Advertisement

Civil Society’s Claims to Political Representation in Brazil

  • Peter P. HoutzagerEmail author
  • Adrian Gurza Lavalle
Article

Abstract

Civil society is laying claim to political representation in contemporary democracies, destabilizing long-standing ideas about democratic legitimacy. The participatory governance structures that have emerged alongside classic institutions of representative democracy encompass not only direct citizen participation but also political representation by civil society actors. Using original data from São Paulo, Brazil, we show that most of civil society actors that work for the urban poor claim political representation of their “constituency.” Theirs is more often than not an “assumed representation,” we suggest, because our data show that most lack formal members and do not select leaders through elections. Civil society actors (in contrast to political parties and labor unions) lack historically settled and politically sanctioned mechanisms to authorize and hold accountable their representation. This new layer of political representatives therefore faces a historic challenge—constructing novel notions of democratic legitimacy that can support their forms of representation. We examine what new notions of representations are emerging and trace the historic roots of the most widespread and promising that focus on remedying inequality in access to the state.

Keywords

Political representation Civil society Brazil 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors owe a debt of gratitude to Graziella Castello for the multiple roles she has played in research for this article and wish to thank the reviewers for particularly valuable comments.

References

  1. Alnoor E, Weisband E, editors. Global accountabilities: participation, pluralism, and public ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  2. Arato A. Representação, soberania popular, e accountability. Lua Nova. 2002:55/56.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson R, Flint J. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies. Social Research Update 2003; 33. www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU33.html.
  4. Avritzer L. Modelos de sociedade civil: uma análise específica do caso Brasileiro. In: Avritzer L, editor. Sociedade civil e democratização. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey; 1994.Google Scholar
  5. Avritzer L. Democracy and the public space in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  6. Avritzer L, editor. Participação política em São Paulo. São Paulo: UNESP; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Baiocchi G. Emergent public spheres: talking politics in participatory governance. Am Sociol Rev. 2003;68(1):52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baiocchi G, Heller P, Silva MK. Making space for civil society: institutional reforms and local democracy in Brazil. Soc Forces. 2008;86(3):911–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke E. Carta a los electores de Bristol (1774). In: Burke E, editor. Textos políticos. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1942.Google Scholar
  10. Burke E. An extract from letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, on the subject of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, 1792. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/burke/extracts/chap18.htm.
  11. Castello G, Gurza-Lavalle A, Houtzager PP. Civil organizations and political representation in Brazil’s participatory institutions. In: Cornwall A, Schattan Coelho V, editors. Spaces for change? The politics of citizen participation in New Democratic Arenas. London: Zed; 2007.Google Scholar
  12. Castiglione D, Warren M. Rethinking representation: nine theoretical issues. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 6–10, 2006.Google Scholar
  13. Chalmers DA, Martin SB, Pister K. Associative networks: new structures of representation for the popular sectors? In: Chalmers DA et al., editors. The new politics of inequality in Latin America: rethinking participation and representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chaudhuri S, Heller P. The plasticity of participation: evidence from a participatory governance experiment, Department of Economics, Columbia University (mimeo.); 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen J, Arato A. Civil society and political theory. Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  16. Cornwall A, Coelho VS, editors. Spaces for change? The politics of citizen participation in new democratic arenas. London: Zed; 2007.Google Scholar
  17. Costa S. As cores de Ercília: esfera pública, democracia, configurações pós-nacionais. Belo Horizonte: Editora da UFMG; 2002.Google Scholar
