Participação como método de governo? Potencialidades e limites na institucionalização de experiências transcalares de participação social no estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil e na região Toscana, Itália

Abstract

Nas últimas décadas, houve um crescimento exponencial das iniciativas focadas na democracia participativa e deliberativa ao redor do mundo, com um predomínio de experiências locais. No entanto, ao longo do tempo, ficou claro que as experiências em pequena escala apresentam limitações em consubstanciar os novos ideais democráticos. Como tentativas de superar tais limites, é percebido o surgimento de processos supralocais, em contextos regionais e nacionais. Este salto de escala muitas vezes é promovido por instituições estatais e é acompanhado por uma tendência de institucionalização da participação. O objetivo central desta investigação foi analisar as potencialidades e limitações das formas participativas institucionalizadas em nível supralocal enquanto elemento capaz de democratizar a democracia. Para tanto, a investigação teve como objetos de estudo duas políticas públicas institucionalizadas em nível regional, uma no continente europeu e outra na América Latina. O caso do norte global refere-se à Política Toscana de Participação Social, na Itália. Já o caso do sul global trata das formas de participação no âmbito do orçamento do Rio Grande do Sul, no Brasil, as quais incorporam as iniciativas da Consulta Popular e do Sistema Estadual de Participação Popular e Cidadã. Em cerca de dois anos de pesquisa de caráter qualitativo, foram realizados trabalhos de campo que acompanharam a implementação dessas experiências e contaram com a realização de 47 entrevistas semiestruturadas. Os resultados da investigação podem ser divididos em duas categorias, uma com implicações teóricas e outra direcionada às peculiaridades dos processos empíricos. Do ponto de vista teórico, a investigação mostra como as vertentes “puras” da democracia participativa e da democracia deliberativa são inadequadas para compreender e analisar processos institucionalizados supralocais. Nenhuma das duas correntes conseguiu questionar de forma satisfatória os limites de escala definidos por autores que sustentam teoricamente o modelo representativo hegemônico. No que diz respeito à institucionalização, as vertentes puras foram erigidas a partir de uma concepção que trata o Estado e a sociedade civil como categorias distintas, com objetivos e lógicas próprias de funcionamento. No entanto, os processos institucionalizados têm levado ao questionamento das fronteiras entre tais polos e enfatizado a interpenetração entre formas estatais e não-estatais. Para dar conta de refletir sobre casos institucionalizados em larga escala, enfatiza-se o giro teórico identificado no início do século XXI e que trabalha a partir de perspectivas híbridas, que revitaliza conceitos criticados pelas abordagens puras e mescla elementos de ambas as vertentes. Dessa forma, enfatiza-se as abordagens híbridas dos sistemas deliberativos e dos públicos participativos. A primeira surge no norte global, e trabalha a ideia de deliberação possível em contraposição ao ideal deliberativo, retomando a aspiração de transformação ampla do sistema político. A perspectiva sistêmica transita da microescala para a macroescala, onde a ênfase recai na articulação entre instituições e na divisão do trabalho deliberativo. A segunda vertente híbrida abordada tem origem no sul global e percebe o Estado e a sociedade civil como entes não monolíticos, questionando as fronteiras fixas entre ambos. Tal vertente tende a perceber a institucionalização da participação como algo não pernicioso, ao mesmo tempo em que enfatiza objetivos como inclusão política e justiça social. Do ponto de vista empírico, esta investigação mostra que os casos do Rio Grande do Sul e da Toscana representam dois modelos distintos de promover o salto de escala. Nos casos estudados, o aumento de escala foi insuficiente para garantir uma maior influência das formas participativas e deliberativas na transformação ampla do sistema político. No que diz respeito à institucionalização, foi identificado que a formalização por meio de leis contribuiu para a perenidade das políticas, ampliando a resiliência às mudanças de governo. No entanto, a institucionalização formal não garantiu, por si só, a manutenção das iniciativas. Coalizões de defesa foram fundamentais para mobilizar politicamente as leis para que essas garantissem o sustento das experiências. Por fim, foi notado que perenidade e resiliência não significam influência no núcleo central de governo. Em Estados fragmentados e marcados por disputa entre projetos políticos, as iniciativas toscana e gaúcha foram institucionalizadas às margens do sistema político. Assim, apesar de institucionalizadas e relativamente perenes, as iniciativas supralocais estudadas estiveram longe de promover a participação como método de governo, sendo inaptas a estender o ímpeto democratizante para outras arenas no interior do aparato estatal.

In the last decades, there has been an exponential growth of initiatives focused on participatory and deliberative democracy around the world, with a predominance of local experiences. However, over time, it has become clear that small-scale experiences have limitations in bringing forth the new democratic ideals. As attempts to overcome such limits, supralocal processes have emerged both in regional and national levels. The scaling-up is often promoted by state institutions and is accompanied by a trend toward the institutionalization of participation processes. This research aims at analysing the potentials and limits of the scaling-up and institutionalization of participatory and deliberative democracy as a tool for democratizing democracy. To this end, this dissertation focuses on the implementation of two public policies at the regional level, one in Europe and the other in Latin America. The global north case is the Tuscan Participation Policy, in Italy. The global south case deals with the social participation in the Rio Grande do Sul state budget, in Brazil, which incorporate the initiatives of the Popular Consultation and the System of Popular and Citizen Participation. I carried out two years of qualitative research and fieldwork on the implementation of these policies, involving 47 semi-structured interviews. The results can be divided in two dimensions, one with theoretical implications and the other related to the empirical processes. From a theoretical point of view, the research shows how the “pure” participatory and deliberative democracy theories are inadequate to analyse the supralocal institutionalized processes. Neither of the two approaches addresses satisfactorily the limits of scale defined by authors who theoretically support the representative hegemonic model. Referring to institutionalization, the “pure” approaches were built on a conception that treats the State and the Civil Society as independent categories, each one with its own objectives and working logics. However, institutionalized processes put into question these boundaries between State and the Civil Society. In order to better analyse the large-scale institutionalized cases, it is necessary to work with hybrid perspectives, which revitalizes concepts criticized by the “pure” participatory and deliberative approaches, merging elements of both lines. In this way, the hybrid approaches of the Deliberative Systems and of the Participatory Publics are emphasized. The first emerges in the global north and works with the idea of “good enough” deliberation and not with the deliberative ideals, revitalizing the aspiration for a broad transformation of the political system. The systemic perspective moves from the microscale to the macro-scale, where the emphasis is on the articulation between institutions and in the deliberative division of labour. The Participatory Publics perspective has its origins in the global south and perceives the state and civil society as non-monolithic entities, questioning the fixed boundaries between these categories. The Participatory Publics approach perceives the institutionalization of participation in a non-negative way, emphasizing goals such as political inclusion and social justice. From an empirical point of view, this research shows that the cases of Rio Grande do Sul and Tuscany represent two different models of promoting the scaling-up of participation and deliberation. In these cases, the increase of scale was insufficient to promote a broad transformation in the political system. In respect to institutionalization, it was identified that the formalization through laws increases the resilience to government changes, contributing to the maintenance of the policies. However, the institutionalization is necessary but not sufficient. Defense Coalitions were fundamental in politically mobilizing the laws to ensure the policies’ survival. Finally, it was noted that resilience does not mean influence in the heart of government and in the agenda setting processes. In fragmented states marked by a dispute between political projects, the Tuscan and Rio Grande do Sul initiatives were institutionalized on the margins of the political system. Despite being institutionalized and relatively resilient, the supralocal initiatives studied have not promoted participation as a method of government, and are incapable of extending the democratizing impetus to other arenas within the state apparatus.

In the last decades, there has been an exponential growth of initiatives focused on participatory and deliberative democracy around the world, with a predominance of local experiences. However, over time, it has become clear that small-scale experiences have limitations in bringing forth the new democratic ideals. As attempts to overcome such limits, supralocal processes have emerged both in regional and national levels. The scaling-up is often promoted by state institutions and is accompanied by a trend toward the institutionalization of participation processes. This research aims at analysing the potentials and limits of the scaling-up and institutionalization of participatory and deliberative democracy as a tool for democratizing democracy. To this end, this dissertation focuses on the implementation of two public policies at the regional level, one in Europe and the other in Latin America. The global north case is the Tuscan Participation Policy, in Italy. The global south case deals with the social participation in the Rio Grande do Sul state budget, in Brazil, which incorporate the initiatives of the Popular Consultation and the System of Popular and Citizen Participation. I carried out two years of qualitative research and fieldwork on the implementation of these policies, involving 47 semi-structured interviews. The results can be divided in two dimensions, one with theoretical implications and the other related to the empirical processes. From a theoretical point of view, the research shows how the “pure” participatory and deliberative democracy theories are inadequate to analyse the supralocal institutionalized processes. Neither of the two approaches addresses satisfactorily the limits of scale defined by authors who theoretically support the representative hegemonic model. Referring to institutionalization, the “pure” approaches were built on a conception that treats the State and the Civil Society as independent categories, each one with its own objectives and working logics. However, institutionalized processes put into question these boundaries between State and the Civil Society. In order to better analyse the large-scale institutionalized cases, it is necessary to work with hybrid perspectives, which revitalizes concepts criticized by the “pure” participatory and deliberative approaches, merging elements of both lines. In this way, the hybrid approaches of the Deliberative Systems and of the Participatory Publics are emphasized. The first emerges in the global north and works with the idea of “good enough” deliberation and not with the deliberative ideals, revitalizing the aspiration for a broad transformation of the political system. The systemic perspective moves from the microscale to the macro-scale, where the emphasis is on the articulation between institutions and in the deliberative division of labour. The Participatory Publics perspective has its origins in the global south and perceives the state and civil society as nonmonolithic entities, questioning the fixed boundaries between these categories. The Participatory Publics approach perceives the institutionalization of participation in a nonnegative way, emphasizing goals such as political inclusion and social justice. From an empirical point of view, this research shows that the cases of Rio Grande do Sul and Tuscany represent two different models of promoting the scaling-up of participation and deliberation. In these cases, the increase of scale was insufficient to promote a broad transformation in the political system. In respect to institutionalization, it was identified that the formalization through laws increases the resilience to government changes, contributing to the maintenance of the policies. However, the institutionalization is necessary but not sufficient. Defense Coalitions were fundamental in politically mobilizing the laws to ensure the policies’ survival. Finally, it was noted that resilience does not mean influence in the heart of government and in the agenda setting processes. In fragmented states marked by a dispute between political projects, the Tuscan and Rio Grande do Sul initiatives were institutionalized on the margins of the political system. Despite being institutionalized and relatively resilient, the supralocal initiatives studied have not promoted participation as a method of government, and are incapable of extending the democratizing impetus to other arenas within the state apparatus.