Entering the State: Civil Society Activism and Participatory Governance in Brazil
| Author | Brian Wampler |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00912.x |
| Published date | 01 June 2012 |
| Date | 01 June 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
bs_bs_banner
P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S : 2 0 1 2 VO L 6 0 , 3 4 1 – 3 6 2
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00912.x
Entering the State: Civil Society Activism and
Participatory Governance in Brazilpost_912341..362
Brian Wampler
Boise State University
Participatory governance programs, which institutionalize government–civil society interactions through the promo-
tion of public deliberation and decision making, are being adopted by local governments to harness a wide range of
outcomes believed to be positively associated with citizens’ and civil society organizations’ active involvement in
public life. This article draws from an original survey administered to 833 individuals elected to leadership positions
in Brazil’s municipal-level participatory budgeting program. Analysis of these data using a series of outcome variables
and a set of individual- and municipal-level variables demonstrates that civil society organization (CSO) leaders now
engage in direct negotiations with other CSOs, form alliances with other CSOs and carry these practices into other
institutional venues, which helps to undercut traditional clientelistic practices while also empowering citizens and
enhancing the quality of democracy. Further, citizens living in communities that directly benefit from public works
won through participatory budgeting are empowered by credible state commitment. Citizens not directly affiliated
with a CSO continue to rely on their direct connections to government officials, thus demonstrating that individuals’
type of involvement in civil society has a significant impact on how participatory governance arrangements can affect
basic state–society relationships.
Keywords: democratic institution building; civil society; participatory governance; Brazil
Participatory governance programs, which institutionalize government–civil society inter-
actions in public deliberation and decision-making venues, are being adopted by local
governments across the world to harness a wide range of outcomes believed to be positively
associated with citizens’ and civil society organizations’ (CSOs) active involvement in
public life. State performance, the quality of democracy, citizen empowerment, public
deliberation and citizenship rights are reportedly enhanced by the presence of active citizen
involvement in public life (Avritzer 2002; 2009; Dagnino, 1998; Fishkin, 1993; McAdam
et al., 1996; Pateman, 1970; Putnam, 1993; Roberts, 1998; Santos, 2005). Although there is
a rich body of research that shows how participatory governance generates a broad range
of positive outcomes, we continue to lack analysis using individual-level data to demon-
strate how citizens’ type of activity in civil society affects individuals’ ability to take
advantage of the public engagement rules embedded in participatory governance. When
citizens are able to take advantage of the new rules and practices associated with partici-
patory governance, basic state–society relations can be transformed, thereby reducing
clientelism, empowering citizens and enhancing the quality of democracy.
This article identifies four types of civil society actor – CSO leaders, CSO members,
former CSO members and unaffiliated but civically engaged citizens – and then analyzes
their attitudes and behavior using logistic regression to account better for how individuals’
type of civil society activity affects engagement within a state-sanctioned participatory
institution.When citizens help to set the agenda of public meetings, when citizens learn to
engage in new types of public negotiation, and when citizens then carry these new
© 2011 The Author. Political Studies © 2011 Political Studies Association
342
B R I A N WA M P L E R
behaviors to different institutional settings, we can assert that the direct involvement of
citizens in participatory governance institutions has a meaningful impact on state perfor-
mance, empowerment and the quality of democracy (Abers, 2000; Baiocchi, 2005; Dryzek,
2000; Fishkin, 1993). Conversely, when individuals’ type of activity in civil society is not
significantly associated with the development of new political practices then this gives
credence to claims that there is not a clear connection between civil society activity and
democratic outcomes (Armony, 2004; Bernam, 1997; Encarnación, 2003).
The evidence for this article is drawn from participatory budgeting (PB) programs
adopted at Brazil’s municipal level. The 1980s, 1990s and 2000s were a period of remark-
able political and social change in Brazil. The 1980s initiated a time of profound social,
political and economic transformation due to the mobilization of civil society and new
political parties (Workers’ party and Brazilian Democratic Movement party) in opposition
to military rule; civilian rule returned in 1985 and direct elections for the presidency were
held in 1989. A new constitution was promulgated in 1988, permitting the direct partici-
pation of citizens in government-sponsored processes and requiring that municipal, state
and federal governments guarantee a broad set of social rights (e.g. health care, housing and
education). Across Brazil during the 1980s, local governments experimented with new
formats to include the voice of citizens in public fora.
During the 1990s, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government established a
stable monetary system, privatized important sectors of the economy and helped usher in
a period of extensive municipalization of federal authority, as mandated by the 1988
Constitution (Font, 2003; Kingstone and Power, 2000). In the 2000s, President Lula da
Silva’s government oversaw a period of strong economic growth and his government
established a series of social policies that allocated resources and social programs to
Brazil’s lower and marginalized classes. In addition, President’s Lula’s party, the Workers’
party, has long been at the forefront of efforts to use participatory governance as a means
to transfer resources into low-income communities, to expand the number and range of
voices in the political system, and to habituate citizens into democratic practices (Avritzer
2002; 2009; Keck, 1992). Brazilian municipalities are worldwide leaders in the adoption
of participatory governance institutions. During the 2001–4 mayoral administration
period, when the survey was conducted, nearly 25 per cent of Brazil’s population lived
in a municipality using participatory budgeting ( Wampler and Avritzer, 2005). In addi-
tion, tens of thousands of public policy management councils (conselhos) have been imple-
mented in the areas of education, health care, etc. (Avritzer, 2009; Cornwall and Coelho,
2007).
Participatory governance consists of state-sanctioned institutional processes that allow
citizens to exercise voice and vote, which then results in the implementation of public policies
that produce meaningful changes in citizens’ lives. Participatory governance is a unique
mode because of the dual emphasis on voice and vote, which is different from direct or
deliberative democracy. Direct democracy focuses on state-level recall and referenda, but
only allows citizens to express a binary choice with very little opportunity to engage their
voice (Bowler and Donovan, 2002). Deliberative institutions, with Deliberative Polling being
the most well known, often allow for voice but do not link votes by participants to
binding decisions that require government officials to act in specific ways (Fishkin, 1993).
© 2011 The Author. Political Studies © 2011 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2012, 60(2)
E N T E R I N G T H E S TAT E
343
Brazil’s participatory budgeting does not divorce participants from their local political
environment; rather, the program is specifically designed to give interested citizens the right
to reshape local policy outcomes.
In Brazil, participatory governance was part of an effort to expand how, when and where
citizens engage each other and engage the state. There was an explicit effort to use these
spaces as the means to encourage the empowerment of citizens, to establish public
deliberations, to include citizens’ voices in decision making and, finally, to promote new
state processes to implement citizens’ demands. Participatory governance was thus not
simply an institutional arrangement to select policies but it was designed to reinforce the
democratic practices that were emerging from civil society. Civil society participation
shifted during the 1990s and 2000s as the extensive, public demonstrations against the
military government that marked the 1980s ceased to be an active part of the political
environment. Instead, civil society activists repositioned themselves in the new participatory
governance architecture in order to continue their efforts to empower citizens, expand
rights and hold local states accountable.
This article draws from an original survey administered to 833 citizens elected to
leadership positions in a state-sanctioned participatory governance program, Brazil’s
municipal-level participatory budgeting. The article examines respondents’ attitudes on
agenda setting, the political strategies employed to secure policy outcomes, and their self-
reported behaviors on institutional arena shopping (the use of different state venues to press
their claims). Although this article focuses on Brazil’s participatory budgeting, the findings
presented here are generalizable to other forms of participatory governance that have
expanded...
To continue reading
Request your trial