  18. Crowley JE, Skocpol T. The rush to organize: explaining associational formation in the United States, 1860s–1920s. Am J Polit Sci. 2001;45(4):813–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cunill GN. Pensando lo publico a traves de la sociedad: nuevas formas de gestión pública e representación social. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad/CLAD; 1997.Google Scholar
  20. Dagnino E. Sociedade civil, espaços públicos e a construção democrática no Brasil: limites e possibilidades. In: Dagnino E, editor. Sociedade civil e espaços públicos no Brasil. São Paulo: Paz e Terra; 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Dagnino E, Tatagiba L, editors. Democracia, sociedade civil e participação. Chapecó: Argos; 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Dagnino E, Olvera Rivera A, Panfichi A, editors. A disputa pela construção democratica na America Latina. Campinas: UNICAMP; 2006.Google Scholar
  23. Dalton RJ, Scarrow SE, Cain BE. New forms of democracy? Reform and transformation of democratic institutions. In: Cain BE, Dalton RJ, Scarrow SE, editors. Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  24. de Santos BS. Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: toward a redistributive democracy. Polit Soc. 1998;26(4):461–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. de Santos BS, Avritzer L. Para ampliar o cânone democrático. In: de Santos BS, editor. Democratizar a democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira; 2002.Google Scholar
  26. Diamond LJ, Morlino L. Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  27. Dobrowolsky A, Jenson J. Shifting patterns of representation: the Politics of ‘children’, ‘families’, ‘women’. Haliffax: St. Mary’s University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  28. Doimo AM. A vez e voz do popular: movimentos sociais e participação política no Brasil pós-70. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará/Anpocs; 1995.Google Scholar
  29. Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S. Discursive representation. Paper presented at: Rethinking Democratic Representation Workshop. University of British Columbia, 18–19 May, 2005.Google Scholar
  30. Friedman EJ, Hochstetler K. Assessing the third transition in Latin American democratization: representational regimes and civil society Argentina and Brazil. Comp Polit. 2002;35(1):21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fung A. Empowered participation: reinventing urban democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  32. Fung A, Wright EO. Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In: Fung A, Wright EO, editors. Deepening democracy: institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso; 2003.Google Scholar
  33. Goodman L. Snowball sampling. Ann. math. stat. 1961;32(1):148–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gurza Lavalle A. Sem pena nem glória: o debate da sociedade civil nos anos 1990. Novos Estud. 2003a;66:91–109.Google Scholar
  35. Gurza Lavalle A. Cidadania, igualdade e diferença. Lua Nova. 2003b;59:75–93.Google Scholar
  36. Gurza Lavalle A, Bueno N. Political representation and civil societies in São Paulo and Mexico City: a relational approach. Paper presented at IPSA Congress, Santiago; 2009Google Scholar
  37. Gurza Lavalle A, Castello G. Sociedade civil, representação e a dupla face da accountability: Cidade do México e São Paulo. Cadernos do CRH (UFBA). 2008;21:67–86.Google Scholar
  38. Gurza Lavalle A, Acharya A, Houtzager PP. Beyond comparative anecdotalism: lesson on civil society and participation from São Paulo, Brazil. World Dev. 2005a;33(6):951–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gurza Lavalle A, Houtzager PP, Castello G. In whose name? Political representation and civil organizations in Brazil. Working Paper 249, IDS, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex; 2005b.Google Scholar
  40. Gurza Lavalle A, Houtzager PP, Castello G. The political construction of civil organizations. IDS, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex mimeo; 2005c.Google Scholar
  41. Gurza Lavalle A, Houtzager PP, Castello G. Representação política e organizações civis: Novas instâncias de mediação e os desafios da legitimidade. Rev Bras Ciênc Soc. 2006;21(60):43–67.Google Scholar
  42. Habermas J. Três modelos normativos de democracia. Lua Nova. 1995;36:39–53.Google Scholar
  43. Habermas J. Facticidad y validez: sobre el derecho y el Estado democrático de derecho en términos de teoría del discurso. Madri: Trotta; 1998.Google Scholar
  44. Hagopian F. Democracy and political representation in Latin America in the 1990s: pause, reorganization, or decline? In: Agüero F, Stark J, editors. Fault lines of democracy in post-transition Latin America. Miami: North-South Center Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  45. Harriss J. ‘Politics is a dirty river:’ but is there a ‘new politics’ of civil society? Prospects from Global Cities of India and Latin America. Paper presented at the CCCS Conference; 2005.Google Scholar
