslations”oftheLatin‐Americanmodels.Mistakenly,theyhavenotmanagedtoconsiderthelatterascrediblesourcesofinstitutionaltransformation.

ItistobehopedthatitwillbeequallypossibleinPortugal,whilewaitingforthistypeofopennesstotheteachingsoftheSouth(Allegretti/Herzberg2004),tostrengthentieswiththeSpanishandItalianPBexperiences.Theyarebeginningtoworknotonlywiththe“proximity”perspectivebutarebettingonmorestructuraladministrativeandculturaltransformationsthatPBmaybring,markingoutanimportantspaceofinnovationinpoliticsasawholeandnotonlypoliticsinthelocalsphere.

Theattentionaccordedinthelastthreeyearsto“learningbydoing”onthepartofPBsinPortugal,theEuropeancountrywiththehighestpercentageofPBswithrespecttothetotalnumberofmunicipalinstitutions,giveshopethatitisontherighttracktowardsleavinginitialreservationsbehindandcontributingtoacreativequantity‐qualitytransformationofPBbothinEuropeandbeyond.Withwhichrangeofgoals,itisstilltobediscovered…

References

Abers,Rebecca(2000),InventingLocalDemocracy.LynneRiennerPublishers,LondonAllegretti,Giovanni;Allulli,Massimo(2007),OsOrçamentosParticipativosemItália:Uma'ponte'paraa

construçãodoNovoMunicípio,inRCCS,nº77,Coimbra


637

Allegretti,Giovanni;Herzberg,Carsten(2004),El'retornodelascarabelas'.LospresupuestosparticipativosdeAméricaLatinaenelcontextoeuropeo,TNIWorkingPaper/FMI,Madrid/Amsterdam/Seville

Allegretti,Giovanni;Matias,Marisa,SchettiniMartinsCunha,Eleonora(2007),“ICTTechnologieswithintheGrammarofParticipatoryBudgeting:TensionsandChallengesofamainly‘SubordinateClause’approach”,paperpresentedattheconference“TheroleofICTsintheformationofnewsocialandpoliticalactorsandactions”,Florence,5/6October2007.

Allegretti,Giovanni;Sintomer,Yves(2009,forthcoming),IBilanciPartecipativiinEuropa.Nuovesperimentazioninelvecchiocontinente,Ediesse,Rome

Avritzer,Leonardo;Navarro,Zander(2002,org),AinovaçãodemocráticanoBrasil,Cortez,SãoPauloBaiocchi,Giampaolo(2005),MilitantsandCitizens,StanfordUniversityPressCabannes,Yves(2004),“Participatorybudgeting:asignificantcontributiontoparticipatorydemocracy”.In:

Environment&Urbanization.ParticipatoryGovernace,Vol.16Nº1,Aprile2004,IIED,London,pp.27‐46.

Cabral,ManuelVillaverde;CarreiradaSilva,Filipe;SaraivaTiago(2008,eds.),CidadeeCidadania.GovernaçãoUrbanaeParticipaçãoCidadãemPerspectivaComparada,Lisbon,ICS

Dias,Nelson(2006a),OOrçamentoParticipativocomoNovoExperimentalismoDemocrático–ocasodoMunicípiodeGuaraciaba/SC(Brasil),MasterThesis,Lisbon,ISCTE.

Dias,Nelson(2006b),“Embuscadeumademocraciademaiorproximidade”,inDiálogosnº4,RedeEuropeiaAnti‐Pobreza/Portugal.

Dias,Nelson(2008a),“UmTemaMaior”,EditorialdoBoletimInformativoOrçamentoParticipativoPortugaln.º3,Maio,ProjectoOPPortugal,SãoBrásdeAlportel.

Dias,Nelson(2008b),OrçamentoParticipativo–AnimaçãoCidadãparaaParticipaçãoPolítica,Lisbon,AssociaçãoInLoco.

Fedozzi,Luciano(2001),OrçamentoParticipativo–reflexõessobreaexperiênciadePortoAlegre.PortoAlegre:TomoEditorial.

Ganuza,Ernesto(2008),Controlpolíticoyparticipaciónendemocracia:lospresupuestosparticipativos,Ed.FundaciónAlternativas,Madrid

Marquetti,Adalmir;Campos,Geraldo;Rocha,Roberto(2007),Democraciaparticipativaeredistribuição:análisedeexperiênciasdeorçamentoparticipativo,Xamã,SãoPaulo

Mota,Arlindo(2005),Governolocal,participaçãoecidadania:ocasodaÁreaMetropolitanadeLisboa,Lisbon,NovaVeja

Santos,B.deSousa(2003,org.),Democratizarademocracia.Oscaminhosdademocraciaparticipativa,EdiçõesAfrontamento,Porto

Santos,BoaventuradeSousa(2008),“SínteseFinal”,inActasdoIEncontroNacionalsobreOrçamentoParticipativo,Lisbon,AssociaçãoInLocoeCâmaraMunicipaldeSãoBrásdeAlportel

Sintomer,Yves;Herzberg,Carsten;Roecke,Anja(2006,orgs),ParticipatorybudgetsinaEuropeancomparativeapproach.PerspectivesandchancesofthecooperativestateatthemunicipallevelinGermanyandEurope‐volumeII(FinalReport‐documents),Berlin:MarcBlochCentre,

SubiratsJoan(2007),“Connectingcollectiveandindividualtransformation;politicalandeconomictransformation”,inNetworkedPolitics:principlesandchallenges,TNI,gennaio2007

Touraine,Alain(1994)Oqueéademocracia?Lisbon,InstitutoPiaget.Wampler,Brian(2007),ParticipatoryBudgetinginBrazil.Contestation,Cooperation,andAccountability,Penn

StateUniversityPress

learning democracy by doing - estudo geral variable... · martha barriga “i can ... pablo montero...

Documents