Tensions and contradictions in democratic participation in Latin America and Europe

In the late 1990s, after the transition from dictatorship to electoral democracy in Latin America, the left began to win elections, or became the major challenger against right-wing governments—setting off a massive and relatively long-term wave of democratically-elected left leaders. This article, in focusing on the left of this political continuum, aims to explore the nature of democracy in the context of its resur-gence in Latin America, specifically attempting to understand whether and how the new left as a political actor can move beyond an electoral democracy, toward a deepening of democratic institutions. After dis-cussing the societal and political transformations that led to the left’s resurgence in Latin America, the article moves into an elaboration of its conceptualization of the left, addressing both the radical participa-tory and the social democratic left in relation to their fundamental views on democracy and the economy. Subsequently, the article turns toward a historical discussion of past leftist governments—both radical and more social-democratic cases—which in turn points to structural constraints that, at least historically, have hindered the accomplishment of radical participatory democracy in Latin America. The question that this article conclusively attempts to address is what implications this might have for democratic stability, when Latin America is once more facing the reality of democratically-elected, but radical left leaders. One conclusion is that the new tendencies of the left in Latin America can be said to have followed two distinct paths in the democratic consolidation era. One is the reformist, social-democratic left, which sup-ports the development of liberal democracy and neoliberal economy therewith complies with the political, social, and economic order of the day. In contrast, the radical left would like to develop a participatory democracy with socio-economic reforms that may potentially challenge societies’ major actors. Like simi-lar cases before them, the development of democracy in today’s Latin America is inevitably influenced by these paths, and is simultaneously constrained and deepened. Another conclusion is that democracy is deepended in both these routes. It is deepened in a liberal democracy, because it means more civil and political right for the people and a more well-functioning democracy, in relation too just free and fair elec-tions as in an elite democratic system, in which the competion to win elections is the main thing. It is deepened in a participatory democracy, because it means more possibility for people to actively participate in political decions-making on a local grassroots-level and on issues related to daily-life socio-economic issues. But it is also constrained because radical left reforms is challenging the elite actors - radical left governments might eventually bring about a downfall of democracy. Furthermore, it is constrained through the reformist, social democratic platform, because social reforms that the people may want are not instilled because they do not comply with the elite’s interests (as in the case of Chile in the 1990s). In this case, it means to maintain elite democracy and neoliberal policies democracy, without challenging the interest of the elite. A final conclusion is that changes in democratic models within transitioning countries potentially necessi-tate support from the dominant elite actors. Radical political and economic changes that took place in historical Chile and Guatemala were challenged by the same kind of actors as in today’s Venezuela, Bo-livia, Ecuador and Nicaragua—namely, the economic elite, the military, external (mainly U.S.) forces and the parliamentary right. With the historical record countries such as Chile and Guatemala, the main ques-tion might not be if radical cases such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador will meet the same destiny; rather it could just to be a matter of time when it will happen in, at least, one of these cases.

The starting premise of this volume was the contention that there exists a real need for Latin American urban development research to engage with cities in a more systemic manner than is currently the case. The dominant discourse about urban contexts in the region sees cities principally as fragmented social spaces, and this has arguably led to something of an intellectual ‘impasse’. In particular, it promotes fundamentally dystopian visions of both the nature and potential developmental role of cities in Latin America. However, as all of the contributions to this volume highlight in a range of different ways, even in the most fractured of cities disparate locales, networks, and processes are inevitably relationally connected to each other, and understanding this is critical in order to properly get to grips with contemporary Latin American urban dynamics. Rodgers’ contribution, for example, highlights how socio-spatial segregation in Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires can be fundamentally linked to its seemingly anti-thesis, participatory democracy, while Navarro’s chapter explores the integration between the illegal drugs market and the legal urban real estate market in Bolivian cities.

Participatory democracy (PD) is that view of politics which calls for the creation and proliferation of practices and institutions that enable individuals and groups to better determine the conditions in which they act and relate to others. Because it stresses the role of individuals as agents, PD is often contrasted with liberal democratic models of governance because of the latter's reliance on representation. In both theory and practice, the application of PD is not limited to the political sphere but potentially encompasses all areas of human activity, including the public and private, the sociocultural and economic – again in contrast to liberal democratic models. Although a minor tradition within political philosophy and democratic theory, PD has enjoyed a resurgence in both practice and theory since the 1990s, especially with the emergence of the Zapatistas in 1994, but also due to the successes of an array of municipality‐based projects in Latin America and India, and more broadly the innovations made by actors that identify with the global justice movement and/or participate in the World Social Forums. In the current period, PD approaches are most frequently found amongst anarchist, indigenous, feminist, ecological, and “solidarity economy” movements.

Political culture in Latin America leans democratic and participatory. Even amid institutional backsliding in the early 21st century, most leaders assume office and claim their mandate via elections. However, in the face of significant governance challenges, reservations regarding democracy and democratic processes are on the rise. In 2014, 68% of individuals in the average Latin American country expressed support for democracy. Five years later, in 2019, that figure was 58%. Support for state-led redistribution declined during this period as well. In brief, there are signs that the public is moving away from a social democratic orientation. Generalizations about political culture risk overlooking significant heterogeneity in Latin American beliefs and inclinations. Survey data, especially from comparative projects, permit assessments of the region’s political culture across time, countries, and population subgroups. Analyses of these data paint an appropriately nuanced portrait of Latin American political culture. Support for core democratic values is highest in the Southern Cone countries of Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile. Support for democratic institutions and processes is far lower in countries that have experienced recent instability and governance challenges, including Honduras and Peru. In Latin America, the young tend to be less committed to democratic institutions and processes. Those in rural areas tend to be more inclined to engage in local politics. Those who are poor tend to perceive themselves as less capable of understanding key national issues. Finally, women tend to be politically more conservative. How people in the region believe politics ought to be organized and function—that is, political culture in Latin America—matters. This is because the public’s inclinations to express core democratic values and to engage in the system shape political outcomes. Where individuals lack confidence in the democratic state, they are less prone to support it. Further, they are more likely to issue demands, and to look for leadership, outside of formal political channels. The comparatively low and decreasing levels of support for democracy place Latin America at a crossroads. Failure to meet key governance challenges—corruption, inequality, crime—could accelerate declines in confidence and interest in participatory democracy, to the detriment of political culture and democratic consolidation in Latin America.

Traditional understandings of political participation frequently overlook the forms of local-level participation that women are more likely to engage in. The emergence of local participatory democracy mechanisms in Latin America offers the potential to disrupt this pattern. Authors have noted a strong relationship between women’s participation and local democracy. Proponents of participatory democracy argue that citizen engagement should produce more equitable access to public goods and a greater sense of political efficacy, particularly for members of traditionally marginalized groups. Ideally, participatory democracy should also challenge the divide between the public and private sphere and relocate decision-making to more familiar spaces. Critics charge that participatory mechanisms may reproduce the public/private demarcation that relegates women and their interests to the private sphere and renders them apolitical, particularly in societies where paternalistic practices remain firmly entrenched. Yet while the theory is well-developed, there remains a lack of comparative empirical work focused on the lived experiences of women participants that would reveal under what circumstances participatory mechanisms can allow women to experience the benefits of participation. Based on extensive fieldwork in Latin America, a region which has been at the forefront of participatory initiatives, this paper examines the extent to which local participatory mechanisms provide spaces for women engage in the public sphere and the ways in which participatory mechanisms can be designed to better support women and to challenge the public-private distinction that silences women’s voices.

The article is a reply to Sara Motta's article ‘Utopias Re-imagined: A Reply to Panizza’ in this journal. It discusses the relations between representative and participatory democracy in Latin America in the light of Motta's vindication of different forms of participatory democracy. It argues that when analysing the advances of the left and the centre-left in contemporary Latin America it is difficult to ignore the strategic role played by left-of-centre political parties in winning elections and the importance of controlling the state as a crucial instrument for promoting change. It further argues that while participatory democracy is essential for a democratic polity, it presupposes a well-functioning representative democracy rather than an alternative to it. Against Motta's celebration of localised, anti-capitalist utopias the article vindicates a process of iterative yet cumulative change that shapes and reshapes the political and institutional parameters that redefine what governments consider politically possible, feasible and desirable. It concludes by noting that the twentieth century's failure of totalising utopias makes us overlook the success of other, more grounded and open forms of utopian thinking, such as political democracy and economic social democracy, which have the potential to improve the lives of millions of people in Latin America.

This article focuses on those elements or factors which effectively make participatory democracy a useful tool for a qualified and advanced democracy, defining its identity whenever it achieves a serious, responsible and bidirectional agreement between the public authority and citizens under the best conditions.Therefore, the analysis pivots around the forms of democratic exercise (direct, representative and participatory democracy), the concept of participatory democracy and the territorial factor. However, this is not an abstract analysis as it takes as a reference the experience of Mexico in the context of several factors that characterize the Latin American political parties, taking into account the contrast with the participatory dynamic of other European countries.

Una retrospectiva linguistica permite afirmar que la accion de tutela del Derecho publico constitucional tiene raices en el Derecho privado romano. El termino tutela proviene del latin tutelae, expresion usada en Derecho romano para hablar de la relacion entre pupilo y tutor. Tal origen se soporta no solo en la similitud textual de las dos instituciones, sino en el origen remoto del juicio de amparo mexicano en el Derecho romano, juicio que inspiro la tutela colombiana. El origen de la actual tutela tiene repercusiones en la forma como en Colombia se percibe la relacion entre individuos y Estado. En efecto, desde 1991, estando la tutela en el corazon de la Constitucion, se puede construir la siguiente comparacion: Estado es a individuo como tutor es a pupilo. Con base en esta comparacion, al Estado le corresponde la diligente administracion de los bienes de los individuos en interes de estos. No obstante esta consecuencia positiva, tal administracion se da en virtud de que los individuos se estiman incapaces de tal tarea, situacion diferente a la de los individuos dentro de un contrato social. Por tanto, la opcion de una democracia participativa parece inalcanzable.

This essay analyzes how political and ideological changes affect public bureaucracy and its relationship with civil society regarding different strategies of openness to participation. We suggest a theoretical-conceptual framework to discuss aspects of the political situation in Latin America. First, we discuss the changes that occurred over time, in the state-civil society relationship, which strengthen the latter and amplify a discourse for more participatory democracy. The focus is the role of the public bureaucracy in mediating the relations among the several actors in society, and we examine the way different political and ideological strands influence how open to participation the bureaucracy is in different periods. The literature review indicates two trends in the state-civil society relationship: technocrat and popular. These reflect the two main ideologies affecting the behavior of public bureaucrats when it comes to participation. We argue that in Latin America, although there is a swing around two different old-fashioned ideologies, both of them reinforce the centrality of the state and its bureaucracy. Therefore, dominant ideologies are not helpful in responding to the need for a deeper state-society re-articulation, which indicates the need and the possibility of building a new ideological approach.

From the early days of the revolutionary triumph of January 1959, Cuba has embraced the dream of Latin American freedom and solidarity. It has accordingly given priority to supporting Latin American and Caribbean revolutionary movements engaged in taking political power through armed struggle and the construction of socialism and groups involved in other forms of struggle for democracy, national liberation, and social justice. At the same time, it has pursued policies with regard to the reformist civilian governments of the region that have helped to reduce the influence of U.S. administrations and their hemispheric allies. It has repeatedly reaffirmed its desire for political and economic integration with the countries of the region as a step toward true independence in the face of neoliberal globalization. With the emergence in the region of new leftist leadership seeking postneoliberal economic alternatives and participatory democracy, its cooperative relations with other Latin American countries have strengthened and deepened.

This chapter addresses two types of assessment: first, to what degree has a prolonged period of local governance under democratic leftist administrations contributed to enhancing the quality and depth of democracy through a transformative focus on citizenship? Second, to what extent can such an experience be inscribed into the democratic polity itself, meaning that advances in terms of citizens' democracy through 'radical' or participatory designs will not be obliterated by electoral loss of its political mentors? The chapter situates the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) and its track record of local administration within the broader framework of transformation of the left in Latin America and Brazil. It presents historical evolution of participatory governance in Porto Alegre. The chapter assesses the track record of 16 years of PT participatory budgeting in this city since 1989 and the impact of 'regime change', the ousting of PT from power in the 2004 municipal elections. Keywords: Brazil; participatory democracy; Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT); Porto Alegre; PT participatory budgeting; regime change

Local Executive Power in Latin American Capital Cities Since 1945 - D.J Myers Bogota - A. Gilbert and J. Davila. Buenos Aires: The Evolution of Local Government - M.P. Jones, M. De Luca, and M. Ines Tula. Caracas: Empowered Mayors and Geopolitical Feudalism - S. Ellner and D.J. Myers. Guatemala City: Mayors and the Struggle for Political Autonomy - D. Jickling and A. Garcia-Iragorri. Havana: The Dynamics of Local Executive Power - J.L. Scarpaci. Lima: Centralized Authority vs. the Struggle for Autonomy - H.A. Dietz and M. Tanaka. Mexico City: The Local-National Dynamics of Democratization - D.E. Davis. Santiago: Municipal Decentralization in a Centralized Political System - P. Siavelis, E. Valenzuela Van Treek, and G. Martelli. Sao Paulo: The Tension Between Clientelism and Participatory Democracy - L.S. Graham and P. Jacobi. Conclusion - H.A. Dietz and D.J. Myers.

The rise of participatory democracy has often been explained by the renewal of collective action in Europe and Latin America. This review essay questions the 'movement-based' genesis of Brazilian participatory democracy by analyzing the idea of the state upon which it rests. It argues that the focus on social movements falls short of explaining the spread of participatory experiments, and that it rests on a simplified understanding of the dynamics of the Brazilian State prior to the 1980s. The argument is developed along three axes. First, the essay analyses how the 'classics' of Brazilian political sociology framed the early studies on participatory democracy. Second, it shows that even if the unifying notion of the state has been challenged, progress has focussed on the study of the democratic period. Third, it presents evidence that participation, as a practical category, was an integral part of the military regime's discourse and practice. Finally, the essay defines lines of investigation to reconsider the origins of participatory democracy in Brazil.

During the 1980s, the United States initiated an explicit policy of democracy promotion throughout the world. William Robinson (1996) more accurately described this initiative as “promoting polyarchy,” whereby the United States supported moderate elite actors that promoted neoliberal economic policies to displace both right-wing and communist despots, such as General Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Soviet rulers in Eastern Europe. While much of Latin America remained characterized by polyarchies throughout the late 20th Century, Latin American citizens began to reject these political arrangements and to elect anti-neoliberal candidates that promoted participatory democracy by the turn of the 21st Century, particularly in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. How has the United States changed its democracy promotion strategies to respond to these new dynamics? The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the U.S. government, through agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, has altered the main thrust of its foreign policy in Latin America, from promoting polyarchy and displacing despotic leaders, to supporting opposition actors to unseat democratically-elected far leftist leaders that promote participatory democracy. This paper deploys a case study method involving recent U.S. foreign policy in Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and it utilizes both U.S. diplomatic cables and interviews with U.S. state elites to illustrate this shift.

ABSTRACTIn the past decade, Latin America has emerged as the epicentre of participatory democracy innovations. Proponents argue that participation should lead to more equitable access to public goods and a greater sense of political efficacy. There has been considerable debate in the academic literature and in the public sphere over the extent to which participation can produce these benefits. Yet, while Latin America has witnessed an explosion of participatory mechanisms and related academic attention, the literature has focused on socioeconomic dimensions. There has been little attention paid to the experiences of racialized groups, such as indigenous peoples and Latin Americans of African descent. Research suggests that in order for participatory mechanisms to produce positive outcomes, they must be inclusive and offer participants a forum for real deliberation, but how do groups that have faced barriers related to racism and discrimination engage in these initiatives? Drawing on evidence from indigenous Ecuadorian and Afro-Venezuelan citizen participants, this article argues that participatory mechanisms may reproduce the very types of inequalities that representative institutions are criticized for. Comparing cases across and within different jurisdictions reveals that certain conditions enhance the ability of ethnic minorities to benefit from involvement in participatory mechanisms.