  46. Harriss J. The ‘new politics’ of the urban poor in contemporary India. Paper presented at Institute of Common Wealth Studies, University of London; 2004.Google Scholar
  47. Heller P. Moving the state: the politics of democratic decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre. Polit Soc. 2001;29(1):131–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hickey S, Bracking S. Exploring the politics of poverty reduction: how are the poorest represented. World Dev. 2005;33(6):1011–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Houtzager PP. Collective action and patterns of political authority: rural workers, church, and state in Brazil. Theory Soc. 2001;30(1):1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Houtzager PP. Introduction: from polycentrism to the polity. In: Houtzager PP, Moore M, editors. Changing paths: international development and the new politics of inclusion. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  51. Houtzager PP, Lavalle AG, Acharya A. Who participates? Civil society and the new democratic politics in São Paulo, Brazil. IDS Working Paper no. 210, Institute of Development Studies, 2003.Google Scholar
  52. Isunza-Vera E. Interfaces socio-estatales y procesos de democratización: Una tipología para analizar experiencias de participación ciudadana, transparencia y rendición de Cuentas. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Europe-Latin America Encounter on “Participatory Democracy and the Quality of Public Services,” Poitiers, France, 28–29 April, 2006.Google Scholar
  53. Isunza-Vera E, Olvera A. Democratización, rendición de cuentas y sociedad civil: participación ciudadana y control social. Mexico: Porrua, CIESAS; 2006.Google Scholar
  54. Keane J. Democracy and civil society. London: Verso; 1988.Google Scholar
  55. Kymlicka W, Norman W. El retorno del ciudadano: una revisión de la producción en teoría de la ciudadanía. La Política. 1997;3:5–39.Google Scholar
  56. Landim L. Notas para um perfil das ONGs. In: Landim L, Cotrim LL, editors. ONGs: um perfil. São Paulo: Abong/Iser; 1996.Google Scholar
  57. Landim L. Experiência militante: histórias das assim chamadas ONGs. In: Landim L, editor. Ações em sociedade: militâncias, caridade, assistência, etc. Rio do Janeiro: Iser/NAU; 1998.Google Scholar
  58. Linz JJ, Stepan A. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  59. Lubambo C, Coelho D, Melo M, editors. Diseño institucional y participación política; experiencias en el Brasil contemporáneo. Buenos Aires: CLACSO; 2006.Google Scholar
  60. Macpherson CB. The life and times of liberal democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1978.Google Scholar
  61. Mainwaring S, Scully TR. Building democratic institutions: party systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  62. Manin B. The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  63. Manin B, Przeworski A, Stokes S. Introduction. In: Manin B, Przeworski A, Stokes S, editors. Accountability, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  64. Mansbridge J. Rethinking representation. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2003;97:515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Miguel LF. Representação política em 3-D: Elementos para uma teoria ampliada da representação política. Rev Bras Ciênc Soc. 2003a;51:123–40.Google Scholar
  66. Miguel LF. Impasses da accountability: Dilemas e alternativas da representação política. Paper presented at the XXVII Congresso Anual da ANPOCS, Caxambu, October, 2003b.Google Scholar
  67. Novaro M. Representación y liderazgo en las democracias contemporáneas. Rosario: Homo Sapiens Ediciones; 2000.Google Scholar
  68. O’Donnell G. On the state, democratization, and some conceptual problems: a Latin American view with glances at some postcommunist countries. World Dev. 1993;21:1355–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. O’Donnell GA. Horizontal accountability in new democracies. J Democr. 1998;9(3):112–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. O’Donnell GA. Why the rule of law matters. In: Diamond L, Morlino L, editors. Assessing the quality of democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore; 2005.Google Scholar
  71. O’Donnell GA, Schmitter PC, Whitehead L. Transitions from authoritarian rule: prospects for democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  72. Olvera AJ. Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: México. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica/Universidad Veracruzana; 2003.Google Scholar
  73. Panfichi A. Sociedad civil, esfera pública y democratización en América Latina: Andes y Cono Sur. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica/Universidad Veracruzana; 2003.Google Scholar
  74. Pateman C. Participation and democratic theory. London: Cambridge University Press; 1970.Google Scholar
  75. Peruzzotti E. Civil society, representation and accountability: restating current debates on the representativeness and accountability of civic associations. En Lisa Jordan; Peter Van Tuijl (coords.). NGO Accountability. Politics, principles and innovations, Earthscan, Londres; 2007.Google Scholar
  76. Peruzzotti E. Two approaches to representation. Paper presented at the workshop on Political Representation in Latin America. Fundación Pent, Buenos Aires, 2005.Google Scholar
  77. Peruzzotti E, Smulovitz C. Accountability social: la otra cara del control. In: Peruzzotti E, Smulovitz C, editors. Controlando la política: ciudadanos y medios den las nuevas democracias latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: Temas; 2002.Google Scholar
  78. Pinto CRJ. Espaços deliberativos e a questão da representação. Rev Bras Ciênc Soc. 2004;19(54):97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pitkin FH. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1967.Google Scholar
  80. Plotke D. Representation is democracy. Constellations. 1997;4(1):19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Przeworski A. Social accountability in Latin America and beyond. In: Peruzzotti E, Smulovitz C, editors. Enforcing the rule of law: social accountability in the new Latin America democracies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  82. Przeworski A, Stokes SC, Manin B, editors. Democracy, accountability and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  83. Roberts KM. Deepening democracy? The modern left and social movements in Chile and Peru. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  84. Roberts KM. Party-society linkages and democratic representation in Latin America. Can J Lat Am Caribb Stud. 2002;27(53):9–34.Google Scholar
  85. Roberts KM, Wibbels E. Party systems and electoral volatility in Latin America: a test of economic, institutional, and structural explanations. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1999;93(3):575–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sader E. Quando novos personagens entram em cena. São Paulo: Paz e Terra; 1988.Google Scholar
  87. Sartori G. A teoria da representação no Estado Representativo moderno. Minas Gerais: Editora Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos; 1962.Google Scholar
  88. Saward M. The representative claim. Contemp Polit Theor. 2006;5:297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Schattan V, Nobre M, editors. Participação e deliberação: teoria democrática e experiências institucionais no Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo: Editora 34; 2004.Google Scholar
  90. Schmitter P. Still the century of corporatism? In: Schmitter P, Lehmbruch G, editors. Trends toward corporatist intermediation. London: Sage; 1979.Google Scholar
  91. Schmitter P. The consolidation of democracy and representation of social groups. Am Behav Sci. 1992;35:422–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Skocpol T. Advocates without members: the recent transformation of American civic life. In: Skocpol T, Fiorina MP, editors. Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 1999.Google Scholar
  93. Skocpol T. Protecting soldiers and mothers: the political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  94. Skocpol T. Diminished democracy: from membership to management in American civic life. University of Oklahoma Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  95. Smulovitz C, Peruzzotti E. Societal accountability in Latin America. J Democr. 2000;11(4):147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sorj B. Civil societies north–south relations: NGOs and dependency. Working paper no. 1. Rio de Janeiro: Edelstein Center for Social Research; 2005.Google Scholar
  97. Urbinati N. Representative democracy. Principles and genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  98. Urbinati N. Rhetoric and representation: the politics of advocacy. Paper presented at the Political Theory Workshop. University of Chicago, 1999.Google Scholar
  99. Urbinati N, Warren M. The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2007;11:387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wampler B. Expanding accountability through participatory institutions: activists and reformers in Brazilian municipalities. Manuscript chapter; 2004.Google Scholar
  101. Warren ME. A second transformation of democracy? In: Cain BE, Dalton RJ, Scarrow SE, editors. Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  102. Watts D. Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. Am J Sociol. 1999;105(2):493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Young IM. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Development StudiesUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of São Paulo, Brazilian Center of Analysis and Planning (CEBRAP)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations