[Table of Contents]

[#1] LIST OF TABLES

[#2] LIST OF FIGURES
[#3] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[#4] ABSTRACT
[#5] FOREWORD
[#6] CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
[#7] 1. THE CONTEXT
[#8] 2. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND QUESTION
[#9] 3. THE THESIS
[#10] 4. THE PROCEDURE
[#11] 4.1. Conceptual Framework
[#12] 4.2. Relevant Research and Theory
[#13] 4.3. Method of Analysis
[#14] 4.4. Scope
[#15] 4.5. Generalizations
[#16] 4.6. Sources of Information
[#17] 4.7. The Chapters
[#18] CHAPTER II - CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
[#19] 1. THEORETICAL CONTEXT OF PARTICIPATION
[#20] 1.1. Selective Parameters
[#21] 1.2. Concepts Informing the Discussion of Participation
[#22] 2. CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
[#23] 2.1. Social Order: Consensus versus Conflict
[#24] 2.2. Participation within Concepts of Social Change
[#25] 2.2.1. Participation within Concepts of Stability
[#26] 2.2.2. Participation within Concepts of Institutionalized
Change
[#27] 2.2.3. Participation within Concepts of Radical Change
[#28] 3. CONCEPTS OF DEMOCRACY
[#29] 3.1. Liberal versus Participatory Democracy
[#30] 3.2. Participation within Concepts of Democracy
[#31] 3.2.1. Participation as Information Exchange
[#32] 3.2.2. Participation as Power Sharing
[#33] 4. CONCEPTS OF RATIONALITY
[#34] 4.1. Legitimacy of Technical and Participatory Rationality
[#35] 4.2. Participation within Concepts of Rationality
[#36] 4.2.1. Participation and Technical Rationality
[#37] 4.2.2. Participation in a Participatory Rationality Perspective
[#38] 5. INTERPLAY OF CONCEPTS
[#39] CHAPTER III - PARTICIPATION IDEOLOGY
[#40] 1. IDEOLOGY, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND DEMOCRACY
[#41] 1.1. The Concept of Ideology
[#42] 1.2. Ideology and Social Movements
[#43] 2. HISTORICAL PROCESS AND IDEOLOGY
[#44] 2.1. Socioeconomic Background of Brazilian Democratization
[#45] 2.2. Ideologies in Brazilian Democratization
[#46] 2.2.1. Three Perspectives on the Democratization
[#47] 2.2.2. The Construction of Unity
[#48] 2.2.3. The Legitimation of the Collective
[#49] 2.3. Popular Movements and Democracy in Brazil
[#50] 2.3.1. The Catholic Church
[#51] 2.3.2. The Workers’ Party - PT
[#52] 2.3.3. A New Political Culture
[#53] 3. CONCEPTS IN THE IDEOLOGY OF PARTICIPATION
[#54] 3.1. Participation as Ideology
[#55] 3.2. Concept of Social Change in the Ideology of Participation
[#56] 3.3. Concept of Democracy in the Ideology of Participation
[#57] 3.4. Concept of Rationality in the Ideology of Participation
[#58] 3.5. Summary of Concepts in the Ideology of Participation
[#59] CHAPTER IV - PROVISIONS FOR PARTICIPATION
[#60] 1. BRAZILIAN CONSTITUTION AND PARTICIPATION
[#61] 2. INSTITUTIONALIZED PARTICIPATION IN VITÓRIA
[#62] 2.1. Municipal Charter and Popular Participation
[#63] 2.1.1. Participatory Provisions in the Municipal Charter
[#64] 2.1.2. Concepts of Social Change in the Municipal Charter
[#65] 2.1.3. Concepts of Democracy in the Municipal Charter
[#66] 2.1.4. Concepts of Rationality in the Municipal Charter
[#67] 2.2. Popular Councils and Participation
[#68] 2.2.1. Structure and Function of Local Government in Vitória
[#69] 2.2.2. Municipal Council of the Urban Master Plan
[#70] 2.2.3. Municipal Council of Transportation
[#71] 2.3. The Popular Budget and Participation
[#72] 2.3.1. Concepts of Social Change in the Popular Budget
[#73] 2.3.2. Concepts of Democracy in the Popular Budget
[#74] 2.3.3. Concepts of Rationality in the Popular Budget
[#75] 3. COMPARISON OF THE FINDINGS
[#76] 3.1. Concept of Change Informing Provisions for Participation
[#77] 3.2. Concepts of Democracy Informing Provisions for
Participation
[#78] 3.3. Concepts of Rationality Informing Provisions for
Participation
[#79] CHAPTER V - GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
[#80] 1. INCONGRUITY BETWEEN IDEA AND PROVISIONS
[#81] 1.1.The Conceptual Level
[#82] 1.2.The Institutional Level
[#83] 2. BETWEEN IDEOLOGY AND RATIONALITY
[#84] 2.1. Emergence of the Idea of Popular Participation
[#85] 2.1.1. Participation as a Way to Foster Social Changes
[#86] 2.1.2. Participation as a Democratic Practice
[#87] 2.1.3. Participation as Rationality
[#88] 2.1.4. Participation as Ideology
[#89] 2.2. Disappointment with the Idea of Popular Participation
[#90] 2.2.1. Broken Promises
[#91] 2.2.2. Inefficacy of Provisions to Facilitate Participatory
Practices
[#92] 2.2.3. Disenchantment With the Idea of Popular Participation
[#93] 2.3. Legitimacy of Popular Participation
[#94] 2.3.1. Popular Participation and Rationality
[#95] 2.3.2. Participative Planning
[#96] 2.4. Implementation of Participation
[#97] 2.5. Recommendations
[#98] 3. QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
[#99] 3.1. About the Relevance of Participation in Vitória
[#100] 3.2. About Expectations Regarding Participation
[#101] 3.3. About the Effectiveness of Present Practices
[#102] BIBLIOGRAPHY
[Headers]
[#1] TABLE OF CONTENTS
[#2]
[#3]
[#4] 4
[Footers]
[#1] 5
[#2] 5
[#3] 5
[#4] 5
[Footer #1]The Ideology of Popular Participation in Brazilian Local Government.

A Case-Study of Vitória

by

Pedro de Novais Lima Junior

A Thesis Submitted to the

Department of Urban and Rural Planning, Faculty of Architecture,

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN AND RURAL PLANNING

Approved:

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF NOVA SCOTIA

Halifax, Nova Scotia
1997
 TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF NOVA SCOTIA
AUTHORITY TO DISTRIBUTE THESIS

TITLE:

The Ideology of Popular Participation in Brazilian Local Government.

A Case-Study of Vitória

The above Library may make available or authorize another library to make

available individual copies of this thesis in any form without restrictions.

Full Name of Author Pedro de Novais Lima Jr.

Signature of Author _____________________

Date January 3, 1997

[Sidebar #1]

[Footer #2][Contents Entry #1][Header #1]LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparison between Consensus and Conflict Theories . . . . . .

...................

31

Table 2: Comparison between Legal and Participatory Democracy

Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

Table 3: Comparison between Technical and Participatory

Rationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

Table 4: Income Distribution Along Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

....................

69

Table 5: Popular Perceptions of Policy

Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

Table 6: Expressions of Desire for Political

Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

Table 7: Participating Neighbourhoods and Citizens in Neighbourhood

Assemblies . . . . . . . . . .135
Table 8: Presence by Region in Neighbourhood Assemblies for the

1994 Budget. . . . . . . . . . . .136

[Contents Entry #2]LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Categories of Concepts informing Theory and Provisions for

Popular Participation . . .

28

Figure 2: Concepts of Social

Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

Figure 3: Arnstein’s ‘ladder’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...................

43

Figure 4: Concepts of

Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

Figure 5: Concepts of Rationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...................

53

Figure 6: Concept of Social Change in the Ideology of Popular

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

Figure 7: Concept of Democracy in the Ideology of Popular

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

Figure 8: Concept of Rationality in the Ideology of Popular Participation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 9: Outline of the Municipal Charter in

Vitória . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
108

Figure 10: Municipal Government

Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123

Figure 11: Administrative Structure of the Executive in Order of

Budgetary Importance . . . . . . .

125

Figure 12: Administrative Structure of the Executive and Existing

Popular Councils . . . . . . . . . .

126

Figure 13: Concepts of Social Change Informing Provisions for Popular

Participation . . . . . . . .

145

Figure 14: Concepts of Democracy Informing Provisions for Popular

Participation . . . . . . . . . . .

146

Figure 15: Concepts of Rationality Informing Provisions for Popular

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . .

148
[Contents Entry #3]ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people provided me with assistance throughout the research and

writing of this thesis. I am specially indebted to Dr. Susan Guppy whose

counselling and support were fundamental for my academic life and for the

development of this work. Also of fundamental help were Dr. Jill Grant, for her

insights and the vital criticism which reorientated this work, and Professor

Carolyn Green from whom appreciated comments were received.

The Federal University of Viçosa - UFV, with Professor Paulo Arantes and
the Technical University of Nova Scotia - TUNS, with Professor Frank Palermo

were responsible for my coming to Canada.

While in Canada some people provided me with substantial information

from Brazil. I could not forget Jefferson Won Rondon de Souza, Otto Grellert

Furtado, and Councillor Ademir Cardoso in Vitória, Marcia Furtado Avanza in

São Paulo, Claudia Terra, my sister, and Carlos Antônio de Novais Lima, my

brother, both in Rio de Janeiro. Flávio M. C. Nóbrega has also provided me with

plenty of information available from Brasília.

At the same time I was being helped by many people in Halifax. With my

colleagues Ítalo Stephan, Juliana and Frederico Tofani, I had the opportunity to

discuss my ideas in Brazilian terms. Michelle Green helped me in criticizing and

revising the work up to the defense. Dorothy Leslie was a positive presence

during my two years in Canada and helped with some revision, as did Jim

Christian, my friend and brother in Christ, who, with his family, cared for me and

my family. Moreover, Jim was also a mind opened for the discussion of my

sometimes obscure viewpoints.

Back in Brazil, Lisa Yamashita revised all the work for English and other

corrections. She has been a special friend.

My family also supported and helped me. My father Pedro Novais Lima
was constantly concerned about the work and providing substantial information.

My mother, Iracema Rangel Furtado did the same, always searching for and

sending me material from Vitória. Finally, Jandira, my wife, and Débora and

Priscila, my daughters, with their patience, love and care, enabled this work to be

accomplished.
[Contents Entry #4]ABSTRACT

This work studies the correlation between the idea of popular participation

in Brazil and the provisions developed to implement it in Brazilian local

government. The thesis is that there is an incongruity between

conceptualizations regarding popular participation and the way institutional

provisions are set up.

At the conceptual level, the idea of popular participation developed during

Brazilian democratization with the characteristics of an ideology. It suggests a

rupture with previous decision-making practices and demands an intensive

involvement of popular sectors and a transformation of local government

administrative structure. At the institutional level, however, the provisions

designed for participation are the product of the action of conflicting social,

economic and political forces with different attitudes regarding popular

interference in public decision-making. As a result, institutional provisions imply

an ambiguous and ultimately distinct purpose for popular participation in the

decision-making process.

The work initially sets some parameters to compare conceptual and

institutional levels. Then it studies the historical development of the idea in

search for the fundamental assumptions implicated. The role of participation

implied in the designed provisions is considered in relation to the broader context

of local government administrative structure. Conceptual and institutional levels

are compared on the basis of the assumptions each imply. Finally, the

significance of participation to Brazilian urban planning is discussed.

[Contents Entry #5]FOREWORD

When the military dictatorship was over after two decades of repression

and increasing economic inequalities, some deep scars were left in Brazilian

social and political life. However, from that dark period, positive aspects

flourished. The spread of the idea of popular participation was one of them. It

signaled the strengthening of civil society and the increasing democratization of

the Brazilian State.

The scars were such that, a decade later, the idea of popular participation
still has an important place in Brazilian political culture. This is probably because

popular participation represents the very opposite to the military hierarchy, and a

contestation to the complete obedience, support or apathy that was required from

Brazilian society.

As democracy is a continuous struggle, always requiring improvements

that encompass political as well as economic issues, popular participation is a

very important idea for Brazilians to retain. It is a dream to be dreamt and to be

made into reality.

It is from this viewpoint that this work started to be developed.

[Contents Entry #6][Header #2]CHAPTERI
INTRODUCTION
 This work studies the correlation between the idea of popular participation

in Brazil and the institutional provisions developed to facilitate participation in

Brazilian local government. It focuses on the experience of the city of Vitória, the

capital of State of Espírito Santo, and evaluates the appropriateness of the

designed measures in facilitating participation.

This chapter introduces the research problem related to the translation of

the idea of participation into an institutionalized format and the consequent

incongruities between the purposes presented in statements and implied in the

provisions designed for participation. This chapter also presents the methodology

of the work.
[Contents Entry #7]THE CONTEXT
The expression ‘participação popular’ - Portuguese equivalent to popular

participation - is the terminology used in Brazil to refer to the involvement of

citizens in local government affairs. The use of this term as opposed to the

alternatives public participation[Footnote #1] or citizen participation[Footnote

#2] is not a random choice but a conscious decision. It incorporates meanings

related to Brazilian political culture with assumptions about society and its

governance. The expression conveys a dichotomization of the social structure

into ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless.’ It also implies involvement of the masses in

contrast to decision-making by an elite few.

In practice the primary unit of participation in Brazil is always a collective

of individuals sharing common interests. These collectives are named by the

Constitution as “representative associations,” and generally consist of interest

groups, like neighbourhood or professional associations. This means that in

Brazil, popular participation is oriented towards the involvement of groups rather

than direct participation by individuals. The emergence of such precise notions

about popular participation is closely connected to Brazilian democratization and

the gradual relaxation of the military dictatorship.

In 1964, a military coup d’état took control over Brazil imposing several

restrictions upon political and civil liberties. Repression increased up to 1974,

when a process of gradual relaxation of the regime began. The ‘Abertura

Política,’ as this process was called, proceeded until 1985. In that year, the

electoral college elected a civilian opposition candidate as President. In 1988, a

National Constituent Assembly adopted a new Constitution. The Charter restored

and improved civil and political rights. Finally, in 1989, the country had its first

direct presidential election in twenty-nine years.

The 1964 coup d’état in Brazil had virtually suffocated any popular
organization that struggled for social change or political participation. Those

which remained, or which were created in the early dictatorship years, were

either pro-regime or limited their demands to concrete needs of the local

community (Mainwaring, 1987). However, in the mid 1970s, as the Brazilian

authoritarian regime was unwinding, there was margin for popular claims. At that

time, whereas the emergence of popular organizations was still related to

demands for services and access to collective goods, there was a marked

presence of external agents - especially the Catholic Church and the Left - which

oriented the struggles of those groups into a more political agenda[Footnote

#3] (Cardoso, 1992; Jacobi, 1991; Krischke, 1990; Mainwaring, 1987).

Although representing diverse and fragmented interests, those popular

groups gradually formed a conjoined opposition to the military regime and to its

economic policies and authoritarian operation (Mainwaring, 1987, p.135; Alvarez,

1993). From these collective efforts a democratic culture started to develop.

Groups formulated their own ideas of democracy, demanding popular

participation and the meeting of social needs. They contributed through mass

demonstrations for direct presidential elections in 1984 and the subsequent

demise of the military in 1985 (Mainwaring, 1987, p.132-135; also Boschi, 1987).

During the 1980s, as political normality was coming together,[Footnote

#4] the idea of participation became acknowledged in a wide number of

municipalities. It was perceived as a positive resource in terms of local

government decision-making. Later on, through the articulation of social

movements, provisions regarding popular participation were placed in the 1988

Brazilian Constitutional text and passed on to the various State Constitutions and

Municipal Charters, that were to be rewritten[Footnote #5] (Alvarez, 1993).

Pushed by popular lobbies there was, for instance, a parliamentary struggle for

the inclusion of the word directly in the first article of the 1988 Constitution, which
states the following:

“All power emanates from the people, who exerts it

through elected representatives or directly, pursuant to

this Constitution” (Brazil, 1988, Art.1. Translated from

Portuguese, italics added).

This provision was accompanied by several others that aimed at

extending citizens political rights. The same guarantees - including a repetition of

the first Constitutional article - are enclosed in the Municipal Charter of Vitória,

which states in its Preamble:

“We, the representatives of the people of Vitória . . .

promulgate the Municipal Organic Law, guaranteeing the

well-being of all citizens by means of the participation of

the people in the political, economic, and social process of

the municipality, repudiating, consequently, any

authoritarian form of government” (Vitória, 1990,

Preamble. Translated from Portuguese, italics added).

These two excerpts demonstrate the relevance of the idea of participation

assumed in Brazil by the end of the 1980s. At that time, the Constitutions of the

three governmental tiers had already been rewritten, and the bulk of the

democratization process could be said to have been accomplished.

Two periods are characteristic in this historical process. First, while

political life was still controlled by dictatorial rulers, the idea of participation

evolved into an ideology of popular participation: a normative paradigm

concerning public decision-making. Then, as democratic conditions stabilized,

and with the 1988 Constitution, which required every municipality to adopt

participative practices, institutional measures were designed at the municipal

level to facilitate participation.

 Comparing these two periods, different meanings of participation are

evident. Initially, popular participation embodied concepts about democracy and

stressed the purposes of self-government and ‘radical change’. It reflected a

popular reaction against authoritarianism and the discredit of centralized

decision-making.[Footnote #6] According to popular values that emerged

during the democratization period, participation came to be regarded as an ‘up-

to-date’ decision making process, and as a result, the embracing of popular

participation distinguished what could be called a ‘progressive’ municipal

administration.

Currently, however, emerging from local government initiatives, and

because of the institutionalization of the process, participation coexists with

practices that evoke previous authoritarian methods. Decision-making authority is

still centralized upon the mayor. It implies, then, a ‘traditional’ form of local

government. However, this difference in meaning between ‘progressive’ and

‘traditional’ is not clearly perceived because in political statements the

‘progressive’ role of participation is always the idea emphasized.

The term progressive is used in Brazilian political vocabulary to make a

distinction between ideas that represented a rupture with authoritarianism (the

‘progressive’ ones) and those that represented a continuity of the ‘outmoded’

practices of the military regime. Generally speaking, progressive political ideas

and actions are seen by popular and middle classes as those ideas oriented

towards the powerless (in opposition to the elite). Popular participation is

‘progressive’ because it is promoted as a method of providing people with the

means to make decisions of their own, without the ‘negative’ intervention of

governments.[Footnote #7][Posted Note #1]

[Contents Entry #8]THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND QUESTION
Democracy through participation is such an important issue in Brazilian

political culture that almost a decade after the promulgation of the Brazilian

Constitution - the event that definitely marks the country’s democratization - the

idea of popular participation is still used to make a distinction between what is

considered ‘progressive’ and the ‘traditional’ view of politics and administration.

As a result, popular participation has become a theme recurrently used in

political discourse. For instance, in the words of the Mayor of Vitória,

“Popular participation . . . is the main mechanism for the

democratization of public administration” (Hartung, 1995,

p.4. Translated from Portuguese).

In political statements like this, it is generally assumed that the institutional

measures for participation facilitate the democratization of municipal

administration. However, a preliminary evaluation indicates that the translation of

idea into provisions is not as straightforward as it might seem. In fact, the

similarity is restricted to the realm of rhetoric because the role of participation that

stems from the institutional provisions is substantially different from the one

promoted in discourse.

The present work departs from this observation to pursue one basic

question, aiming at providing an appropriate perspective to the matter:

What is the correlation between the idea and the

provisions of popular participation in Brazilian local

government?
[Contents Entry #9]THE THESIS
The thesis of this work is that institutional provisions for participation in

Vitória are incongruous with the idea of participation that developed during the

democratization process. Despite the emphasis on popular participation as the

standard for local government decision-making procedure, the[Posted Note

#2] purpose and the role expected from participation is different from the form

that it may actually take.

This reveals a schism of the idea of participation at conceptual and

institutional levels with each level implying different objectives. Participation in

conceptual and institutional levels can be defined using the following

propositions:

Proposition 1 - At the conceptual level, the notion of

popular participation, resulting from popular expectations

and set forth by political statements, has the

characteristics of an ideology and lacks an operational

formulation of purpose.

Proposition 2 - At the institutional level, the provisions

developed for popular participation are the expression of

the interaction of different social, political and economic

forces. The results are an ambiguous role and purpose

ascribed to the provisions for popular participation within

the existing institutional framework.

The divergence between conceptual and institutional contexts in which the

notion of popular participation operates produces a dissimulation regarding

effectiveness of participatory practices in Vitória.

 THE PROCEDURE[Contents Entry #10]
[Posted Note #3]The incongruity perceived between conceptualizations regarding
popular participation and the way provisions for participation are set up demands to be
clarified and to be made explicit because of the way discourse tends to disguise the real
role of participation in local government.

Conceptual Framework[Contents Entry #11]

The subject matter comprises two basic levels of study: the conceptual

level and the institutional level. The former related to what is said and thought

about participation. The latter related to what form participation may actually
take.

At the conceptual level, political discourse and statements transmit ideas

about participation that are common sense and can be expressed out loud. They

reveal what meanings society assigns to popular participation. The emphasis on

participation in speeches and political discourse demonstrates the generalization

of the idea, indicating its acceptance within society. Celebrities and politicians

tend to voice what society expects them to do, and in Brazil, particularly in

Vitória, participation is talked about as being an important instrument in the

democratization of public administration.

However, in this rhetorical usage of popular participation the lack of clarity

is evident. Because the objective is to fulfill rhetorical arguments, and not

necessarily to make institutional change, there are no precise definitions of the

purposes of participation and, therefore, no clear definition of the terms in which

participation is expected to operate in local government and the results it is

supposed to produce.

The concept of participation that is presently set forth by professional

politicians is basically the same that emerged during the country’s

democratization. It conceives civil society as if it was unified around a single

objective (a struggle against authoritarianism). There has been no further

development because to clarify the purpose of participation in a fragmented

environment means to take position between the conflicting interests in society.

This may be politically costly and, therefore, politicians tend to avoid verbalizing

their rationale. They treat the definition of provisions for participation as a mere

technicality. Nonetheless, as Thornley observes,

“the formulation of guidelines cannot . . . be considered as

a technical operation but must be set within a normative

context” (Thornley, 1977, p.3).
Thornley’s observation implies that different techniques are appropriate for

different purposes and, therefore, provisions for participation do not necessarily

imply the ideational expectations people have about participation. In fact, they

imply specific viewpoints that may be incongruent to the objectives ideally

formulated. This means that provisions for participation determine the real

significance of participatory practices within local government.

Accordingly, provisions for popular participation cannot be taken as the

literal translation of ideas about it. They may draw from different underlying

concepts, determining, in practice, a specific purpose of participation. This notion

permeates this work and departs from an observation by Thornley, for whom,

“implicit theoretical perspectives lie behind most social

policies and . . . these perspectives provide different

interpretations of those policies” (Thornley, 1977, p.4).

Therefore, in the formulation of provisions for participation purposes need

to be made explicit demanding clear choices within different normative

alternatives. Moreover, there are limitations in the translation from theory to

action, and this must be taken into account in dealing with provisions for

participation.
 Translation implies the transfer of a model situation into the context of a

real world. In this process, two interwoven aspects interfere[Posted Note #4],

the plurality of the social context and the chronological distance between the

development of a theory and the formulation of provisions. These two aspects

were present and relevant in the development of provisions for popular

participation in Vitória.

The plurality of the social context is the first aspect to be considered. The

design of provisions within Brazilian local government is an operation that

involves different people. It is, foremost, the result of the efforts of a team within

which exist different perceptions of the problem and different ideas regarding

their solution. Additionally, the elaboration of public policies occur in a democratic

and heterogeneous context, not in an aseptic or homogeneous environment. This

implies that any proposition is subject to the interference of different and

eventually conflicting interests and ideologies operating within the realm of local

government.

Society is comprised of a multiplicity of groups with different interests.

They simultaneously press local government for the application of their particular

viewpoints regarding the city and its administration. Institutions are susceptible to

these pressures, responding to their pluralistic and dynamic environment through

continuous adaptation (Foley, 1960, p. 224). In this process of adaptation

institutions manage to reflect the social forces that are predominant in a given

context. Regarding this Foley has observed the

“phenomenon of alternative ideologies as an adaptive

mechanism by which a newly institutionalized activity may

steer its way amidst uncertain and often antagonistic

surroundings strains” (Foley, 1960, p. 211).

McAuslan also studying the British planning system, particularly
legislation, noticed that competing ideologies dominate and/or conflict according

to different circumstances (McAuslan, 1980, p. 3).

These concepts can be extended to Brazilian society due to the fact that

they represent a universal phenomena, common to pluralistic societies, where

political power is dispersed among different groups. Particularizing to the

Brazilian case, the nature of the process of elaboration of laws and provisions for

participation at the local level is significantly responsive to different interests and

viewpoints. Laws are discussed in the political arena of the Executive and the

Legislative Powers which comprise representatives of diverse positions. This

political arena may also be extended to incorporate the influence of the media

and the possibility of mobilization of larger parts of society. Moreover, Brazilian

municipalities are autonomous regarding their administration which means that

within the local government the range of political disputes can assume the full

array of different ideological positions and competing interests that are present at

a country-wide level.

It should be noted that the degree of autonomy of a Brazilian municipality

is unique in federal systems of government (Nickson, 1995). Municipal autonomy

in Brazil is not delegated by the Union, or the States; municipalities are not

subordinate to these members. Their autonomy is defined within the country’s

Constitution. Therefore, municipalities do not need authorization or ratification of

superior spheres for enactments that conform to its constitutional status. It is a

diametric situation compared to Canada. In Nova Scotia, for instance, local

governments have no authority other than that delegated by the provincial

government. Moreover, almost all by-laws are only effective after approved by

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Antoft, 1992). In Brazil, municipal laws can only

be questioned in tribunals.

The other aspect interfering in the straightforward translation of the model

situation into the real world context has to do with the chronological gap between

the consolidation of the idea of participation and the materializing of that idea into

institutional provisions. This contributes to the discrepancy between theory and

institution in the Brazilian case of popular participation. The discrepancy occurs

due to the different social contexts in which idea and provisions for participation

emerge. These contexts are responsible for explicit influences and, therefore, for

the different tones that popular participation assimilated at the conceptual and

institutional levels.

The development of the idea of popular participation in Brazil was peculiar

to the democratization process started in the 1970s. Popular participation

assumed the integrative characteristic of an ideology. However, the concept was

detached from its concretization. No operational definitions were developed

because the means for change were not available in that period. Ignoring the

existing institutional framework, the translation of idea into provisions faced an

organizational culture structured for ‘traditional’ practices, therefore posing

difficulties for the expected changes.

The development of provisions for participation occurred in a different

context. They have been unsystematically developed over the years. Initially,

during the gradual relaxation process, they developed through some local

experiences that occurred in different cities in Brazil. These experiences had no

formal institutionalization and were, in general, confined to the government that

adopted them first.

Then, after the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution and the elaboration

of the Municipal Charters in 1990, provisions for participation were gradually

formalized and incorporated within municipal institutional frameworks. The 1990

Municipal Charters comprised several articles related to participation;

nonetheless, most of them needed complementary legislation to become

applicable. In this situation, along these years, provisions for participation

received diverse contributions from different sources with different perspectives.

Susceptible to the heterogeneous environment in which they were formulated,

provisions for participation may imply a distinct purpose other than that

expressed in discourse, corroborating the notion that the context of emergence of

the idea and the idea itself are necessarily interrelated.

Relevant Research and Theory[Contents Entry #12]

The pluralistic character of society, the adaptive nature of institutions and

the historical constituting of the idea and institution are basic elements in the

approach intended in this work. They find support on the works developed by

authors that have studied similar phenomena: Cardoso (1989); Damer and

Hague (1971); Foley (1960); McAuslan (1980); Nunes (1991); and Thornley

(1977) among others.

All these works deal with the pluralistic character of society, which is

perceived as comprising a multiplicity of groups with different interests (Cardoso,

1989; Damer and Hague, 1971, p.225). The authors also emphasize the

formation of the idea as a consequence of the historical context of their

development (Cardoso, 1989; and more specifically Damer and Hague, 1971)

and, in general, they perceive that institutions manage to adapt to their

environment according to resulting pressures (Foley, 1960, p.224; see also

McAuslan, 1980, p.2-7).

The correlation between conceptual and institutional levels of participation

that is being discussed is based on Thornley’s essay, ‘Theoretical Perspectives

on Planning Participation’ (Thornley, 1977). This essay serves as the supporting

material for this work. Finally, the formulation of participation as an ideology

stems from remarks found in an article by Melucci (1992) and in the works of
Touraine (1977; 1981).

These works served as basic support for this thesis though complemented

with more contemporary texts presented in the Bibliography. It should be noted

that some of them were developed in the 1960s and 1970s, when the idea of

participation had a significant advance in the world. In England, the Skeffington

Report was elaborated in 1968 (Damer and Hague, 1971) and was subject to

criticism and retort by many scholars. That was also the year of worldwide street

manifestations, Brazil included, even with the restricting presence of the

dictatorship. In North America, Arnstein’s work, published in 1969 had a great

impact at the time, and has been republished many times since then[Posted

Note #5][Posted Note #6].

Method of Analysis[Contents Entry #13]

The development of this thesis requires an investigation at both the

conceptual and the practical domain of popular participation. The examination of

the conceptual level seeks to unveil the meaning of popular of participation in

Brazilian political culture. To do this it is necessary to review the formation of the

ideology of participation during Brazilian democratization, including objectives

and critical assumptions.

At the institutional level, the effort is towards extracting the meaning of

participation as implied in the provisions developed to facilitate it. This involves

understanding these provisions within the context of the broader range of

activities of the local government within which the government operates[Posted

Note #7].

To evaluate and then compare what is implied in conceptual and

institutional levels of popular participation, it is necessary to establish a common

ground for comparison; one upon which elements of each level can be
contrasted. This comparison is formulated on the basis that they may address

similar issues from different perspectives.

The common ground for comparison has to consider the values and

assumptions related to participation that are explicitly or implicitly put forth at

each level. This is one of the objectives of Thornley’s work,

“to demonstrate explicitly the underlying theoretical

issues that are implicit in planning participation”

(Thornley, 1977, p.4. Italics in original).

For this, an analysis of underlying assumptions is necessary. Three

interrelated concepts are perceived to be incorporated in both levels. They inform

purpose and role of popular participation in both levels but may be the

expression of different positions: the concept of social change related to the

objectives of decision-making; the concept of democracy, associated to the

degree of control expected to be shared with citizens; and the concept of

rationality in public administration, related to what is accepted to be a legitimate

mode of decision-making.

The development of each concept is initially based on the studies of

different authors then developed further. A framework developed by Thornley

establishes a relationship “between democratic theories and theories of social

order” (1977, p.5). It serves for the analysis of the relationship between theories

of social order and participation.

An adaptation of a theoretical scale developed by Arnstein (1969)

provides a framework that relates degrees of citizen control and participation.

Finally, a study providing a theoretical support for participation (Smith, 1973)

serves for the design of a framework that relates the concept of rationality to

participation.
 Scope[Contents Entry #14]
In terms of scope, participation is studied within the planning functions of

local government. These are defined in the Municipal Charter (Vitória, 1990, Art.

150) and involve matters related to planning and policy processes, decision-

making processes, and some administrative processes in the municipality. These

processes entail social, economic, and environmental issues, and are not limited

to land-use planning.

The study deals with provisions developed after 1989 when the Mayor,

elected from the Workers’ Party, started governing. ‘Participation’ was one of the

fundamental elements of that government and was put in practice through the

establishment of Popular Councils. In 1990 the Municipal Charter was

promulgated, corroborating some of the participatory ideas already in place. In

1993, the Mayor from PSDB began to govern, expressing a will to continue his

antecessor’s work regarding popular participation. Except for the Popular Budget,

all provisions are inscribed in legislation.

[Contents Entry #15]Generalizations

There is a strict correlation between the case study, a capital city in the

southeast Brazil and the other country-wide participatory experiences. Three

arguments corroborate this assumption. First is the fact that local government’s

basic structure is the same country-wide. Brazilian municipalities are

autonomous, but this autonomy has limits defined by the Constitution. These

limits maintain uniformity in terms of the role of the local government, of the basic

institutional arrangements of the municipality, and of most provisions of the

Municipal Charters. It could not be different as the 1988 Constitution was the

culminating of Brazilian democratization process, and its democratizing content

was intended to spread out to all tiers of government.

 The second reason has to do with the operation of Brazilian political

parties. Their organization covers the whole country, penetrating federal, state

and local politics and disseminating a more or less consistent body of political

ideas, the party program, in which some issues of public administration are

presented. Moreover, these parties are aided by technical institutes that aim at

providing them support for administration and planning. Therefore, party

affiliation has a significant role in homogenizing experiences in participation.

It should be also stressed that similar ideological position may present

analogous administrative experiences especially concerning participation. In this

respect, the city of Vitória has had two consecutive participatory practices in

recent years. These practices were developed by the two larger parties that have

accumulated some experience with popular participation. The leftist ‘Partido dos

Trabalhadores - P.T.’ (Workers’ Party), governing from 1989 to 1992, responsible

for the attainment of recent relevant participatory experiences (Alvarez, 1993,

p.206) and the center-left ‘Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira - P.S.D.B.’

(Party of Brazilian Social Democracy), governing since 1993.

The last reason to advocate the possible generalization of the findings is

due to the operation on a country-wide basis of the Catholic Church in the

organization of the Ecclesial Base Communities, and the Left, agents with a

significant role in the dissemination of the idea of participation.

Sources of Information[Contents Entry #16]

This work has drawn mostly on existing literature in English about Brazil.

Nonetheless, sources specifically related to the case study were, with a few

exceptions (Banck,1986; Banck, 1993), written in Portuguese. Legal documents,

legislation and other printed matters from the Municipality of Vitória were

collected at the City Hall and, when brought to this text, translated to English.
 All translations are my own and aimed at maintaining the same structure

of the original sentences. Eventually, this may result in awkward text for the

English reader, but it avoids paraphrasing of the legal texts.

Especially in Chapter III and IV, emphasis was given to the use of

quotations. This was done in order to expose the underlying notions that existed

in Brazilian democratization and that helped to forge ideology and provisions for

participation.

[Contents Entry #17]The Chapters

Chapter II, Conceptual Foundations, is based on a review of existing

literature on participation and presents the theoretical basis of the work. Its

objective is to formulate conceptual tools with which to evaluate the meaning of

popular participation. Participation Ideology is discussed in Chapter III, which

introduces the Brazilian context for the growth of the idea. This chapter describes

the idealized role of participation and the basic concepts that support it. Chapter

IV, Provisions for Participation, discusses the provisions designed to facilitate

popular participation in Vitória. The basic concepts implied in such provisions are

reviewed and compared with the findings of the previous chapter. In the last

chapter, General Conclusions, the thesis is synopsized, and a correlation

between popular participation and planning in the Brazilian context is discussed.

In this chapter, recommendations and questions for future research are

proposed.
[Contents Entry #18]CHAPTER
II
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
 This chapter aims at designing a method to contrast the concepts that are

implied in idea and the provisions for popular participation. What will be pursued

here is a definition of common grounds upon which idea and institution of popular

participation stand and, therefore, may be compared.

[Contents Entry #19]THEORETICAL CONTEXT OF
PARTICIPATION
Generally speaking, the role of participation in local government depends

on theoretical concepts of human nature, society and its government. These

concepts, although not necessarily explicit, inform the definition of purposes

(conceptual level), and the formulation of institutional provisions to allow

participation (institutional level). With this in mind, this work postulates that an

assessment of the correlation between the purpose and role of popular

participation can be made by comparing the assumptions each one incorporates.

The rationale is that both idea and provisions for participation draw from

general theoretical concepts the fundamental assumptions regarding the role and

purpose assigned to participation in local government.

As different concepts and assumptions can only be compared if they

address similar issues, the problem, then, is to determine what common

elements can form a minimum criterion with which one can evaluate the

correlation between idea and provisions for popular participation.

[Contents Entry #20]Selective Parameters

To form such a minimum criterion it is necessary to sort among concepts

that are equally implied and to play a relevant role in both conceptual and

institutional levels of the matter. Moreover, these elements must be related to the

context from which the idea emerged, and must give expression to aspects that

were relevant in this process.

From the standpoint of the emergence of the idea of participation in Brazil,

it can be said that it implied that the number of individuals participating was to be

large, and that participants would be influent in decision-making.

A criterion that derives from such assertions is that common underlying

concepts must inform idea and institution of popular participation in terms of the
extent, degree, and diversity of groups and individuals involved. Extent is related

to the number of individuals participating. Degree defines the depth that citizens

are involved, either with just advisory or decision-making power. Diversity relates

to the variety of interest groups that are acknowledged within the decision-

making process[Posted Note #8].

The selection of elements for a minimum criterion, should also inform

purpose, procedure and rationale of decision-making that are implied in the idea

and institution of participation. This would enable a broader perception of the

ideal and institutional process of decision-making and the role of popular

participation within it.

Following these observations, this chapter proposes and discusses a set

of criteria for the comparison of theory and provisions for popular participation.

These criteria assess three aspects of the decision-making process in which

participation is either encouraged or discouraged.

The first criterion is related to the goals society aims to achieve, and

intends to frame idea and institution of popular participation within expectations

of social change. The relationship between participation and social change is

relevant in Brazilian context due to popular image of the state being associated

with the elite and to the economic deterioration that was characteristic at the

dawn of democratization. People were convinced that improvements could only

be accomplished if they were to make decisions by themselves.

The second criterion complements the first one and defines through what

process and who should make decisions that involve social processes. It is

concerned with discussions that were characteristic of a country in the process of

reinstatement of democracy. It addresses the struggle to determine answers

regarding the form democratic government should take.

The third criterion is related to the basis on which decisions are

legitimized, that is, the rationale for decision-making. It is selected to evaluate the

relevance of the political and technical aspects of decision-making, and the

legitimacy of knowledge to inform the governing process. The Brazilian national

motto, “Ordem e Progresso,”[Footnote #8] is related to an elite ideology of

governmental efficiency, and played a strong role in legitimizing decisions

throughout the military dictatorship. This ideology corroborates a discourse of

efficiency, legitimating the decision-making process through technical-rational

means. It facilitates elite control through technical-bureaucratic decision-making,

and despises participation as subversion or as embodying a non-rational content.

[Footnote #9]

[Contents Entry #21]Concepts Informing the Discussion of

Participation
The above criteria were used to define three interrelated categories of

polar normative concepts informing theory and practice of popular participation in

local government: Concepts of Social Change, which inform the aims of the

decision-making process; Concepts of Democracy, which are concerned with the

adequate allocation of decision-making authority in the city, in particular with

respect to the extent and degree of control citizens are expected to exert over

local government; and Concepts about Rationality in planning and public

administration, which are concerned with the rationale of the decision-making

process. The following diagram presents a picture of the organization of these

polar concepts within the three mentioned categories:

[Sidebar #2]Figure 1: Categories of Concepts informing Theory and Provisions

for Popular ParticipationThe variations within these categories will be discussed in
this chapter to expose the antithetical views associated with them and how these views
may inform and affect theory and institution of popular participation. The objective is to
highlight central characteristics,[Footnote #10] touching on those relevant aspects of
local government decision-making process in which participation is either encouraged or
discouraged.

Each concept will be presented according to its principles of justification,

and assumptions or perceptions about social reality it embodies. The value

choices that arise from them will also be discussed. The observations will be

presented in terms of polar concepts, which will serve to define a continuum, or

‘theoretical scale,’ on which different emphasis given to popular participation in

theory and institution of local government in Vitória can be located (figures 2, 4,

5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15). These theoretical scales were designed to serve as visual

aids that may emphasize different positions within a given aspect of decision-

making. They serve to expose differences between the two levels analyzed.
[Contents Entry #22]CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Concepts of social change express intentions regarding the ideal

organization of society and inform the aims of social actions. These can be

organized according to two basic positions, as highlighted by Friedmann:

“All social actions may be grouped into two broad

categories: those which are taken in order to maintain or

improve an existing system of social relationships and

those which are taken in order to radically transform that

system” (Friedmann, 1969, p.313).

[Contents Entry #23]Social Order: Consensus versus Conflict

Concepts of social change depend on convictions about the existing

social order and the nature of social interaction, that is, how individuals or groups

act upon one another in society. The nature of social interaction has two

antithetical interpretations (with variations between the extremes).[Footnote

#11] They regard the predominance of consensus or conflict in society and

define expectations of continuity or change of social order (Thornley, 1977, p.4).

Consensus theory is based on the idea that society is mainly cooperative,

consisting of individuals and groups sharing common moral values, and agreeing
on their political organization (Simmie, 1974, p.17; Thornley, 1977, p.6). These

values work as mediators, maintaining the existing social order in such a way

that radical social change is thought of as an exceptional[Posted Note #9] and

negative situation.

Contrary to the view that emphasizes consensus, conflict theory assumes

that competition is inherent in society, and that the existing social order is not

dependent on shared values but on the condition of organization of society itself

(in which the conditions for social change simultaneously lie). This perspective
emphasizes that society is not politically, culturally nor economically

homogeneous, but comprises social groups with different and conflicting values,

and interests[Footnote #12] (Damer and Hague, 1971, p.225; Simmie, 1974).

Thus, conflict theory perceives situations of equilibrium as temporary, because

different groups are continuously aiming at imposing their views and values upon

others.

Table 1, below, presents a comparison concerning differences between

consensus and conflict theories:

Table 1: Comparison between Consensus and Conflict Theories[Footnote

#13]
[Sidebar #3]
[Contents Entry #24]Participation within Concepts of Social Change
Assumptions about the nature of social interaction account for different

normative perspectives concerning social change. They also have implications

upon the role of popular participation in local government. Three positions

according to different concepts of social change will be discussed. These are: the

role of participation within the concept of stability; the role of participation within

the concept of institutionalized change; and the role of participation within the

concept of radical change.

These positions may be graphically arranged to define a continuum

(Thornley, 1977) in which different normative concepts of social change can be

compared. Within this continuum (Figure 2), the role popular participation is

expected to play can be viewed in terms of maintaining stability (extreme left),

fostering change (extreme right), or managing conflict in society (centre).

 Figure 2: Concepts of Social Change

Participation within Concepts of Stability[Contents Entry #25]

If society is seen as a more or less harmonious group, as consensus

theory implies, sudden social change[Footnote #14] is likely to be considered

a negative impact, disrupting the balance and the cultural and political values that

society holds. In fact, according to Almond and Verba,[Footnote #15] existing

social and political stability depends on the political culture which is based on a

balance of active, passive and alienated individual political attitudes. The mix of

these different attitudes within the political system is responsible for its

equilibrium in such a way that if one attitude is emphasized over the others, the

system will suffer disruption.

Therefore, if society is consensual and stability is a positive factor then, it

means that participation should be limited in extent, up to the point that

contributes to the harmony in the system.[Footnote #16] However, another

implication of this concept of stability is that participation is limited in degree, to

an information and advisory role. Decision-making power is in the hands of the

elite. Thornley is emphatic about this point:

“Participation has to remain as a myth because of the

impossibility of organizing participation in reality. Thus it is

only an attitude that is needed for stable democracy, i.e. a

belief in the myth. If it were attempted to change the myth

for reality, then this would upset the system” (Thornley,

 1977, p.17).

Participation within Concepts of Institutionalized

Change[Contents Entry #26]

While the view just presented perceives society as basically consensual

and change as having a negative impact on social stability, an intermediary

perspective, which Thornley associates with the work of Ralph Dahrendorf,

acknowledges society as pluralist, with power dispersed among various interest

groups, and conflict endemic to it. Conflict is seen as positive, because of the

changes it is able to produce (Thornley, 1977, p.17-18). Change, however, is

expected to take place within the limits of previously defined rules in a way that

avoids disruption in the system. Conflict regulation implies the existence of an

elite that although holding decision-making powers is, or should be, responsive to

society (Thornley, 1977, p.18). In this perspective, the role of popular

participation is constrained within the institutes of conflict regulation;[Footnote

#17] that is, it depends on a shared set of rules that regulate the political

process, and on intermediaries that apply or enforce such rules. Participation is

desirable, as Thornley observes,

“but only if it occurs within the structure of organizations.

In this way conflict can be regulated and the elite given

the freedom of decision making required for progress”

(Thornley, 1977, p.19).

Participation within Concepts of Radical Change[Contents Entry

#27]
Within the realm of conflict theory, radical change has its advocates. Such

a concept is justified by the emphasis placed on the inequalities in the present

social order. These inequalities need to be addressed for the transformation of

the present status-quo. This is a perspective mainly concerned with social

justice, and can be associated with socialist and communist thinking, which Held

summarizes in the following statement:

“The ‘free development of all’ can only be achieved with

the ‘free development of each.’ Freedom requires the end

of exploitation and ultimately complete political and

economic equality; only equality can secure the conditions

for the realization of the potentiality of all human beings

so that ‘each can give’ according to his or her ability and

‘receive what they need’” (Held, 1987, p.136).

From the Marxist standpoint, the problem of conflict is the problem of the

struggle between two classes, Bourgeoisie and Proletariat (Marx and Engels,

1986, p.35; class structure must be eliminated for equality to be achieved. This

implies a disruptive radical change in the social order, a revolutionary action that

breaks with the previous situation. In revolutionary strategy participation is

fundamental because it permits consciousness raising concerning the class

struggle and the subsequent organization of the underclass[Footnote #18]

(1977, p.12).

An identical perspective is held within the Liberation Theology movement,

which had a great impact on Brazilian democratic development. It assumes that

people must be liberated from social injustice and marginalization. Liberation is a

process that starts when people become aware of oppression by relating their

social condition to their religious faith (Gutiérrez, 1988, p.xix).

The aim of Liberation Theology is also a radical change in the social order,

and participation is emphasized in the form of commitment and organization to

achieve the envisaged change. Regarding change, Gutiérrez states the following:

“Only a radical break from the status quo, that is, a

profound transformation of the private property system,

access to power of the exploited class, and a social

revolution that would break this dependence would allow

for the change to a new society, a socialist society - or at

least allow that such a society might be possible”

(Gutiérrez, 1988, p.17).

A third and also ‘radical’ view, that had an important impact in Brazil, is the

one sociologist Paulo Freire developed in Pedagogy of the Oppressed,

[Footnote #19] a work with some resemblance to both Marxist and Christian

thought (1970, p.21).[Footnote #20]

This pedagogy is expected to work as an instrument for raising people’s

own consciousness, which is seen as the first step for self-liberation, leading later

to a consciousness of the oppressed class (Freire, 1970, p.54, 174).

Concurrently, this approach emphasizes breaking with the existing social order

and working for the ‘transformation’ of society:

“‘Cultural revolution’ takes the total society to be

reconstructed, including all human activities, as the object

of its remolding action. Society cannot be reconstructed in

a mechanistic fashion; the culture which is culturally

recreated through revolution is the fundamental

instrument for this reconstruction. ‘Cultural revolution’ is

the revolutionary regime’s maximum effort at

conscientização [Footnote #21]- it should reach everyone,

regardless of his task” (Freire, 1970, p.157).

Consciousness, as Freire observes, is achieved through dialogue, and
 “dialogue is the essence of revolutionary action[Footnote

#22]” (1970, p.130).

H[Posted Note #10]ere, popular participation makes its entrance, for

according to Freire, consciousness cannot be achieved without praxis, nor can

liberation be achieved without involvement in the liberating process:[Footnote

#23]

“As they attain this knowledge of reality through common

reflection and action, they discover themselves as its

permanent recreators. In this way, the presence of the

oppressed in the struggle for their liberation will be what it

should be: not pseudo-participation, but committed

involvement” (Freire, 1970, p.56).

Marxism, Liberation Theology, and Pedagogy of the Oppressed share a

common view about society. In this view, society is dominated by conflict of

interests and inequality. For social justice to be achieved, there is the need of

radical changes in the present social order. Concerning the decision-making

process, and the role of popular participation in local government, some

implications of this idea should be stressed.

First, in terms of extent, this view necessarily implies the involvement of a

large part of the population. This is in contrast to the elite ruling in the previous

perspectives. In Freire’s view it would involve every individual[Posted Note

#11], for he says,

“consciousness of being an oppressed class must be

preceded (or at least accompanied) by achieving

consciousness of being oppressed individuals” (Freire,

1970, p.174).
Second, this view implies a degree of active involvement in the
transformation process. This means that people are expected to actually

influence decisions.[Footnote #24]

A third implication relates to the diversity this form of participation

acknowledges. A view of society that automatically stems from these three

interpretations is that society is organized in two main classes, with one class

dominating another; ‘Bourgeoisie and Proletariat,’ ‘Rich and Poor,’ or

‘Oppressors and Oppressed.’ In this perspective, the emphasis of participation

will be on the participation and ‘liberation’ of the lower class, considered in

contrast to an upper class. Consequently, gradations within the lower or upper

classes are not taken into account. This is why, as explained in the Introduction,

the term Popular, and not Public nor Citizen Participation is the one used in

Brazilian political discourse.

[Contents Entry #28]CONCEPTS OF DEMOCRACY
Democracy is a system of government, or “a form of organizing political

life” (Held, 1987, p.1), in which a set of rules define those authorized to make

public decisions and the standards that must be followed in the decision-making

process (Bobbio, 1984).

Different assumptions about who is entitled to decision-making and about

the autonomy and authority given to the local government distinguish concepts

on democracy and on the role of popular participation in the democratic

government. Regarding this, models of democracy can be arranged in two

general types, as in a categorization developed by Held (1987):[Footnote #25]

“Direct or participatory democracy (a system of decision-

making about public affairs in which citizens are directly

involved) and liberal or representative democracy (a

system of rule embracing elected ‘officers’ who undertake

to ‘represent’ the interest and/or views of citizens within

the framework of ‘the rule of the law’)” (Held, 1987, p.4).

[Contents Entry #29]Liberal versus Participatory Democracy
The two categories evidence the polarization of the concept of democracy

between the New Right and New Left thought (Held, 1987). The debate is split
between those that conceive decision-making power in the hands of

representatives of the people and those for whom decision-making power must

be in the hands of the people themselves.[Footnote #26] These positions

derive from fundamental assumptions regarding the nature of the State and of its

relationship with the social order.

Liberal democracy departs from the idea that individual freedom should be

the aim of a democratic society. The common good is accomplished through the

self-realization of individuals competing among themselves. This should happen

without the interference of the State, whose actions, basically influenced by

political groups, tend to restrict and impose upon individual rights (Held, 1987,

p.246). To achieve this competitive environment, the State has to be ‘rolled back’

resuming its activities as a promoter of social and economic development, and

assuming the role of guardian of the liberal order. The objective is to remove

from the State the ability to redistribute wealth and to control socioeconomic life,

including through planning. The natural control and equilibrium of the social

organization ought to happen within a free-market system (Held, 1987, p.246-7):

“The only legitimate organization (or mode of ordering) of

human and material resources is that contingently

negotiated by and through the unhindered activities of

individuals in competitive exchange with one another.

Accordingly, the only political institutions that can be

justified are those that uphold the framework for freedom,

that is, those that contribute to the maintenance of

individual autonomy or rights” (Held, 1987, p.245).

[Footnote #27]
Though restrained as a promoter of social processes, the “minimal State”

has to remain strong enough to guarantee that the order upon which such a

system is built is maintained.[Footnote #28] This function requires the

establishment of fundamental rules, enforced for the protection of the individual

against the possibility of oppression by the majority, or from those that speak for

the majority.

Participatory democracy theory criticizes the vision that both the market

and the state are autonomous and nondiscriminatory powers. In this perspective,

neither the state nor the free-market (with its oligopolistic and monopolistic

formations - Held, 1987, p.252), can be seen as impartial agents for the
coordination of social processes. In fact, the state is considered to act as the

keeper of the present capitalist order, serving the interests of the upper-class and

promoting the reproduction of existing social inequalities[Posted Note #12].

[Footnote #29]
Concurrently, the sharp delineation between private and public spheres

much emphasized by the New Right, is seen by New Left theorists as intertwined

(Held, 1987, p.256). Once the state appears as an influent agent in the social

process, it makes sense to advocate that individuals must be directly involved in

the public decision-making process. This guarantees a means of controlling the

biases of such process, and the implications it brings upon people.

Table 2, below, makes a comparison between Liberal and Participatory

democracy, the former presented as Legal Democracy, to stress its emphasis on

a ruling system instead of a decision-making system (Held, 1987, p.4).

Table 2: Comparison between Legal and Participatory Democracy

Theories[Footnote #30]
[Sidebar #4]

[Contents Entry #30]Participation within Concepts of Democracy

The different views about democracy comprise distinctive approaches

regarding the role of participation in democratic government. This distinction may

be explained on the basis of the allotment of decision-making power between

government and the population. A typology developed in an article by Arnstein

(1969) presents a clear picture of this matter.[Footnote #31] It consists of an

eight-level scale (a ‘ladder’) that ranges from manipulation to citizen control:

“The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and

(2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels of

‘nonparticipating’ that have been contrived by some to

substitute for genuine participation. Their real objective is

not to enable people to participate in planning or

conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to

‘educate’ or ‘cure’ the participants. Rungs 3 and 4

progress to levels of ‘tokenism’ that allow the have-nots to

hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing and (4)

Consultation.[Sidebar #5] When they are proffered by

powerholders as the total extent of participation, citizens

may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions

they lack the power to insure that their views will be

heeded by the powerful. When participation is restricted to

these levels, there is no followthrough, no ‘muscle,’ hence

no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5)

Placation, is simply a higher level of tokenism because the

groundrules allow have-nots to advise, but retain for the

powerholders the continued right to decide. Further up the

ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees

of decision-making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6)

Partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in

trade-offs with traditional powerholders. At the topmost

rungs, (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have-

not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats,

or full managerial power” (Arnstein, 1969, p.217).

Arnstein’s typology serves to clarify the distinction between liberal
democracy and participatory democracy and the meaning participation assumes

in each one. These different views were arranged in Figure 4, below, to define

another continuum. It aims at illustrating variations concerning the role of popular

participation in local democratic government.

Figure 4: Concepts of Democracy

This continuum is divided in three parts. In the middle, there is what

Arnstein (1969) calls evidence of tokenism; that is, various degrees of

information exchange between the population and the government without

effective decision-making authority. At one of the extremes, associated with

liberal democracy theory, participation is merely a means for information

exchange between government and population.

The participatory democracy view is represented at the other extreme.

People are expected to take active part and to affect the decision-making

process.[Footnote #32] This condition will be termed power sharing, to

illustrate the idea of transfer of control from government to citizens. The problem

now is to characterize participation in each of the polar extremes.

Participation as Information Exchange[Contents Entry #31]

Information exchange is a necessary dimension of any participation

process. Moreover, it is fundamental to any government, because of the need of

some sort of popular support for its continuation. Democratic governments, in

particular, have their political authority constantly and increasingly challenged. As

a basic condition of their democratic character, they must abide by a set of

decision-making procedures that tend to be complicated and time consuming,

and that are accompanied by demands that overwhelm its means and the

mechanisms it has to respond.[Footnote #33] Therefore, to alleviate conflict

within the rules of democracy, and striving for political survival, governments

search for legitimation through some sort of citizen involvement. The rationale is

that individuals will be more likely to accept a decision if they are part of it, so that

the costs of the democratic process can be shared among all.

This reasoning could be extended to generalize the idea that in

democratic governments extensive participation of some sort[Footnote #34] is

unavoidable. However, though the number of people involved is a relevant

issue, this observation does not account for the quality of participation, that is, for

the degree of influence people exert upon the decision-making process and the

relevance of the matters they decide upon.

Regarding this, a practical classification[Footnote #35] distinguishes

between instrumental and consummative participation. Instrumental is the kind of

participation oriented towards specific ends, as to manifest public opinion

regarding specific issues, therefore justifying governmental decision-making.

Consummative participation is participation as an end in itself, that is, it

expresses a concern with the process of making decisions.

In Liberal Democracy theory, the sort of participation emphasized is the

instrumental one. In this view, government should not be involved with politics.

[Footnote #36] Its role is the maintenance of the free-market system, the

medium where politics is expected to happen. In this case, there is no

opportunity nor need for citizen involvement, therefore a form of representative

democracy is likely to be the response to local politics.

Participation is seen as an enabler of a two-way flow of information that

improves the quality of governmental decision-making, accrediting authorities as

interpreters of the public good and, therefore, permitting claims of good

government, and of elite superiority, definitions that seem to be synonymous in

terms of their underlying concepts of democracy. This has been the main

rationale for the adoption of a popular participation program by traditional

administrators because, through participation, governments collect information,

educate citizens, find support for their initiatives and programmes, etc.[Footnote

#37] (Glass, 1979). Moreover, popular participation fulfills legal requirements,

and pays lip service to popular demand,[Footnote #38] contributing to

governmental legitimization.

This matter of legitimization, as it was stressed, is of particular importance,

because it eventually emphasizes the need for extensive instrumental

participation, that is, many taking part in a participatory process, without sharing

the power of making decisions.

Participation as Power Sharing[Contents Entry #32]

Power sharing is at the opposite end of the continuum in relation to

‘information exchange.’ Although they are not contradictory concepts, this

arrangement helps to stress differences between governments in which only

information flow is emphasized (as in the case of populist governments) and

those where people can effectively have a say in governmental affairs, taking

part in the decision-making process.

The idea of power sharing has no meaning if a theory of a consensual

society is in place. In a society that perceives itself as generally consensual, it

does not matter who governs. Those that have authority will invariably exercise it

for the benefit of the collectivity from which they belong. In this situation, the role

of government is to work for the interest of the public, pursuing the common
good. However, if the city is comprised of different and incompatible interests, the

idea of public good vanishes, and the question of who is in charge of the

decision-making process becomes extremely important because those in charge

are not interest-free, but are expected to favour the social groups they originally

come from.

Participatory theory follows through this line of reasoning to stress that

democracy is rule by the people, in contrast to the monopolization of government

by a few. The relevant point is not exchange of information, but power sharing,

that is, people exerting control over decisions. Hill explains that,

“the argument for greater citizen participation is an

argument about power. Power is the crucial issue; who is

to decide local policy and where control is to lie, are

central” (Hill, 1974, p.157).

Therefore, in participatory democratic thought participation is a means for

effective citizen power.[Footnote #39] Citizens, excluded from political

processes because of despotic or hierarchical bureaucracies, must regain their

decision-making powers. It is a matter of extent, degree, and diversity of

participation. Extensive participation is part of participatory democracy thought,

as a consequence of the understanding that different interests permeate social

life. This understanding also tends to emphasize the need of the presence of

different social groups in the decision-making process. A high degree of citizen

influence is also demanded. It is a response to the need of involvement of those

directly interested in the governing process.

[Contents Entry #33]CONCEPTS OF RATIONALITY
In order to discuss concepts of social change and democracy, the

questions pursued before were: (1) In relation to the perceived social context,

what goals should social actions aim to achieve? and (2) Who should make

decisions that involve social processes? The question now is: (3) On what basis

are decisions justified?[Posted Note #13][Footnote #40] Or, in other words,

what makes a decision to be accepted as rationally driven? It aims at

distinguishing between concepts about rationality in planning and public

administration. These concepts are concerned with the legitimacy of the

decision-making process and the reasoning that entitles decision-makers to

decide for the population. Regarding this, Kiernan[Posted Note #14] explains

that there is

“a sharp distinction between two different modes of

rationality: one apolitical and technocratic, the other

political and, not only admitting the legitimacy of value

questions, but self-consciously bound up in them”

(Kiernan, 1983, p.77).

[Contents Entry #34]Legitimacy of Technical and Participatory

Rationality
Public decisions, generally dealing with the allocation of scarce resources,

must occur within socially acceptable parameters, which comprise both political

(value based) and technical (‘value-free’) elements (Friedmann, 1967-1968;

Gondim, 1988b). In political terms, the legitimacy and correspondent success of

a decision-making procedure varies according to values held in society (Grant,

1994b, p.215), though socially held values may be regarded as the expression of

the interaction of different groups holding different values. Moreover, a decision

has to be accountable, meaning that it must be in accordance with available

information and resources, and with accepted knowledge.

To be in accordance with accepted knowledge is to respect technical

paradigms held to be legitimate in informing and orienting the decision-making

process. These technical paradigms are not only formulated within scholarly

environments but, as Friedmann points out, popular notions about the nature of a

‘rational’ decision-making procedure also inform its evaluation. This requires

decisions and the decision-making process to ‘appear rational’ as a condition for

its full acceptance (Friedmann, 1967-1968). Public decisions and procedures are,

then, bounded by these two interwoven political and technical parameters which

must be fulfilled to be considered legitimate.

Popular participation as a procedure for public decision-making is also

bounded by political and technical parameters. Assumptions deriving from these

parameters provide references that enable the process of participation to be

termed or not as rational.

Generally speaking, the views about participation can be divided into

those that tend to exclude and those that emphasize its role as a rational

procedure in public decision-making. They are based on concepts that will be

termed here[Posted Note #15] technical rationality and participatory

rationality, which consist of two different modes of legitimacy of participation in

the decision-making process.

The following table, presents some elements that constitute the two

different views of rationality:

 Table 3 : Comparison between Technical and Participatory

Rationality[Posted Note #16]

[Sidebar #6]It should be noted that the emphasis on the idea of participatory
rationality is associated with the rational-comprehensive paradigm breakdown in the
1960s and the progressive displacement of technical rationality as a decision-making
standard. Smith (1973) suggests three phases within the historical development of
planning thought. He argues that

“there has been a gradual shift in the mode of justifying

planning action: from rational - the most efficient means

to unquestioned ends, to consensual - the endorsement

and support of vested interest groups, to participatory - a

new regard for the ‘user’” (Smith, 1973, p.277).

According to Smith’s categorization, rational decision-making[Posted

Note #17] is generally restricted to technical rationality (1973, p.277). Its focus

is on defining the most effective means towards given ends, and it assumes to be

a value-free process dealt with within technical circles.

In consensual decision-making, participation is the mechanism for bringing

different interests together, therefore, achieving consensus regarding the

distributional effects of the decision-making process (Boaden, 1980). However,

as the legitimacy of a consensual decision depends on the range of interests

brought together within the government-controlled process, it demands the

increase of bureaucratic regulation of existing resources (which tends to hinder

innovation) and eventually a reduction in the number of issues that can be

decided by the public (Smith, 1973, p.279).

According to Smith, the third phase in the development of planning

thought led to the emergence of participatory decision-making. This involves

participation as a value in itself, emphasizing the process, therefore surpassing

the mere pursuit of outcomes (Smith, 1973).

 Although Smith’s (1973) analysis of the progressive acceptance of a

participatory rationality in planning and public administration may explain the

paradigm shift towards participatory rationality, the fact is that the technical view

persists at the present time, functioning as an important element of rhetoric, as

an argument with incontestable legitimacy (and neutrality), at least within the

organizational culture of public institutions.[Footnote #41] Regarding this,

Fischer notes that

“although technocratic elites still remain formally

subordinate to political and economic elites, their world

view and decision techniques now play prominent roles in

the governance of modern corporate-bureaucratic

institutions, the dominant power structures of modern

society” (Fischer, 1996, p.486).

[Contents Entry #35]Participation within Concepts of Rationality

Technical rationality and participatory rationality fit appropriately to set out

the third continuum of this work (Figure 5). At one extreme, technical rationality,

incremental participation is emphasized, and a rationally based decision is that

informed by technical elements. At the other extreme, participatory rationality,

consummative participation is the procedure considered to be rational in making

decisions.

Figure 5: Concepts of Rationality

 Participation and Technical Rationality[Contents Entry #36]
Technical rationality emphasis is on the outcomes,[Footnote #42] in

contrast to a participatory view which emphasizes the process of decision-

making. It is said to be,

“normatively neutral in that its principal criterion is

efficiency in the attainment of externally defined goals

and objectives” (Friedmann, 1993, p.483).

Rationality is itself the normative goal of the decision-making process

(Friedmann, 1969; Kiernan, 1983), thus, the object of concern is the quality of

decisions made within the logic of the planned action. Healey explains this

rational method as:

“the systematic and explicit relation of ends to means and

vice versa, the logical presentation of argument, and the

systematic relation of evidence to argument” (Healey,

1983).
Another characteristic of the technical rationality view is related to the

location of knowledge able to inform decisions.[Footnote #43] City

administrators and other professionals with technical education hold knowledge

(technical knowledge) that is universally accepted as sufficient to advise public

decision-making. Lay citizens, on the other hand, lack both the appropriate

technical skills and technical language to adequately communicate with the

precision and depth the matter requires. For this, lay people are regarded as

being unable to participate and contribute effectively in the development of

solutions for public problems. In this view, people are mere beneficiaries and

passive actors in the process (Korten, 1983, p.185). This is probably the main

point of divergence with the participatory rationality view discussed next.

For now, it is important to note that the implications of such a standpoint

on popular participation are related to the dismissal of citizens involvement,

either in extent or degree. Participation assumes a purely instrumental role in

decision-making.

Participation in a Participatory Rationality Perspective[Contents

Entry #37]
In the participatory rationality view, decision-making is perceived as

normative in nature, meshing ethical and technical elements, and contingent on

the environmental conditions within which they are made. Therefore it should

involve the conscious acknowledgment of values and the social impacts that

come from it (Kiernan, 1983, p.80). Moreover, because normative elements and

goals are part of the decision-making process, they are subject to evaluation and

change in the course of action.[Footnote #44] Poulton summarizes such

thinking with the following argument:[Footnote #45]

“If planning is a social or community activity then the way

social action is mobilized matters. The essence of the

planning process may not be in directing means at ends

but in managing modes of expression and legitimizing

decisions” (Poulton, n.d., p.15).

Planning, according to the participatory view, is a medium for social

interaction (Klosterman, 1983; Grant, 1994; Grant, 1994b); a problem-setting, not

a problem-solving activity (Crosta, 1990). Therefore, the efficiency of participation

is not only related to its decisions and direct outcomes, but to the opportunity of

social interaction that occurs in the process itself. Whereas, in a technical

rationality view, popular participation as a decision-making process is criticized

for being inefficient, costly and time consuming, advocates of popular

participation defend its positive effects on city life. They emphasize that in a
institutionalized form it minimizes confrontations and

“enables the setting up of new frameworks, organization

and norms which serve as channels of exchange and

which aim at ensuring the relatively smooth functioning of

societal processes” (Mabogunje, 1981, p.104).[Footnote

#46]
An observation that adds to this concept of ‘participatory rationality’ comes

from Toffler, for whom

“the less democratic feedback (and feedforward), the

more decisions become divorced from reality, and the

greater the danger that errors will go uncorrected until

they escalate into crisis. Democracy, in this sense, is not

just theoretically ‘nice’ - it is highly ‘efficient’” (Toffler,

1984, p.258. Original from 1978).

Regarding knowledge, in the participatory view, the idea of an

autonomous and purely technical expertise is considered to be mystifying and

deceitful, because specialized technicians as well as lay people possess different

but complementary forms of knowledge[Posted Note #18]. City administrators

and other professionals have technical knowledge that enables a perception of

problems within a broader context, with emphasis towards technical aspects of

any given situation. Lay people have a knowledge (folk knowledge) that comes

from daily life experience, and this gives them appropriate and privileged insights

into the specificities of the context.

Additionally, as ultimate users, from lay people will come the criteria for

the evaluation of the solutions proposed. Therefore, contrary to the technical

rationality perspective, people are expected to play an active role in the decision-

making process. This way, participation assumes a fundamental role in the

decision-making process. Not only is it required to be extensive in the sense that

the more people participate the better, but in that it stresses a high level of power

by citizens in influencing or making decisions. In this view, participation is

consummative in character, the process itself - not only its results - is regarded

as a positive aspect in dealing with the different interests in the city.

[Contents Entry #38]INTERPLAY OF CONCEPTS
So far, three categories of concepts that affect the role of popular

participation in local government have been discussed. Concepts of social

change were related to the context within which planning and administrative

decisions are made: the ideas of a consensual or conflicting society and

subsequent expectations of stability or transformation. Concepts about

democracy were related to divergent views of the definition of who is entitled to

decide and of the adequate distribution of power among citizens. The third

category of concepts concerns the theoretical basis that legitimizes the decision-

making process.[Posted Note #19]

Working with the three sets of concepts, different scenarios can be

formulated, two of which deserving to be mentioned. First, if society is treated as

consensual, institutional provisions will lead to a favouring of the elite in terms of

decision-making power and the use of technical rationality in decision-making.

Extensive participation will be limited to specific situations. However, if conflict is

stressed in society, then a different scenario is configured. In this case, to quote

Simmie,

“assumptions about internally generated values and

unanimity are not satisfactory a priori foundations upon

which to construct any theory about the way in which

different groups interact” (Simmie, 1974, p.36).When such

situation is perceived and addressed, an extensive array of

interests may be represented in the public decision-making process

and citizens may, eventually, become influential in city government.

The Brazilian context for the emergence of the idea of participation, as will

be argued in the next chapter, was similar to the second scenario, that is, a

society with conflicting interests and groups. Notwithstanding, even if the conflict
situation is addressed and provisions are designed to allow every group,

particularly disempowered ones, to participate in decisions, the idea of

participation may imply one course of action while praxis implies another one.

This discrepancy represents the case of Vitória.

Such difference is not clearly perceived as it is diluted within the diversity

of discourse regarding participation and of activities of local government that

carry on, in some degree, participatory practices. Therefore, it is necessary to

uncover the assumptions that underlie theory and institution of participation. The

three sets of concepts, social order, democracy, and rationality, were studied to

enable standards for the comparison of theory and institution of participation in

Brazilian local government[Posted Note #20].

[Contents Entry #39]CHAPTER III

PARTICIPATION IDEOLOGY
 Chapter III is divided into three sections. The first one introduces the

concept of ideology as a product of social movements. The second section is a

brief historical account of the social context of democratic transition in Brazil and

the development of ‘popular associations.’ In this process, special attention is

given to the agencies of the Left and the Catholic Church. The last section aims

at unveiling the assumptions that underlie the idea of popular participation as it

emerged within Brazilian democratization. This is done by analyzing the three

sets of concepts discussed in the previous chapter.

[Contents Entry #40]IDEOLOGY, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND
DEMOCRACY
The idea of popular participation emerged during the mid 1970s in Brazil

as part of a country-wide coalition of social movements that had in common a

concern with Brazilian democratization (Mainwaring, 1987). A social movement is

defined as a collective effort toward social change.[Posted Note #21] Its

genesis and agenda are formulated through a system of mostly normative ideas,

defined as an ideology.[Footnote #47]

[Contents Entry #41]The Concept of Ideology

Generally speaking, an ideology consists of collective beliefs, ideas, and

attitudes, not necessarily articulated or explicitly enunciated, but interrelated to

some degree into a system.[Footnote #48] It contains statements of facts (or

elements deemed to be factual) which provide a basis for the advancement of

values, expressed through normative statements related to society, its nature

and preferred situation[Footnote #49] (Hamilton, 1987). These values serve as

parameters - a cognitive structure - with which to perceive reality and to permit

actions to be judged and decisions to be made. In this sense, an ideology may

function to legitimate actions, or to provide the rationale for changing the social

order (Christenson, 1981).

It can be said that an ideology comprises a diagnosis, an idealization and

a prescription. A diagnosis of the present situation is the main aspect of the

ideological system, for it establishes the basis for any other reasoning, defining

factual elements that are deemed to be relevant for the ideology itself. An

idealization of a model situation consists of mainly normative elements, and

serves as a standard to be contrasted to present circumstances. A prescription

defines, through action-oriented standards, how to achieve the ideal situation

(Johnston, 1995).
 However, the balance between these normative and factual elements will

vary over the movement’s life. As the movement matures (mature phase), the

ideology tends to become more elaborated, incorporating elements with closer

relationship to contemporary notions of scientific knowledge and, therefore,

depending less on idealistic or dogmatic assumptions that are more clearly

present in the movement’s emergent phase (Melucci, 1992, p.59).

[Contents Entry #42]Ideology and Social Movements

The relationship between ideology[Posted Note #22] and a social

movement is relevant because it is through the former that the latter constructs

its identity. Ideology is a symbolic production of a social movement [Footnote

#50] and is characterized by the existence of three interrelated elements: the

definition of the social actor (the identity of the collective actor), the identification

of its adversary, and the determination of collective goals[Footnote #51]

(Touraine, 1977; Touraine, 1981; Melucci, 1992). These elements are

necessarily interrelated. Touraine explains that

“the identity of the actor cannot be defined independently

of the real conflict with the adversary and of recognition of

the stake of the struggle”[Footnote #52] (Touraine, 1977,

p.312).
Therefore, the self-image of the social movement is dependent on the

characterization it makes of the adversary[Footnote #53] against whom it

fights for the achievement of objectives that are presented as a greater collective

good.[Footnote #54]

“Ideology also stabilizes a set of relationships among

these elements which serve, on the one hand, to legitimize

the actor, and, on the other, to negate any social identity

 to the opponent. By declaring that s/he fights for a goal

which belongs to him/her, but which goes beyond his/her

own immediate interests, a collective actor always tries to

affirm the general legitimacy of the action. By at the same

time indicating the opponent as the major obstacle to the

attainment of this goal or to the realization of this

objective, the actor negates the adversary’s right to a

social statute or to any form of legitimacy.

The connection between the particularism of the actor and

some general values (truth, freedom, justice,

emancipation, etc.) is a key mechanism of the framing

activity of a collective actor. A link of necessity is

established between the role of the actor and some kind of

totality to be reached through his/her action. The actor is

the true interpreter of this totality, which always has

positive attributes, in cultural, political or moral terms. On

the other hand, the adversary is seen as only having a

negative relationship to the totality: s/he is in fact the very

obstacle that prevents general needs from being satisfied,

or social goals from being attained” (Melucci, 1992, p.57).

This ideological construct assumes two main functions. First, an

integrative function,[Footnote #55] because it consolidates a notion of unity.

This unity is accomplished through the assimilation of different interests into a

common definition of the goals and the grounds on which goals will be pursued

(Melucci, 1992, p.49).

The integration of diverse identities into a unity occurs, as Melucci points

out, through the agency of two utopian components, active in the emergence of a
social movement. One is the “negation of the gap” between present and future

situations which helps to extend the idea that goals can be accomplished right

away.[Posted Note #23] The other is the idea of “rebirth . . . a return to an

intemporal past”[Footnote #56] which aims to provide the legitimacy of the

claims of the actor (Melucci, 1992, p.58). These two elements enable the

development of bonds between the different identities within the social

movement.[Posted Note #24]

The other function of an ideology in a social movement is strategic. An

ideology is responsible for the advancement of a movement’s position in the

social and political environment, thereby enabling the movement to earn support

and consensus for its cause among other groups in society (Melucci, 1992, p.61).

What has been stressed above is that ideologies result from the

articulation that is made between actor, adversary and goals. They are,

therefore, peculiar to political, socioeconomic and historical contexts[Posted

Note #25]. In the case of Brazil, it was said, the idea of popular participation

developed within the process of the relaxation of the military regime. What the

next section will show is that Brazilian concept of participation was regarded as

the ideological prescription for the achievement of democratic ideals.

[Contents Entry #43]HISTORICAL PROCESS AND IDEOLOGY
Brazilian democratization was an intricate political process. It was started

by the military in 1974 as a top-down process called ‘Abertura

Política,’[Footnote #57] or just ‘Abertura.’ With the progressive relaxation,

popular pressure started to develop, adding a bottom-up orientation to the

process. In this dialectic situation, it is peculiar that the bulk of transformations -

especially regarding the strengthening and organization of civil society - occurred

within a still authoritarian and strong regime. The following citation aims to give

an idea of the perplexing and paradoxical situation experienced by Brazilian

scholars:

“For many Brazilians one of the most puzzling aspects of

our recent history is that without any breakdown of the

State apparatus, without any loss of military coercive

capacity, civil society grew stronger, and, most important,

in a society with many layers of authoritarianism there

nonetheless was a deepening, a quickening of democratic

aspirations” (Cardoso, 1989, p.311. Originally written in

1983).[Footnote #58]
One characteristic that deserves attention in Brazilian ‘Abertura’ was the

consensus built around the idea of democratization. Explaining how it was forged

is the objective of this section. It also pursues the question of why that consensus

was formulated in terms of participatory democracy.

[Contents Entry #44]Socioeconomic Background of Brazilian

Democratization
In the Brazilian transition towards democracy there were socioeconomic

factors contributing to the disruption of popular support for the military regime.
This support had been partially based on the notion of political stability and

economic efficiency. However, as the economic situation began to deteriorate, so

did the regime situation. Some of the media also played a role in the loss of

popularity experienced by the regime, by casting it in a negative light (Cardoso,

1986-87). However, the economic situation played a more important role.

Social inequality has been a distinctive feature of Brazilian society. In

1991, according to the last census, 34.4% of total income of the working

population was concentrated in the hands of the top 5%, and 13.9% with the

richer 1% (Oliveira, 1993, p.32). The same 1991 census, shows a total of 27% of

the Brazilian urban population living in absolute poverty, that is, with wages

clearly insufficient to serve basic needs (conditions aggravated by the lack of

access to public amenities).

Vitória, like the majority of Brazilian cities is also a place of social

contrasts, with wealthy neighbourhoods and poor slums sharing the city territory.

Its 258,777 inhabitants (IBGE, 1995) represent 20% of the metropolitan area,

and although the gap between rich and poor is less significant than in the

neighbouring cities, approximately 40% of the families have an income of not

more than five minimal salaries,[Footnote #59] which represents a very low

standard of life (Vitória, 1996).

These statistics represent the climax of a continuous deterioration of

socioeconomic life in which a paradox has developed. On the one hand, the

economy of the country from the 1950s to the 1980s, grew ten times, with a four

fold growth in the per capita income (Oliveira, 1993, p.9). On the other hand,

research reveals a greater income concentration among fewer Brazilians during

the same period.

The following table, extracted from Cardoso (1989, p.305), gives an

adequate picture of the income concentration, which Oliveira (1993) connects to

the presence of the military regime and its policies of wage compression and

political constraints.

Table 4: Income Distribution Along Time[Footnote #60]

SOCIAL STRUCTURAL INDICATORS 1960 1970 1980

Population 70,992,000 94,509,000 121,080,000

Gross Domestic Product 23,774,000 42,885,000 97,838,000

% of GNP to Poorest 50% of Population 17.7 15.0 14,2

% of GNP to Richest 1% of Population 11.9 14.7 16,9

Gini Index of Inequality 0.499 0.565 0.580By the mid

1970s, the military regime started to show signs of weakening. It had difficulties

both in maintaining economic development and in controlling social and political

conflicts. Its legitimacy, based on economic efficiency, started to erode as the

economy deteriorated.

Soares observes four major economic factors in the loss of popular

support for the regime. First, the high levels of inflation, which started to increase

in 1973, reaching 34.5% in 1974, 110.2% in 1980 and 211.0% in 1983[Footnote

#61] (Soares, 1986, p.292). This was twice as high as just prior to the coup

d’état in 1964, which served as one of the pretexts for the coup itself, but this

time, the military were the ones thought to have lost control over the country’s

economy.

The second factor contributing to the loss of support for the government

was the generalized depression in the country’s economy as the per capita

growth rates started to fall in 1981. This was accompanied by a third but

correlated issue, the increase in unemployment (Soares, 1986, p.292; also

Hasenbalg and Silva, 1987).

The last factor in Soares’ list is economic in substance but nationalistic in

function. It was the general criticism of the government’s endorsement of the

International Monetary Fund - IMF economic agenda for the country. These were

perceived as the interference[Footnote #62] of international agents over

Brazilian sovereignty (Soares, 1986).

The economic harshness initially disrupted support for the government on

two fronts. On the one hand, the entrepreneurial class refuted the recessive IMF

policies. On the other hand, the salaried middle class disapproved of wage

depressing policies, as they experienced a progressive loss of acquisitive power

since 1979 (worsened with the IMF in 1982). Lower classes remained with their

purchasing power more or less intact,[Footnote #63] although, as the

government signed with the IMF, even these suffered wage reduction,[Footnote

#64] resulting in a greater diminution of the political support for the military

(Soares, 1986).

In a paper on ‘the Social Bases of the Transition to Democracy in Brazil,’

Rochon and Mitchell (1989) provided some statistical evidence of a loss of

support for the military regime, and of changes in attitude among Brazilians. The

following table shows that economic difficulties were interpreted as incompetence

of the government in providing economic improvement:[Footnote #65]

Table 5: Popular Perceptions of Policy Failures[Footnote #66]PERCEPTION 

OF POLICY FAILURES 1972 1982

Levelling income differences 49.2% 76.4%

Efficient Government 20.4% 69.7%

Promoting home ownership 34.2% 48.5%

Promoting medical/social welfare 25.2% 40.2%

Promoting Education 20.5%23.5%This notion

of governmental incompetence in making economic improvement was

accompanied by a parallel growth of the idea that political change was

necessary, as demonstrated in the following table:

Table 6: Expressions of Desire for Political Change[Footnote #67]

DESIRE FOR POLITICAL CHANGE (Democratic Institutions) 1972 1982

Opposed to military in politics 20.8% 48.3%

Less control over unions 7.4% 41.6%

Positive attitude to parties 51.2% 70.8%

In favor of direct elections 56.8%81.8%Rochon

and Mitchell (1989) contend that aside from the perception of failure of the

military government and the increased expectation for political change, as shown

in the tables above, there was, at the same time, an expectation for electoral

accountability. These changes of opinion not only demonstrated a loss of

legitimacy for the military regime but also expressed popular expectations

towards a democratic form of government (Rochon and Mitchell, 1989, p. 310).

It is in this context that one is able to see the democratic flowering of the

country in the 1980s. Economic difficulties were accompanied by presidential

elections, the development of popular associations, new political parties, etc.

These resulted from the process of relaxation of the military regime and from

popular pressure that developed around a consensus towards the country’s

redemocratization.

[Contents Entry #45]Ideologies in Brazilian Democratization

Consensus about democratization does not necessarily imply consensus

around models of democracy. In fact, Chapter II has shown the possibility of

different viewpoints regarding the nature of democracy[Posted Note #26]. It

should be added now that the coexistence of these diverse viewpoints is

characteristic of Brazilian pluralistic and stratified society.

They are disputed among different segments of society and are informed

by different underlying assumptions. In this sense, to postulate that the quest for

democratization united different segments and that the idea of popular

participation (participatory democracy) had a predominance over other

democratic alternatives in the ‘Abertura’ period demands certain explanations.

Three Perspectives on the Democratization[Contents Entry #46]

According to Cardoso, the growth of democratic thought in Brazil had

three different schools of interpretation: a functionalist, associated with liberal

democrat thought; a Statist, associated with liberal conservative thought; and a

grassroots one[Footnote #68] (Cardoso, 1989). They provide a fine picture of

the historical momentum when the different ideas coexisted.

The first school (functionalist) saw the quest for democracy as the result of

socioeconomic development within the bureaucratic-authoritarian State. The

explanation was that as this extended its bureaucratic apparatus authoritarianism

became limited to the comprehensiveness of its machinery, generating a ‘gap

between the State and civil society.’ Concurrently, with economic development

and social differentiation, there was a progressive strengthening of social classes

and consequent demand for autonomy[Posted Note #27] (Cardoso, 1989,

p.312).

The Statist perspective[Footnote #69] contended that in the quest for

‘good government’ the State opened ways for democracy. This view perceived

State modernization, or efficiency, as the origin and main element in the support

of democratic institutions. State efficiency meant the ability to serve as mediator

between competing interests and interpreter of the public good (Cardoso, 1989,

p.313).
 The grassroots school, according to Cardoso’s typology, perceived

intrinsic structural biases in capitalist development. These biases were

responsible for the maintenance of class differentiation. Its perspective of the

democratization process relies mainly on ideas of communal solidarity and

isolation from the State.[Footnote #70]

These three visions of the democratization process present an overview of

Brazilian ideological context in the 1970s and early 1980s. The views also

entailed three different perspectives on the kind of democratization expected

and, particularly, on the subjects of democratization[Footnote #71] (Cardoso,

1989, p.313).

The functional liberal democrats stressed the necessity of a competitive

regime where the State maintains the order, but is legitimated through elections

and delegation of powers whose objective was to

“ensure the sovereignty of the citizen as ‘political being’

par excellence, the individual as the subject of history”

(Cardoso, 1989, p.313).

The Statist or liberal conservative view, according to Cardoso, advocated

the State as guardian of the public good and will.[Footnote #72] With this role,

the State demanded an elite able to control it, and a system of representation to

provide some input (and input only) about the ‘Nation’s aspirations’ (Cardoso,

1989, p.314).

Finally, in the grassroots view, the idea was that democratization would be

achieved through organized and autonomous groups pursuing their own

demands.[Footnote #73] It stressed the need to give expression to collective

(not individual, nor State) emancipating demands in order to give concrete form

to the idea of democracy.

Different and active democratic ideas, particularly the statist and the
grassroots ones (Cardoso, 1989, p.314), coexisted at the time of the Brazilian

‘Abertura.’ However, with the formation of new collective organizations (political

parties, labour unions and popular associations), their materialization into

programs and strategies was not as hermetic as the typology suggests.

The Construction of Unity[Contents Entry #47]

As the political relaxation process started to develop, there were different

interwoven ideological strains within the emerging parties or organized groups.

Cardoso (1989, p.315) explains that even in parties leaning towards a liberal

democratic perspective, there was an acknowledgement of the importance of

participation of the working class for the attainment of democratization.

Concurrently, from the grassroots perspective, despite trends of avoiding State

interference, there was an emphasis on the institutionalization of organizations,

as a way to give authoritative expression to movements’ demands.

In this process, the fact that diverse ideas converged into an aggregating

one, democracy, deserves consideration. As one examines the social context in

the ‘Abertura Política,’ it becomes clear that this was accomplished through the

constitution of a sort of ‘ideology of democracy,’ which helped to

integrate[Footnote #74] conflicting viewpoints into a single unity.

One can see that this ideology of democracy was constructed following

the organization of ideologies in general, as discussed in the previous section of

this chapter. First, there was the definition of the actor’s identity or name: civil

society. This identity is defined in relation to the other elements of the context

within which the ideology exists. The adversary is the authoritarian State, against

which Brazilian society struggled in an emancipatory effort for the attainment of

the collective goals, that is, democracy. Cardoso makes these observations very

clear in the following extract:

 “Everything which was an organized fragment which

escaped the immediate control of the authoritarian order

was being designated civil society. Not rigorously but

effectively, the whole opposition - from the Church, the

press, the university, the professional corporations, to the

unions, business, and the parties - was being described as

if it were the movement of civil society” (Cardoso, 1989,

p.318).

The Legitimation of the Collective[Contents Entry #48]

Earlier sections examined the ways in which an economic reality

developed into a consensus about democratization. However, attention must be

paid to the fact that despite the coexistence and integration of different

viewpoints about democracy, the political demands of the ‘Abertura’ were

characterized by a predominance of the collectivist concepts. This concept

advocated a more radical approach to democracy, that is, participatory

democracy.

Chapter I suggested that the term popular participation emphasizes the

participation of collectives, instead of individuals. Corroborating that explanation,

Cardoso observes that the emergence of collectivist notions appear

“even on the level of vocabulary and semantics: for the

old I of the leader, today is substituted a gente - an

expression that was rarely used in past decades and which

expresses something similar to the on of French - the

indeterminate subject - expanded with the concrete sense

of ‘those present.’ To the extent that the democratizing

demand today comes drenched with this character,

 destabilizing politico-institutional consequences are

nourished” (Cardoso, 1989, p. 323).

In fact, the first half of the 1980s was marked by both an emphasis on

collective decision making and a challenge of authority[Posted Note #28]

(Cardoso, 1989, p. 323). Concurrently, as Brazilian politics tended to be elitist

(Mainwaring, 1987, p.133),[Footnote #75] the concern with a channel through

which lower classes could participate represented a departure from traditional

practices, strengthening “collectives-popular subjects[Footnote #76]”

(Cardoso, 1989, p.323), and challenging previous institutional modes of

operation, like delegation of power to representatives.[Footnote #77] The

consequence is that, in Brazilian democratization,

“the classical theory of delegation and representation,

closely linked to the conception of citizen-elector

(individual and rational being), is put in check, often

through the strength of the ‘collective we[Posted Note

#29]’” (Cardoso, 1989, p.323).

Thus, the grassroots perspective outlined by Cardoso is of particular

interest to the study of popular participation in Brazil. It may explain the unfolding

of the quest for democracy into the idea of popular participation as a the result of

an overall influence that the grassroots perspective exerted upon Brazilian

political culture[Posted Note #30][Posted Note #31]. This influence

occurred, as the next part will show, through the action of some specific

organizations.

[Contents Entry #49]Popular Movements and Democracy in Brazil

The translation[Posted Note #32][Posted Note #33] of perceived

economic difficulties into ideas of democracy and, moreover, into ideas of

participatory democracy, is not a straightforward operation. In fact, whereas

concrete difficulties are perceived by groups, the ‘identification’ of their

determinant reasons that may lead to a rejoining action depend on the mediation

of frameworks of reference[Footnote #78] (Mainwaring, 1987), which enable

interpretations to be made and validated. They also permit decisions and actions

to be legitimated. Here again, ideologies come into play.[Posted Note #34]

An ideology provides not only an interpretation of the current situation (a

diagnosis) but also a definition of possible goals (an idealization) and of possible

forms of action (a prescription). Moreover, an ideology defines a collective

identity. But, through which processes is the collective identity constructed within

popular movements? It requires the agency of external elements which bring to

the social process new and critical viewpoints that contribute to it.[Footnote

#79]
In the Brazilian case two important mediating agents were the Catholic

Church, through its Ecclesial Base Communities; and the Left, in particular the

Workers’ Party.[Footnote #80] These institutions made different contributions

to the development of the ideology of popular participation and movement

construction in Brazil.

The Church promoted the idea of solidary communities, thus contributing

in an emergent phase of the ideology both through the agency in the formation of

cell groups and with the idealistic elements - ‘negation of the gap’ and the idea of

‘rebirth’ - that characterize the ideology and enable the unity of a movement. The

Workers’ Party - PT, in a more mature phase, carried on the idea of participatory

democracy to a more elaborated definition, and helped in the translation of

groups’ aspirations in terms of articulated political ideas. The PT also contributed

to the strategic organization of social movements on a country-wide basis (see

Mainwaring, 1987, p.146).

 As this work develops, the role of these two agents in Brazilian

democratization and in the idea of popular participation is examined. An attempt

is made to briefly unveil the processes through which these mediators forwarded

the idea of popular participation which ultimately led to changes in Brazilian

political culture. These changes allowed the predominance - at the level of

discourse - of a participatory model of democracy.

The Catholic Church[Contents Entry #50]

“Since the 1970s, one cannot understand popular

movements in Brazil without reference to the political style

and impact of grass-roots Catholic activists. All over the

country, people who have participated in CEBs[Footnote

#81] are among the leaders of neighbourhood

associations, labor unions, and peasant unions. Popular

movements, in turn, were important actors in redefining

the nature of the liberalization project initiated by the

military government in 1974” (Levine and Mainwaring,

1989, p.216).
In the 1970s, the Brazilian Catholic Church launched a program for the

implementation of Comunidades Eclesiais de Base - CEBs,[Footnote #82]

communities generally uniting members from the lower class. They were based

on ideas developed in the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and particularly on

the meeting of the Latin American Bishops’ Conference in Medellín, Colombia, in

1968. The main objective of these ideas was to develop an evangelistic strategy

to reach out to the poor[Posted Note #35][Footnote #83] (Levine and

Mainwaring, 1989; Sanders, 1981).

Still existing today, CEBs are basically religious groups where people
meet to worship, but also to discuss collective problems and ways to solve them.

These discussions are based on considerations that break with traditional

religious views (usually associated with alienation in religious life, with the

individual isolated from the world). In fact, discussions in CEBs tend to interrelate

religious and secular issues. For instance, the condition of poverty is associated

with structural biases[Footnote #84] in society, expressing the oppression of

the rich over the poor. Thus, CEBs’ positions tend to differ from the traditional

submissive and resigned approach, embracing a belief that change, though

difficult, can be accomplished.

Change, according to CEBs philosophy, must be pursued through

awareness of a group’s own situation in relation to both the concrete sphere of

daily individual and community life, and within the more comprehensive sphere of

social and political life (Krischke, 1991). Everything in CEBs is decided

collectively, and is attained through collective efforts, eventually with the use of

means and resources that, although external, are accessible to the community.

[Footnote #85]
The installation of each CEB is due to the efforts of pastoral agents who

develop close contacts with the base communities, eventually living and working

in the area. At a country-wide level, programs developed for the dissemination of

the idea, include the distribution of literature and training of leaders (Levine and

Mainwaring, 1989, p.214). In this way, a net of grassroots communities spread

throughout the country: in the early 1980s there were approximately 50,000

CEBs in Brazil (Sanders, 1981). By the late 1980s, church leaders had a total of

100,000 of these communities with more than two million participants[Footnote

#86] (Levine and Mainwaring, 1989, p.214).

The reasons for such growth did not reside solely in the ability of the

Church to gather people. The State monopolization of social and political life
played a significant role in the initial boom. In the dictatorship years, CEBs had

been one of the few spaces that was responsive to political gathering. On the

basis of national security, labour unions, political parties, and even

neighbourhood associations had their activities severely restricted and controlled

by the regime, which contributed to the strengthening of CEBs as a political

space.

Simultaneously, CEBs were enriched by a corresponding change in

orientation of the more radical segments of the Left, which started to see

collective organizations as an adequate strategy towards

democratization[Footnote #87] (Krischke, 1991). In this sense, the relative

importance of CEBs in Brazilian political life grew enormously. They had

attracted activists from the Left and from other different political orientations,

integrating them within a single identity, enabling the coexistence of different

beliefs.[Footnote #88]

Delineating such an important political space, CEBs’ control became a

matter of dispute within the Catholic Church. This was so that, whereas the

higher levels of Catholic hierarchy had emphasized religious activities, a very

important segment struggled for the balance of religious and political action

(Levine and Mainwaring, 1989, p.211).

Earlier condemned as an alienating agent the Church became a mediator

of change in Brazilian political life (Vink, 1985).[Footnote #89] On the one

hand, it intervened through the work of Church hierarchy in public arenas, both

criticizing the regime and advocating democratization (Levine and Mainwaring,

1989). On the other hand, the Church worked through the activities promoted

within the CEBs which helped to strengthen communities’ lives. These activities

were responsible for both concrete changes in the reality of many communities

and for changes in the political culture of these as well. Concrete changes were
generally achieved through the development of new forms of social action which

included repertoires of self-help and of bargaining with the State. They also

included the formation of new social actors like neighbourhood associations

(Krischke, 1991). However, the role of CEBs must be appreciated not only by the

concrete changes they produced in specific localities. It must be addressed in

terms of the changes in Brazilian political culture it facilitated. This is an important

issue because the scope and influence of community activities are expanded, as

Krischke explains:

“All grass-roots popular organizations may have a crucial

importance for the process of democratization, when they

relate, however indirectly, to local changes in the political

culture, for these changes may lead to sociopolitical

participation and to cumulative democratic changes in

state institutions” (Krischke, 1991, p.188; see also

Krischke, 1990).
Changes toward ideas of popular participation matured within CEBs due

to internal practices of collective decision-making, and developed into changes in

traditional Brazilian culture. This resulted in the evolution from democracy to

participatory democracy, which occurred because of two main factors. First, the

emphasis on democratic processes within the CEBs enabled the restoration of

forms of social cohesion and mutual dependency. Then, there was a natural

dissemination of the practices experienced within CEBs (Krischke, 1991, p.199).

The acceptance and promotion of ‘radical’ forms of democracy stems from

the emphasis on collective decision-making promoted within CEBs and similar

organizations. Because each participant also integrates other forms of collective

organizations (the work place, etc.), the participatory idea tends to spread from

CEBs throughout society. This dissemination is also enforced through the

articulation of social movements at a country-wide level (Mainwaring, 1985;

Krischke, 1991). In other words, the development of forms of participatory

democracy within CEBs resulted in the dissemination of the idea of popular

participation into society.[Footnote #90]

So far, everything that has been said about CEBs as agents in the

process of democratization and in the development of the ideology of democracy

has been aimed at three basic objectives. First, stating the motivational character

of CEBs’ discourse. This discourse emphasized solidarity. Second, stressing its

inward and outward democratizing project. Finally, making evident the impact

that thought and action developed within CEBs represented in Brazilian political

culture:

“The impact of poor Catholics migrating from CEBs to

partisan politics is particularly clear with the Workers’

Party, the most progressive major party in this country

where politics were thoroughly dominated by elite

transactions” (Levine and Mainwaring, 1989, p.216).

The Workers’ Party - PT[Contents Entry #51]

The Brazilian Left played a significant role in the reorganization of

collective organizations in the country by the mid 1970s. This represented a

change of attitude in comparison to the period immediately after 1968, when

repression was intensified. At that time, the organized, but clandestine, left was

oriented towards a revolutionary vanguard struggle that did not directly involve

popular sectors. The approach was characterized by discrediting liberal

democracy, seen as a bourgeoisie oriented process, and by emphasizing the

“conflict between labour and capital.” Militancy in neighbourhoods and other

popular associations was not given much importance (Mainwaring, 1985).

 With the failure of revolutionary action, sectors of the left began to revise

their polity towards a more liberal approach, shifting the arena of struggle to

institutional politics. There was also a move to equip popular groups, so far

carried on by CEBs. With the beginning of political relaxation, collective

organizations - labour unions, neighbourhood associations, etc. - started to

appear, becoming also the focus of attention from the Left.

Leftist groups made two important contributions to popular movements.

First, a vision of a broader political and economic context in which local questions

were considered. This expanded the approach of CEBs[Posted Note #36].

The other significant contribution had an strategic dimension. With the

articulation of different movements, fragmented efforts were gradually connected

to form a discernible country-wide amalgamation of social movements struggling

for democracy (Mainwaring, 1985, p.26-28).

In 1979, a change in the legislation that ruled the organization of parties,

enabled the formation in 1980 of the leftist Partido dos Trabalhadores - PT

(Workers’ Party).[Footnote #91]

The formation of the Workers’ Party (PT) resulted, at first, in a reduction in

the relevance of CEBs in terms of pressure exerted upon institutional politics. Not

only had a political space been made available, but there was also a migration of

many of CEBs’ leaders to the PT. However, through these activists, the

grassroots experience of the Ecclesial Base Communities wielded significant

influence on the PT. This influence was expressed in the adoption, as one of the

main agendas of the PT, of both participatory democracy and the primacy of

popular will over vanguard knowledge (Bank and Doimo, 1989; Mainwaring,

1985).

The Workers’ Party was deeply committed to the idea of popular

participation. Alvarez observes that

 “‘popular participation’ together with the ‘inversion of

local government priorities’ were the twin pillars of the

PT’s municipal campaigns throughout urban Brazil in

1988” (Alvarez, 1993, p. 206).

In fact, during the elaboration of the 1988 Constitution, PT was the only

party that had all its members voting for the inclusion of participatory

dispositions[Footnote #92] (Mainwaring, 1992-93).

In Vitória, the Workers’ Party became the municipal government in the

elections of 1988. In its electoral platform popular participation was included as a

mechanism for public administration, and when inaugurated, popular participation

represented a new orientation in local institutional politics. It had been formulated

by the new administration, but it also responded to the demands of popular

groups.[Footnote #93]

The positive evaluation of the Workers’ Party administration in Vitória and

of the adoption of a participatory program - especially in the elaboration of the

municipal budget - were significant factors in the crystallization of the idea of

popular participation in the city. As a consequence, even recent political

discourse still maintains the same approach. The present mayor of Vitória

advocates that,

“Popular participation . . . is the main mechanism for

democratization of the public administration” (Hartung,

1995. p.4)[Posted Note #37].

A New Political Culture[Contents Entry #52]

The change towards a participatory culture in Vitória (and Brazil, as well)

may be perceived in political discourse. Popular participation is the dominant

paradigm in the municipality. For instance, in a publication of the municipal

administration, a magazine that had its first issue dedicated to popular

participation, and

“aimed at democratizing the debate and definition of

alternatives to public administration” (Hartung, 1995, p.4),

the Mayor of Vitória stated the following:

“Having consolidated the redemocratization of the

country, it is time now to democratize the public

administration” (Hartung, 1995, p.4).

The program of state government formulated by the Workers’ Party (the

present governor is former Mayor Vitor Buaiz from PT) presents the same

reasoning:

“Public participation will be the structuring element of our

program and the instrument privileged by the Democratic

and Popular Government to socialize power and politics”

(Partido dos Trabalhadores, 1994, p.12).

These official statements corroborate the assertion that in Vitória, popular

participation is perceived as a fundamental aspect in the decision-making

process.

The explanation of the shift from a generally clientelistic and authoritarian

culture to a participatory one has been the focus of this section. The aim now is

to verify which underlying concepts are implicit in the ideology of popular

participation (Thornley, 1977, p. 4).

[Contents Entry #53]CONCEPTS IN THE IDEOLOGY OF
PARTICIPATION
This last section of Chapter III explores how the three categories of

concepts discussed in the previous chapter - concepts of social change,

democracy and rationality - are incorporated within the ideology of popular

participation.

[Contents Entry #54]Participation as Ideology

In Brazil in general, and in Vitória in particular, one sees that the

aspirations for more ‘radical’ models of democracy developed from the practices

of popular groups, and were disseminated throughout the country through the

instrumentality and articulation of diverse social movements that opposed the

military regime. The ideology of participation was the symbolic product of these

movements and served to bridge diverse convictions. In brief, this bridging is

accomplished through the definition of the identity of the collective actor, which is

contingent to the characterization of an adversary and a stake. It is, then, a

relational identity.

As already asserted, in Brazil the collective actor is the civil society:

“The very ambiguity of the term civil society - which

distorts the concept’s correct interpretation - itself helped

to create a climate of opposition to the military. In

practice, each of the society’s sources of organization and

every person who stands out in the struggle against

authoritarianism becomes part of this party of the

partyless called the ‘civil society’” (Cardoso, 1986-87).

Civil society is emphasized within the ideology of participation as a single

social group. No differentiation is made within that group (for example classes or

gender) because the homogeneity is established on the basis of society as

unified around a struggle against the state (the adversary):

“During the 1970s the image of a society in rebellion

against the state was constructed. . . . In this image there

is something more than an optical illusion which, by

resorting to analysis, we could somehow dissipate. For it

contains the historical experience in which political

violence and exclusion appeared as dominant facts, in

such a way that, faced with the state as the common

source of oppression, society appeared as a political

alternative, as the place where the desire for freedom

could be fueled and be translated into possible actions”

(Telles, 1994, p.199).

The collective goal in this process was emancipation, the liberation of civil

society from an authoritarian state that was perceived as such since colonial

times (DaMatta, 1993). Weffort[Footnote #94] elucidates this:

“We want a civil society, we need it to defend ourselves

from the monstrous State in front of us.” This means that

if it does not exist, we need to invent it. If it is small, we

need to enlarge it. There is no place for excesses of

skepticism in this question, because it would only serve to

make the weak even weaker. It is evident that when I

speak here of ‘invention’ or ‘enlargement I am not using

these words in the sense of propaganda tricks. I use them

as signs of values present in political action, which give it

meaning precisely because the action intends to make

them real. In a word, we need to build civil society

because we want freedom” (Weffort, 1989, p.349.

 Originally written in 1983, italics added).
These are the main elements of the ideology that evolved within an

amalgamation of social movements in the ‘Abertura.’ Popular participation

formed one of the prescriptive elements of this ideology. It was an ideological

construct inserted in a broader ideological view.

Having identified the idea of participation as an ideology, it is important,

now, to expose its underlying assumptions regarding concepts of social change,

of democracy, and of rationality, and how they inform the idea of popular

participation. For this, statements of popular leaders will serve to characterize the

ideology of popular participation regarding each of these concepts.

[Contents Entry #55]Concept of Social Change in the Ideology of

Participation
Concepts of social change are directly related to assumptions regarding

the nature of social order (Chapter II). The condition of society - and the condition

of the poor in society - as implicit in the ideological construct that leads to popular

participation is ‘morally’ unacceptable, requiring modifications. The argument

observes the following rationale: Society is unjust, inequity is due to structural

biases consolidated in the existing social order. Social injustice is a condition that
must be changed. It requires a transformation in social order.

This formulation is substantiated by some ideas, already discussed, that

developed contemporaneously with the emergence of popular organizations in

Brazil. Liberation Theology and Pedagogy of the Oppressed,[Footnote #95]

the [Posted Note #38]two having a great impact in the country. They both

present a strong socialist content, emphasizing the view of a dualist struggle in

society (oppressor versus oppressed). They corroborate a third perspective, the

Marxist viewpoint that has also had an expressive impact especially among
Brazilian intellectuals.

These ideas are supporting theoretical elements in the elaboration and

action of the two main agents in the strengthening of collective organizations in

Brazil: CEBs and the Left (particularly the Workers’ Party).[Footnote #96]

Among these organizations one can see that expectations towards change in the

social order are virtually the same. For instance, the Catholic Church signalled

expectations of change at the Latin American Bishops Convention in Medellín, in

1968:

“Latin America is obviously under the sign of

transformation and development; a transformation that,

besides taking place with extraordinary speed, has come

to touch and influence every level of human activity, from

the economic to the religious.

“This indicates that we are on the threshold of a new

epoch in this history of Latin America. It appears to be a

time of zeal for full emancipation, of liberation from every

form of servitude, of personal maturity and collective

integration”

(Quoted in Gutiérrez, 1988, p.xvii. Italics added).

Expectations of change were brought forth through the work of CEBs and

have received strong influence from the Liberation Theology idea - many times

mistaken with CEBs’ supporting program.[Footnote #97]

These same expectations were disseminated through the work of PT,

which comprised several Leftist groups: Catholics following Liberation Theology

principles; Radical Social Democrats and several Marxist groups (Kowarick and

Singer, 1994). Actually, the composition and name of the Workers’ Party provide

a clue to its agenda aimed at transforming society. This party’s ultimate objective,
in the words of Lula,[Footnote #98] is

“to construct a socialist society without exploiters and

exploited.” (Extracted from Kowarick and Singer, 1994,

p.228. Originally published in the Jornal dos Trabalhadores,

April 21, 1982. Italics added).

The ideology that led Brazilian democratization emphasizes radical

change to be accomplished through popular participation. This is clear in the

following statement by Lula - at the time candidate for governor in São Paulo:

[Footnote #99]

“Every neighbourhood will hold an assembly and elect a

popular council. Every position taken by the government -

from the approval of a budget to the implementation of

public works - will be adopted through grassroots

consultation” (Extracted from Kowarick and Singer, 1994,

p.229. Originally published in Folha de São Paulo,

November 15, 1982).

Thus, popular participation assumes an important, prescriptive role within

the broader ideological construct in Brazilian democratization. In fact, in many

cities - Vitória among them - the election of the Workers’ Party in 1988 signals

the acceptance of the discourse of change embodied in the ideology of popular

participation[Posted Note #39].

This formulation of radical change through participation implies the

involvement of every individual,[Footnote #100] that is, it requires extensive

participation. Moreover, for change to be accomplished, active participation is

necessary, that is, in terms of the degree, people are expected to actually

influence or make decisions. Therefore, regarding the different concepts of social

change discussed in Chapter II, the ideology of participation is informed by the

radical one.

There are, now, enough elements to place the concept of social change

that underlies in the ideology of Popular Participation within the continuum

developed in Chapter II in the following graphic. It is placed in the third segment -

radical change.

Figure 6: Concept of Social Change in the Ideology of Popular Participation

[Contents Entry #56]Concept of Democracy in the Ideology of

Participation
With the experience of dictatorship, democracy came to be regarded as

an important and appreciated element in Brazilian political life. Weffort explains

this with the following expression:“If Marx had been Brazilian, he would

have said that dictatorship was the form, par excellence, of bourgeois

domination. And perhaps he would also have said that democracy is

the form, par excellence, of popular rebellion (Weffort, 1989, p.334).

Within the ideology of popular participation that developed in this context,

the concept of democracy, was obviously participatory. It was the expression of

disappointment in the State, from which Brazilians sought autonomy, but at the

same time, participation was an instrument to control the State (Weffort, 1989).

An interview with Ítalo Batan Régis, President of the Popular Council of Vitória,

[Footnote #101]is illustrative regarding purpose of participation. When asked

about the greatest virtue of the municipal administration, he answers:

 “[The greatest virtue of the present municipal

administration] is Paulo Hartung [the Mayor] being faithful

to the democratic compromises he made with the people

of Vitória. He does what society wants. He does not hold

power for himself” (Extracted from Vilaça, Gonring, et. al.

1995, p.9. Translated from Portuguese).[Footnote #102]

[Posted Note #40]

Participation, in this view, meant citizens deciding and giving directions in

municipal affairs. It is a form a power-sharing, as Régis, again, observes:

We are democratizing the administration, participating in

the elaboration of public policies” (Extracted from Vilaça,

Gonring, et. al. 1995, p.7. Translated from Portuguese,

italics added).
Another statement by Régis is indicative that the expected role of the

municipal government is to follow directives and decisions made by citizens:

“Communities are satisfied because they see the Mayor

respecting what was decided by them. This is what we

understand as democratization of public affairs”

(Extracted from Vilaça, Gonring, et. al. 1995, p.6.

Translated from Portuguese, italics added).

What has been discussed so far gives a comprehensive picture of the

ideology of popular participation and the form participation is expected to take

within it.[Posted Note #41] Popular participation in this view requires that a

large number of individuals participate and actually decide the destinies of the

city. The continuum below formulates these observations in a graphic way:

 Figure 7: Concept of Democracy in the Ideology of Popular Participation

[Contents Entry #57]Concept of Rationality in the Ideology of

Participation
The ideology of popular participation transmits the idea that people are

able to make decisions.[Footnote #103] Everything can be publicly debated

and popular knowledge has a guaranteed place in decision-making. This became

clear when the Workers’ Party administration began in São Paulo. Regarding

this, Kowarick observes that

“because the party was accustomed to opposition rather

than governance, principles held center stage during the

first few months, which meant interminable and ultimately

paralyzing assemblies filled with rhetoric. Perhaps the

overemphasis on first principles stemmed from the basic

idea that folk knowledge and achievements needed to be

valued: not only should the legitimacy and power of the

administration be derived from the community councils,

but these should also apply its social and political

priorities” (Kowarick and Singer, 1994, p.237. Italics

added).
Moreover, as citizens should have the power to determine the city’s
destiny, the technical aspect is secondary to the political one. This is clear in

Vitória where even the definition of the participatory program relies on popular

participation, as a planner observed:

“Since the elaboration of the methodology for discussion

of the budget, we tried to involve organizations of the

organized segments of civil society. Everything was

decided with the population, before becoming a decision”

(Extracted from Machado, 1990, p.37).

Another interesting example of the concept of participatory rationality in

Vitória occurred in ‘São Pedro,’ a squatters settlement that, for its size - and

number of voters - has been the object of different political interests (Banck,1986;

Banck, 1993; see also Banck and Doimo, 1989). A school was built in the area

without the participation of the people. Because of this, the neighbourhood

association, assembled the dwellers who decided to start an alternative school

totally controlled by the community.

Preparing themselves for the alternative school, the group began to study

Pedagogy of the Oppressed and formulate the curriculum. Next, requiring a

building for this school, they approached the mayor asking for control of the

building that was originally built in the community. They also asked that no

municipal officials work in it because they wanted to actively participate in the

management of the school without the interference of the municipal government

(Banck and Doimo, 1989).

Despite the failure to institutionalize the experience, this example

demonstrates how much importance was assigned to a folk knowledge. The

concept of participatory rationality was, then, a fundamental assumption in the

ideology of popular participation in Brazil. The idea in this view was that people

hold individually and collectively a knowledge that, because of its specificities, is

able to inform decisions. Moreover, the decision-making process in the city

assumes the function of a political arena, which serves to bring together different

interests, ideas and knowledge. Thus, popular participation must be extensive

and that citizens must be able to strongly influence the decision-making process.

These observations lead to the following continuum:

Figure 8: Concept of Rationality in the Ideology of Popular Participation

Summary of Concepts in the Ideology of

Participation[Contents Entry #58]

This chapter has aimed at exposing the underlying concepts that inform

the ideology of popular participation. Statements have been used to serve as a

reference and to illustrate the embracing of concept within the ideological

construct. Attention has been given to three different categories of concepts:

Concepts of social change, concepts of democracy and concepts of rationality. In

each of these, a distinct viewpoint was observed.

The concept of social change embraced by the ideology of popular

participation was that of radical change. This was due to the influence of Marxist-

like ideas, particularly those that were part of the Ecclesial Base Communities -

CEBs repertoire.
 The concept of participatory democracy which embodies notions of power

sharing among citizens was another element adopted by the ideology of popular

participation. Though this assertive simply corroborates the designation given to

the ideology, through the discussions it became clear that, according to this view,

the role of the municipal government is to follow decisions made by citizens.

Finally, the concept of rationality is obviously the participatory one. Within

the ideology of participation, folk knowledge is adequate to inform public

decision-making. This has to do less with the discredit of technical knowledge,

and more with the understanding that public decisions are, above all, political, not

technical decisions.

The findings regarding concepts informing the ideology of popular

participation will be later compared to concepts implied in the provisions of

popular participation. The unveiling of these latter concepts and their comparison

with those discussed above is the objective of the next chapter.

[Contents Entry #59]CHAPTER IV

PROVISIONS FOR PARTICIPATION
 Chapter IV aims to analyze the provisions for popular participation in

Vitória, as presented in the Municipal Organic Law, in decrees by the Municipal

Executive that establish local Popular Councils, and in the process that defines

the Popular Budget. These provisions will be framed within the three categories

of concepts previously elaborated. This chapter also evaluates the significance of

these provisions, particularly the popular councils, in relation to[Posted Note

#42] the range of competencies and attributions of municipal public

administration. The objective is to expose the concepts implied in the institutional

provisions for popular participation in Vitória. These are compared to the ones

constituting the ideology of popular participation.

[Contents Entry #60]BRAZILIAN CONSTITUTION AND
PARTICIPATION
Brazil is a Federal Republic comprised of the self-ruling Union, States,

Federal District and Municipalities.[Footnote #104] The Constitution

promulgated in 1988 assigns municipalities a specific sphere of competence and

autonomy in relation to other members of the Federation. The Brazilian

Constitution states that:

“the political and administrative organization of the

Federate Republic of Brazil is comprised of the Union, the

States, the Federal District and the Municipalities, all

autonomous, in the terms of this Constitution” (Brasil,

1988, Art.18. Translated from Portuguese, italics added).

[Posted Note #43]Municipal autonomy is expressed by the fact that each municipality
has the ability of self-organization, creating its own Charter and defining its own political
organization; self-government, electing its mayors and councillors (political autonomy);
self-legislation, regarding local matters (legislative autonomy); and self-administration,
organizing its administrative structure and providing service to the population
(administrative autonomy). This is complemented with the ability to define, apply and
receive tributes (financial autonomy). All these competencies are directly conferred by
the Brazilian Constitution, and not delegated by any other member of the Federation,
such as States[Footnote #105] (Gonçalves, 1989; Meirelles, 1990; Aguiar, 1993).

These observations are important because municipal autonomy expands

the significance of local participation in the strengthening of Brazilian democracy.

In fact, from the political viewpoint, this autonomy is the result of a conjoined

struggle of several fronts during the deliberations of the National Constituent

Assembly. They represented mayors, councillors, professional associations, and

grassroots organizations that sought to achieve, at the municipal level, higher

degrees of independence from the Federal Government. As municipal autonomy

represented a schism with the concentrated power of the authoritarian regime,

the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution can be considered a threshold for

Brazilian democratization.
 The Constitution demands municipalities to have a Municipal Organic

Law, a body of laws equivalent to a Municipal Charter, that must conform with the

general principles and comprise precepts established in the Brazilian

Constitution. Of interest to this work are those related to popular participation.

In the Brazilian Constitution there are four legal instruments for popular

participation. Three of them are general, and related to political rights. They are

presented in Article 14:

“Art. 14 - Popular sovereignty will be exerted through

universal suffrage and through direct and secret vote, of

equal value to all, by means of:

I - plebiscite;

II - referendum;

III - popular initiative”

(Brasil, 1988, Art.14. Translated from

Portuguese).
In Article 29, popular initiative is further detailed in relation to

municipalities. The Constitution states that Municipal Charters must adopt the

precept of

“popular initiative for laws that are of specific interest to

the municipality, the city, or the neighbourhoods, through

the manifestation of at least five per cent of the

electorate” (Brasil, 1988, Art. 29, XI. Translated from

Portuguese).
Plebiscite, referendum; and popular initiative, are applicable to political

processes in all tiers of government, however, the fourth Constitutional

instrument for popular participation is specific to Municipalities. It is comprised in

Article 29 and determines that Municipal Charters must embrace the

 “cooperation of representative associations in municipal

planning” (Brasil, Art. 29, X. Translated from Portuguese).

Together, these four Constitutional instruments set the basic framework

that orient the design of provisions for popular participation in the Municipal

Charter in Vitória. They are a ‘modest’ contribution to the more ‘radical’

aspirations embodied in the ideology of popular participation, examined in the

previous chapter.[Footnote #106] However, the fact that municipalities are

autonomous members of the Federation (with political and administrative

authority) enables them great flexibility and authority for the design of provisions

for popular participation within their ambit of competence.

In order to assess the underlying concepts that inform the provisions for

participation, this work proceeds with an analysis of the legislation that institute

popular participation in Vitória and of the methodology of the Popular Budget.

[Contents Entry #61]INSTITUTIONALIZED PARTICIPATION IN
VITÓRIA
[Posted Note #44]The institutionalization of participation in Vitória occur through the
embracing of participatory provisions within municipal legislation, and through the action
of the Executive.

Provisions for participation in municipal legislation may be divided in two

categories. In the first category is the Municipal Charter, which determines the

principles that orient popular participation in the municipality. The second

category is the one of decrees by the Municipal Executive, which detail the

organization of popular councils and other provisions of participation in local

government. Dependent on the will of the Executive, not on any existing

municipal legislation, is the process that defines part of the city budget, and is

officially called Popular Budget.

These provisions will be analyzed in search of concepts of change,

democracy and rationality. First, the Municipal Charter will be scrutinized. Then,

the city administrative structure will be scanned in search of areas in which

popular participation occurs. This will serve as a basis for the analysis of the

composition of two popular councils. Finally the methodology of the Popular

Budget will be studied.

[Contents Entry #62]Municipal Charter and Popular Participation

The Municipal Charter - officially Municipal Organic Law, popularly known

as the city’s constitution - is the instrument that deals with the political

organization of the municipality. It is the main ordinance in the city, providing

directives and general principles for ordinary laws and decrees promulgated after

it. In other words, the Municipal Charter defines the character of the municipality.

Because of its superior status, the Municipal Charter contains relevant

information about the potential role of popular participation in public decision-

making. Therefore, the Charter contains statements regarding concepts of

change, democracy and rationality that underlie the provisions for participation

and that serve as comparative elements in this work.

The following diagram presents an outline of the Municipal Charter in

Vitória. Its organization is similar to the one established by the Federal

Constitution, and comprises a Preamble, an Act of the Transitory Dispositions,

and seven Headings, with the following outline:

I. Fundamental Principles

II. Fundamental Rights and Guarantees

1. Individual and Collective Rights and

Guarantees

2. Social Rights

III. Municipal Organization

1. Political and Administrative Organization

2. Municipality

3. Municipal Properties

4. Municipal Territorial Organization

5. Public Administration

IV. Organization of Powers

1. Legislative Power

2. Executive Power

V. Taxation and Budget

1. Municipal Taxation System

2. Public Finances

VI. Economic and Financial Order

1. General Principles of the Economic Activity

2. Municipal Planning

3. Urban Development
 4. Environment

VII. Social Order

1. General Dispositions

2. Health and Sanitation

3. Social Assistance to the Family, the

Adolescent, the Deficient, and the Elderly

This outline is presented below in a graphic way, in order to highlight

Headings that embrace provisions for popular participation in municipal decision-

making:

[Sidebar #7]

Figure 9: Outline of the Municipal Charter in Vitória

Participatory Provisions in the Municipal Charter[Contents Entry

#63]
In Brazil, the Preamble of a Municipal Charter usually includes a

statement regarding the legitimacy of the law that is being promulgated and the

general principles that orient it. In Vitória, the Preamble states the following:

[Footnote #107]

“We, the representatives of the people of Vitória . . .

promulgate the Municipal Organic Law, guaranteeing the

well-being of all citizens by means of the participation of

the people in the political, economic, and social process of

the municipality, repudiating, consequently, any

authoritarian form of government” (Vitória, 1990,

Preamble. Translated from Portuguese, italics added).

As an introductory statement, these words provide a picture of the strong
role of participation in the municipal charter, therefore suggesting that

participation is expected to be used intensively in the broader array of municipal

decision-making; participation is regarded as a mechanism to improve quality of

life (well-being).[Footnote #108]

In the Preamble, precise meanings about participation are embodied.

First, there is an emphasis on collective in spite of the individual citizen in

participatory practices. The argument is that every citizen (individual) is

guaranteed well-being; however, it is the people (collective) who participate. The

second clear definition is that the degree to which “people” are expected to

participate is high;[Footnote #109] they are expected to be involved in the

political, economic, and social process of the municipality, meaning that in terms

of its concept of democracy, this introduction to the Municipal Charter closely

resembles the ideology of popular participation discussed in the previous

chapter.

Provisions for participation may also be found in the Charter’s main text,

particularly in the first two Headings, due to the fact that they deal with general

principles regarding the city, the government, and its citizens.

Heading I of the Municipal Charter, deals with “Fundamental Principles,”

and comprises four articles, two of them (Articles 1 and 3) related to popular

participation. In the first article, it is observed that power exerted in public affairs

stems from the people and must occur in a democratic process. This process

comprises representative and participatory modes. Heading I, Article 1 reads:

“§1º - All the power of the Municipality

emanates from the people, who exert it through elected

representatives or directly, pursuant to the Federal

Constitution and this Organic Law.

I - the direct exertion of Power by the people of

 the Municipality occurs, pursuant to this Organic Law, by

means of:

a) plebiscite;

b) referendum;

c) popular initiative in the legislative process;

d) participation in the decision of the public

administration;

e) inspection over the public administration;”

II - the indirect exertion of Power by the people

of the Municipality occurs through representatives elected

by universal suffrage with direct and secret vote, . . .

pursuant to this Organic Law”

(Vitória, 1990, Art. 1º. Translated from Portuguese, italics

added).
This first article, especially its first paragraph, extends the role of popular

participation to both control and decision-making in public administration, which,

according to the Charter, involves all administrative structures, material, financial

and human resources in local government (Vitória, 1990, Art. 31).

Article 3 of the same Heading I, defines the “fundamental objectives of the

Municipality of Vitória.” These consist of general principles regarding the

relationship with the Federal and State governments “in the construction of a

free, just and solidary society;” the relationship with neighboring municipalities,

and the fundamental rights of human beings (nondiscriminatory dispositions).

The social function of the city deserves special attention, and comprises

insights regarding the well-being of city inhabitants and the purpose of

diminishing social and regional inequalities. It deserves to be noted that,

according to Article 3, one of the fundamental objectives of the Municipality of

Vitória is

“to promote the necessary conditions for the full exertion

of citizenship” (Vitória, 1990, Art. 3º, VI. Translated from

Portuguese).
It is here admitted that citizenship requires certain minimal conditions that

are external to the democratic process, which is the argument of participatory

democracy thought. However, it is also implied that those conditions can be

ameliorated through State intervention, precisely the opposite of the participatory

democracy approach, which perceives that the State cannot be considered an

independent and neutral agent.

Heading II of the Municipal Organic Law, in Chapter I, deals with

“Individual and Collective Rights and Guarantees,” and presents some detailed

provisions regarding popular participation. Article 8 is translated below:

“Art. 8º - All have the right to participate, through legal

means, in[Posted Note #45] the decisions of the

Municipality and in[Posted Note #46] the democratic

improvement of its institutions, exerting popular

sovereignty through universal suffrage and through direct

and secret vote, besides the plebiscite, the referendum,

and the popular initiative in the legislative process.

§1º - The Municipality will honor and grant, pursuant

the law, the participation of the community in the

formulation and execution of public policies in its

territory, as well as in the continuing popular control

of the legality and morality of the actions of the

Public Powers.

§2º - Besides the various modes of popular

 participation provided in this Organic Law, the

existence of Popular Councils is guaranteed, being

denied to the Public Power any kind of interference

in these Councils and Popular Associations”

(Vitória, 1990, Art 8º. Translated from Portuguese).

This article[Posted Note #47] determines that people are entitled

to participate in its decision-making process. The strong role of popular

participation in the definition of the city’s policies and in the control of local

government is clearly stated. Additionally, the article also determines that

participants are to be collectives: Popular Councils and Popular

Associations. The emphasis on participation in Article 8 is complemented

with Article 9, presented below. This article summarizes the general

principles regarding local democracy:

“Art. 9º - Pursuant the law, the democratic character in the

formulation and execution of the policies and control of

governmental actions, by means of mechanisms that

guarantee the participation of civil society, is assured”

(Vitória, 1990, Art 9º. Translated from Portuguese).

Though this article defines some sort of participatory democracy as a

guiding principle in municipal affairs, it does not detail provisions for popular

participation. This is a characteristic of Brazilian laws, to portray intentions

without defining the means to achieve it[Posted Note #48].[Footnote #110]

Other provisions for popular participation introduced and detailed in the

Municipal Charter may be organized in four types: provisions for popular

participation on specific matters, provisions for participation in the legislative

process, provisions for participation in the control of public administration, and

provisions for participation in decisions of the municipal administration.

 Provisions for participation on specific matters are the Referendum and

Plebiscite (Articles 1º and 94). They involve obligating the executive to submit a

legislative matter or proposal to the opinion of the electorate. The use of

Referendum and Plebiscite may be requested by part of the population but

depends on the approval of the Municipal Council to be carried out (Articles 65

and 87).

The provision for participation in the legislative process is Popular

Initiative (Articles 1º and 92). This is the capacity of the people to directly propose

legislation or an amendment to the Organic Law (Article 79). Representatives of

the subscribers (minimum of 5% of the population in the geographic area) are

allowed to have a voice in the legislative debate, but the decision is reserved for

the Council.

Provisions for the participation in the control of the public administration

are defined in Article 48 as public audiences and formal denunciations “among

others.” One of these “others” is included in Article 99, a Committee, comprising

representatives of the Executive and of organizations of civil society, which aims

at evaluating the fulfillment of established goals in municipal planning. The

composition of this Committee is not put forth in the Municipal Charter and, in

fact, Article 137 determines that the Executive body must submit to the

Legislature and to Popular Councils (plural, instead of a single body) a report of

the financial situation of the municipality every three months.[Footnote #111]

Finally, provisions for participation in decisions of public administration are

related to Municipal Planning. This is defined in Article 150[Posted Note #49]

as the continuous process of planning directed at municipal development, the

well-being of the population, and the improvement of services. Municipal

Planning encompasses all aspects of the Municipal Government (Article 152),

and according to Article 151,

 “the municipal planning must be oriented by . . .

democracy and transparency in the access of available

information” (Vitória, 1990, Art. 151, I. Translated from

Portuguese).
Several articles deal with participation in the municipal planning process,

most of them defining participating groups in a loose way, generally referring to

the fact that they ‘ought’ to be representative entities of society, as in the

example below:

“Art. 159 - In the establishment of directives and norms

related to urban policy, the Municipality will guarantee:

....

III - the active participation of the respective

entities representative of the community in the study,

addressing and solving of problems, plans, and projects

that concern them” (Vitória, 1990, Art. 159. Translated

from Portuguese).
Some other provisions, like Article 255 (development of touristic, cultural

and sportive programs), do not consider the regular participation of

representative entities. This article does not detail the participating members, but

only defines that “communities” will have a voice. A similar case, but requiring the

participation of representative associations, is the approval of transportation

plans (bus routes, etc.), defined in Article 232:

“The establishment of bus routes and the operation of new

transportation lines will be previously submitted for

approval by the population, through representative

entities of the community[Posted Note #50]” (Vitória,

1990, Art. 232. Translated from Portuguese).

 In this article, the Municipal Executive is incumbent on planning and

operation of the public transportation, but must submit propositions of bus routes

to the community. Representative associations have a final word in the matter.

Though participation is restricted to this approval, it does not include involvement

in the planning process.

Differing from these articles, other provisions for participation in municipal

planning require the permanent participation of groups. One example is that of

the elaboration and implementation of the city’s Master Plan (Articles 160 and

167). This Master Plan deals with land-use planning and demands the continuing

advice of community entities; for this, the Charter determines the existence of a

Popular Council.

The Municipal Charter defines six Popular Councils: Environment

Protection (Article 173), Health (Article 182), Child and Adolescent Protection

(Article 198), Protection of the Rights of the Physically Disabled (Article 207),

Education (Article 219) and Culture and Sport (Article 241).

Compared to previous legislation the Municipal Charter[Posted Note

#51] proposes a different approach to public decision-making; it introduces an

idea of popular participation in Vitória. Preamble and Headings I and II set a tone

for participation that resembles that of the ideology discussed earlier. However, a

further look at the Municipal Charter reveals that the ‘radical’ view of participation

advanced in its introductory terms is minimized in face of articles that delineate a

more ‘traditional’ role of participation and that restrict it to specific areas of

municipal decision-making. Whatever the case, it should be stressed that in

general, provisions for participation in the Municipal Charter tend to be very

superficial, demanding to be further detailed by complementary legislation.

Concepts of Social Change in the Municipal Charter[Contents

Entry #64]
Concerning Concepts of Social Change there is a perceptible difference

between purposes projected by the ideological construction of popular

participation and the objectives implied in the Municipal Charter. The former

envisions radical change, including autonomy of the State. The latter works on

institutional intervening and efficiency in order to provide change.

Article 3, in particular, demonstrates that the law acknowledges the need

for a change in present conditions. Nonetheless, as these conditions are

interpreted as circumstantial inequalities - as structural biases they would

demand a complete change in the social and economic order - changes are

treated as adaptations, and dealt with within the institutional framework.

[Footnote #112] Change, according to this perspective, means improvement

or ‘reform,’ instead of transformation and ‘revolution’ which a more ‘radical’

approach - aiming at the roots - would imply.

Concepts of Democracy in the Municipal Charter[Contents Entry

#65]
Regarding concepts of democracy, the Municipal Charter’s Preamble is

formulated almost as a summary of the ideology of popular participation.

However, other articles do not emphasize the participatory model within the

Charter. From Article 8, for instance, it appears to be more adequate to think that

the Mayor and the Municipal Council are the effective power holders, sharing

authority with the population as a benevolent gesture. In that article, participation

seems to be treated as a kindliness to the citizen, not a standard in governing.

[Footnote #113]
Thus, it is adequate to propose that the concept of participatory

democracy is not alone in informing the provisions for popular participation,

meaning that concepts related to information exchange are still strong within the

Charter.

The fact that Popular Initiative must obtain the signature of five percent of

the electorate to be acknowledged by the Municipal Council[Footnote #114]

(Article 92) may corroborate this assertion. Aguiar (1993) observes that the

number of electors required is too high and makes the law impracticable. It is

easier to get the assistance of a Councillor, who is able to directly introduce a

project of law. Aguiar’s observation is substantial recognizing that the idea that

created the law differs from the possibilities created by the law.

Finally, the exertion of power through elected representatives is part of

Article 1º, making clear that, in the Municipal Charter, two positions

simultaneously operate.

Concepts of Rationality in the Municipal Charter[Contents Entry

#66]
Finally, the observations have shown that different concepts of rationality

inform the Municipal Charter, generating ambiguous interpretations. This

ambiguity may be illustrated by a comparison of concepts of rationality underlying

Article 29 and Article 167.

Article 29 deals with the territorial organization of the municipality: its

division in districts and towns in order to give quality to the service provided. In

broad terms, this article defines efficiency from the viewpoint of the user,

adopting the same conceptual support of a participatory rationality. The article

states the following:

“§2º - The districts or equivalents have the

function of decentralization of services of the municipal

administration, enabling more efficiency and control by

 the beneficiary population” (Vitória, 1990, Art.29.

Translated from Portuguese).

Efficiency is related to the quality of service being provided, and not to the

cost of providing these services (which would configure the municipality

viewpoint). Therefore, this points to a participatory concept of rationality because

it is from people that come the criteria to evaluate the quality of services

provided. Article 167, however, presents an opposite orientation regarding the

same concept. This article enunciates that:

“§3º - It is an exclusive attribution of the

Municipal Executive, through its technical agency, the

elaboration of the Master Plan and the condition of its

posterior implementation.

§4º - Popular participation is guaranteed

through representative entities, in the elaboration and

implementation phases of the director plan”

(Vitória,1990, Art. 167. Translated from Portuguese).

In this case, urban planning is designated as a technical activity carried on

by a technical agency and, though it adopts participation, it is likely that

participation is to be reduced to information exchange necessary to substantiate

plans or to give political support to them. Therefore, this article would be inclined

towards a technical rationality concept.

The comparison of article 29 and article 167 shows that the two polar

concepts of rationality coexist in the Municipal Charter. This can be further

illustrated by the study of a single group of articles dealing with Educational

Planning (Art. 211 to 228). The main principles regarding education are

enunciated in Article 212:

“II - freedom to learn, to teach, research and

 promote thought, art and knowledge;

III - plurality of ideas and pedagogical concepts, and

coexistence of private and public institutions.

VI - democratic management of the public education

pursuant the law.

VII - guarantee of the standard of quality”

(Vitória, 1990, Art. 212. Translated from

Portuguese).
These principles demonstrate that in the Charter’s perspective, education

is decided in a ‘democratic’ process that acknowledges different ideas. Moreover,

usually considered a technical matter, education management is here intended to

occur with the participation of lay people. This means that this article depends on

a concept of participatory rationality. In this, Article 212 is complemented by

Article 214, which determines that the elaboration of an Educational Plan for the

Municipality must acknowledge

“ . . . the participation of the scientific

community, teachers, students and student’s parents”

(Vitória, 1990, Art. 214, §1º. Translated from Portuguese).

[Footnote #115]
This participatory concern is complemented by Article 221 which

establishes direct elections for school directors, a process of selection that, when

carried on by the Worker’s Party administration, was extended to students of 10

years or older (Nogueira, Simões, et al., 1992).[Footnote #116]

A final demonstration of the participatory rationality concept underlying

educational planning and management is presented in Article 219, which

determines the existence of a Municipal Council of Education:

“§1º - The law will guarantee, in the composition of the

 Municipal Council of Education, the effective participation

of all social segments involved, directly or indirectly, in the

educational process of the Municipality” (Vitória, 1990, Art.

219. Translated from Portuguese).

The analysis of the above articles suggests that it is the concept of

participatory rationality that underlies their terms. However, Article 220 introduces

a new corporatist component:

“Art. 220 - Participation of the municipal teaching

profession, in discussions and elaboration of projects of

law complementary to education is guaranteed, in general

related to:

I - teaching statute;

II - teachers working plan;

III - democratic management of the municipal

public education;

IV - municipal education plan”

(Vitória, 1990, Art. 220. Translated from

Portuguese).
The determination that teachers have the exclusive right to participate

(parents, for instance do not deserve a similar article) presents a turning point to

the mainly participatory approach that has been observed so far.

If, as Bobbio highlights, "democracy is based on the hypothesis that

everyone can decide everything" (Bobbio, 1984, p.13), then, this article conflicts

with the previous observations. Actually, even the article’s heading conflicts with

its third paragraph. This was probably the result of political lobby of the category

in the Constituent process, and the legitimacy of such lobby relied on the claim of

the higher knowledge that educators possess. This implies that technical
knowledge (possessed by teachers) has precedency over folk knowledge

(possessed by parents, for instance).

The observations so far show that the role of popular participation in the

Municipal Charter advances an ambiguous position. On the one hand,

participation is characterized as a significant element in the process of decision-

making in the Municipality of Vitória. In this case, it works as a mechanism for the

direct exertion of power. O[Posted Note #52]n the other hand, as change is

limited to improvements in the existing order, indirect representation (instead of

direct participation) is the strong component of the decision-making process.

Furthermore, a closer look at the Municipal Charter reveals that although

the first impression is that of an emphasis on grass-roots participation, there is a

lack in the definition of the form participation will take. It needs further regulation.

Some popular councils are previously defined in the Charter’s text, but, either

their composition is barely mentioned, or they depend on complementary

legislation. Thus, it is important to study how the regulation of these councils and

provisions were defined.

With this in mind, this work moves on to discuss the decrees by the

Municipal Executive that create Popular Councils.

[Contents Entry #67]Popular Councils and Participation

To study the relevance of popular councils, these will be framed against

the structure and functions of Local Government. This enables an understanding

of the Councils’ actual role within public decision-making framework and of the

significance of popular participation in that framework. To complement this

analysis, an assessment of popular councils’ internal compositions will be

elaborated. This can reveal how they mirror the city’s social organization and the
underlying concepts that informed their creation. These analysis are the objective

of this part of the study.

Structure and Function of Local Government in Vitória[Contents

Entry #68]
Brazilian local government is organized in two independent powers,

Legislative and Executive, each one with specific functions. A diagram presenting

the major functions of each body is shown in Figure 10.[Sidebar #8]

The Legislature comprises councillors that represent the population in the

three basic activities assigned to them: legislation, supervision, and self-

administration (Gonçalves, 1989). Legislation is concerned with the elaboration

of laws that are within the range of competencies defined by the Constitution.

The initiative to propose legislation is granted to the Mayor, the Councillors,

Legislature commissions and the people (according to what is defined in the first

article, quoted before).[Footnote #117] The supervising activity is related to

the inspection of administrative acts of the Executive, while the administrative

function is related to the Legislature’s ability of internal organization (Gonçalves,

1989).

The Executive is conducted by the Mayor, who assumes three main

functions: political, managerial and administrative. Political functions are related

to the Mayor as the representative of the population, in whose name and interest

acts as spokesperson, negotiates, or establishes relationships with other

institutions. Managerial functions involve planning, commanding, coordinating,

and controlling the administrative structure of the municipality. Administrative

functions are related to the enforcement of Municipal legislation, including the

application of fines. They are also related to the observation of bureaucratic

proceedings that are assigned to the municipality, like the publication of laws,
public property administration, and others (Gonçalves, 1989).[Sidebar #9]

The distribution of functions between the Executive and Legislative

Powers at the municipal level shows that, concerning municipal affairs, the

Executive is considerably stronger. The Mayor is the one that orients the whole

array of institutions and resources of the municipality towards ends that although

evaluated by the Legislature are always defined by the Executive body.

In Vitória, the structure of the Executive is divided in direct and indirect

administration. The direct administration comprises the Mayors’ Office,

Government Coordination, Municipal Auditor, Municipal Attorney, and twelve

Ministries (or Secretaries). The indirect administration comprises autarchies,

public companies, foundations and mixed-economy societies. They were

organized in a second diagram (Figure 11) in terms of their relation to the chief

executive, and in order of budgetary importance (Education being at the top of

the list, according to the 1995 Municipal Budget - Vitória, 1994).[Sidebar #10]

Comparing the structure of municipal administration with the existing

Popular Councils, it becomes clear that the controlling or decision-making role

citizens may have upon municipal organization is restricted to specific

secretaries. For this, a third diagram was also prepared to enable a correlation of

municipal councils in relation to the administrative structure of the municipality.

This diagram (Figure 12), shows that some ‘secretaries,’ do not count with an

institutionalized Popular Council. In fact, it is peculiar that the ‘empty spaces’ are

located where budget allocation is larger.

The intersection of Councils and Administrative structure as seen in this

third diagram illustrates that the significance of provisions for popular

participation is less relevant than the Municipal Charter suggests. This may be

explained by the merely inductive role the Municipal Constituency played in

setting forth popular participation in the Charter. Due to the lack of precise details
in the legislation, and contrary to what was probably envisioned by the Municipal

Constituents, there are in fact few possibilities for participation in the Municipality.

This becomes clear as one observes that, though all Brazilian

municipalities have some sort of participatory provisions (at least those that are

mandatory by the 1988 Constitution), not all embrace participatory decision-

making practices because those provisions need to be detailed for application.

The detailing of provisions for participation is what, ultimately, determines what

sort of participation will happen in practice. This means that the extensiveness of

participation depends on the will and on the action of the Executive.

I[Posted Note #53]n Brazilian legislation, it is the Mayor who is entitled

to structure the public administration. The Mayor must do it in accordance to the

Municipal Charter. However, there is plenty of room to take measures considered

to be necessary, and to design detailed provisions like those for popular

participation[Posted Note #54].

Nonetheless, the flexibility to design provisions for participation do not

correspond to improvements regarding effective citizen’s decision-making

opportunities, even in those ‘progressive’ administrations like Vitória. This will

become clear as the composition of two popular councils are assessed: the

Municipal Council of Transportation, and the Municipal Council of the Urban

Master Plan. They were selected because of the the significance of the matters

they decide upon and the implications each brings to the role of popular

participation in decision-making in Vitória.

Municipal Council of the Urban Master Plan[Contents Entry #69]

The Municipal Council of the Urban Master Plan was originally created in

1984 and reinstated with the revision of the city’s master plan in 1994. It acts as

a consultative and advisory body to the Executive, and its role is to analyze and
to propose measures for the attainment of the municipal urban policy. This

council also evaluates the implementation of the Master Plan; however, any

decision made depends on the Mayor’s approval (Vitória, 1994b. Art.18).

Three main groups are represented in the Urban Master Plan Council: the

Municipal Administration, the State and Federal Administrations, and private

entities of public interest (Vitória, 1994b. Art.18, §2). These groups share the

fifteen seats this council has.

The Municipal Administration has four representatives, each from a

Secretary of the Executive. State and Federal administrations have six

representatives in total: one from the Federal University, three from service

companies (power, communications, and sewage and water companies), one

from the State Ministry of Health, and one from the state researching institute.

The other entities have one representative each. They are the Institute of

Brazilian Architects, the Society of Engineers, the State Federation of Industries,

the Commercial Association of Vitória and the Associations of Dwellers of Vitória.

This composition presents a few particularities that must be noted. First,

the modest representation of neighbourhood organizations with only one seat.

This, per se, characterizes a dismissal of the participatory approach within this

Council.

The impressive representation of the State (Federal, State and Municipal

tiers), outnumbering that of civil society is another aspect to be observed. The

State holds ten out of fifteen seats, while private entities of public interest hold

the remaining five seats. This contradicts the very base of the idea of

participation in Brazil, in which civil society seeks for autonomy from the State.

This contradiction may also be seen from a different viewpoint, the technical

composition of the council.

In the Municipal Council of the Urban Master Plan twelve of the seats are
assigned to technical bodies; the Secretaries, State representations, the Institute

of Brazilian Architects and the Society of Engineers. Moreover, though the

Federation of Industries and the Commercial Association are basically

representatives of commercial interests, since 1984 their seats are being

systematically held by representatives of construction companies which consist

of a segment of both commercial and industrial associations.

Therefore, this is basically an elite council where, depending on the

viewpoint the council is seen from, two major groups are discernible: State

representatives and technical experts. The presence of the former corroborate

the idea against which the social movements struggled, while the massive

presence of the latter represent a denial of the validity of a popular and situated

knowledge regarding the problems of the city.

This seems to indicate that political interests may be hidden under a

language of technocracy.[Footnote #118] However, this does not necessarily

mean, for instance, that conscious capitalist interests define the Council’s

compositions. The massive presence of State representatives may indicate a

different explanation. It probably represents the conjugation of different

ideologies and interests that, in its materialization, tend to overwhelm popular

representation with an appeal of rationality. This opens up the opportunity for

developers to have a strong influence in the council.

The Municipal Council of Transportation[Contents Entry #70]

The Municipal Council of Transportation presents a different situation. It

was created in 1989 during the Worker’s Party administration (Vitória, 1989), and

comprises three representatives of the population (two from student movements),

two representatives from the Workers (one from the syndicate of drivers, the

other from one of the Brazilian Federation of Syndicates - CUT), one

representative from the transportation companies, one representative from the

Municipal Council, and two from the City Hall[Posted Note #55]. This council’s

role is to evaluate calculations of the cost and price of public transportation

services.

Public transportation is a service the municipality concedes to be explored

by private companies, but controls the prices of bus fares by restricting the

companies’ interest to a fixed percentage over transportation costs.

As the poor population relies heavily on public transportation, the

municipality maintains companies’ costs under strict surveillance in order to keep

prices down. This system is so inflexible that, for instance, when bus drivers ask

for a raise (this was common in inflationary Brazil and would usually lead to a

strike), companies would immediately require a similar raise in the fare prices.

However, a raise in prices would imply a simultaneous discussion with the

population for whom prices were already too high (this was one of the reasons

that led to the creation of the Council).

Fare prices in Vitória are, thus, a matter of popular concern involving bus

companies and the population, each at one extreme of a struggle, and though

transportation is considered an essential service, an attribution of the Municipality

(Vitória, 1990, Art. 229), the city government manages to be seen as mediating

the struggle.

If one divides the seats within this Council according to the elements of

the conflict in transportation, representatives of the population and of the workers

would occupy one side in the struggle, while the representative of the companies

would occupy the other. The two representatives of the municipality would be the

mediators in the transportation conflict. This division departs from the assumption

that the population and the syndicates advocate the maintenance of lower bus

fares, while companies rush for a raise in fare prices. The municipality detaches
itself from the conflict.

Therefore, contrary to what happens in the Municipal Council of the Urban

Master Plan, this division would indicate an imbalance in the composition of the

Municipal Transportation Council, favouring the users which outnumber the

companies. Though this seems to corroborate the idea of a council where people

can have active voice, the ‘pro-user’ council’s composition does not solve the

struggle about fare prices in Vitória. This is because companies are the ones that

define the tone of the debates.

By setting prices and demanding recalculations, bus companies initiate

and practically control the process. They work with objective information, the

numbers attributed to the costs of running the service. Despite pressures to keep

prices down, it is usually impossible to go lower than what companies advocate.

Whereas error or trickeries may be embodied in the spreadsheets, after these

have been analyzed, there is nothing else to be done. It becomes a purely

technical matter to be decided in a political council. In fact, this is a job that could

be handled by a municipal officer.

Moreover because the Municipal Council of Transportation has no ability

to define directives for transportation planning, nor to evaluate and control the

quality of service the companies offer (very low quality in general), this council

has no reason other than providing legitimacy to governmental decision-making

or to transfer the onus of ‘decision’ to the population through its representatives.

What has been seen in the analysis of the composition and role of these

two popular councils is that, in relation to the ideology discussed in the previous

chapter, they imply a distinct purpose for participation.

In the Municipal Council of Transportation, there is a larger percentage of

seats held by the population, however, the council has no meaningful decision-
making role, implying that participation is simply seen as a form of information

exchange. In the Municipal Council of the Urban Master Plan it was observed

that the council’s composition distinguishes technical knowledge in disregard of

folk knowledge, therefore implying a concept of technical rationality.

[Contents Entry #71]The Popular Budget and Participation

The Popular Budget is certainly the best known participatory practice in

Vitória, being also adopted by several large Brazilian cities. It can be explained

as a procedure by which citizens seek to define collectively the allocation of part

of the municipal financial resources. The procedure follows a thoroughly

developed sequence, presented below.

The Opening Assembly of the Budget[Posted Note #56][Footnote

#119] is the inaugurating activity of the discussion of the following year’s

Popular Budget.[Footnote #120] The Municipal Council of Vitória (the City

Council), the Popular Council of Vitória, representatives of every neighbourhood,

delegates of that year’s budget, and citizens in general are all invited by the

Executive to discuss the methodology to be used for the process that will define

the next year’s budget. The Mayor acquaints the assembly with the situation and

accomplishments of the budget and of the municipal financial situation, and the

assembly also decides a calendar of meetings that will happen posteriorly in

each neighbourhood.

Meetings in each neighbourhood are called neighbourhood assemblies,

and are prepared to debate and assign priorities of services and projects for each

neighbourhood in the following year. Neighbourhood Assemblies are convoked

by the Popular Council of Vitória by community movements and by

neighbourhood associations. These assemblies are chaired by the

neighbourhood association and assisted by a team headed by a Municipal

Secretary.

The Secretary presents the municipal financial and budgetary situation

and proposes an indicative of priorities to that neighbourhood. This indicative is

prepared according to ‘technical’ definitions, which take into account the

distribution of funds between different neighbourhoods and the allotment of

investments at a local and municipal basis. The objectives of this meeting are to

decide what services and projects the neighbourhood consider necessary,

[Footnote #121] and to elect a delegate and a surrogate that will be trained by

the Municipality to accompany the implementation of the Municipal Budget and

the execution of projects and services.[Footnote #122]

After the indicatives have been proposed by the neighbourhood

assemblies, the Municipality analyses their viability and, eventually, recalls the

neighbourhood to discuss again the assigned priority. This is well explained in a

folder elaborated to promote the discussions of the 1996 Popular Budget. In that

folder, the following statement is found:

“The municipality only incorporates in the Budget what is

financially and technically viable” (Vitória,1995e.

Translated from Portuguese).Having defined priorities with the

communities, the Executive prepares a project of law, and presents

it to the Popular Council of Vitória, to community leaders and to the

elected delegates. Then, the Mayor and community leaders go to

the Municipal Council in an entourage to submit the Project, a ritual

that may have contributed to the fact that, in the past years, the

Municipal Budget has been approved by the Council unanimously

and without amendments. It is after this approval that delegates are

trained to accompany budget implementation and service and

project executions.
 In the above process, the interwoven action of Municipal Government and

non-governmental associations deserves to be noted. The Popular Council of

Vitória takes part in planning the participatory process and, together with

neighbourhood associations and community movements of the city, convokes the

neighbourhood assemblies that will define priorities. Furthermore, the training of

delegates to accompany the process guarantees to those organizations firsthand

information regarding the financial situation of the municipality and a certain

degree of control of the budget’s implementation process. Another aspect to be

noted has to do with the process of carrying on the Popular Budget.

Table 7 below demonstrates that the number of neighbourhoods involved

has increased along the years (though the number of participants has been

decreasing).

Table 7: Participating Neighbourhoods and Citizens in

Neighbourhood Assemblies[Footnote #123]

YEAR PARTICIPATING NEIGHBOURHOODS PARTICIPATING 

NEIGHBOURHOODS IN RELATION TO TOTAL (82) PARTICIPANTS AVERAGE   PARTICIPANTS   PER 

NEIGHBOURHOOD

1990 37 45.12% 2,333 63.05

1991 48 58.54% 3,175 66.15

1992 56 68.29% 3,966 70.82

1993 57 69.50% 3,430 60.15

1994 68 82.90% 3,610 53.08

1995 74 90.24% 3,689 49.85

1996 77 93.90% 3,194 41.49Though these

observations may suggest a direct application of the ideology of participation into

practice, problems with this translation deserve to be noted. First, the percentage
of citizens involved, in relation to the city population and to the neighbourhood or

region population is very low. This is demonstrated in Table 8, below.

Table 8: Presence by Region in Neighbourhood Assemblies for the 1994

Budget Discussions[Footnote #124]

REGION POPULATION PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE OF THE REGION

I 20,145 183 0.91%

II 28,435 624 2.19%

III 32,549 521 1.60%

IV 34,607 832 2.40%

V 23,448 323 1.38%

VI 64,515 590 0.91%

VII 24,786 537 2.17%

Total 228,485 3,610 1.58%In the 1994 Budget, only

1.58% of the city population participated in the decisions taken in the Popular

Budget. As neighbourhood assemblies are convoked by the Popular Council and

by the Neighbourhood Association, and are open to all, this low number indicates

an indifference of citizens with the process that defines the budget.

In fact, it can be observed that the more consolidated the region, that is,

the better the provision of services and the existence of infrastructure, the lower

the participation. Region V, for instance, with 1.38% of its citizens participating in

the assembly, encompasses the neighbourhoods of Praia do Canto (13,648

inhabitants, 0.22% participating), Ilha do Boi (1,139 inhabitants, 3.77%

participating), Ilha do Frade (305 inhabitants, 5.57% participating), Santa Lúcia

(2,753 inhabitants, no participants), Enseada do Suá (339 inhabitants, 10.61%

participating[Footnote #125]), among others.

Region V is the one with the best provision of services and where dwelling
in Vitória is more expensive. Though some of the neighbourhoods comprised in

this region may be termed of lower middle class (Praia do Suá; 339 inhabitants,

10.32% participating, Andorinhas; 1,998 inhabitants, 1.95% participating), it can

be observed that these are the ones that tend to push the percentage of

participants up.

The same apathy dominates Region VI, with 0.91% of citizens

participating. Curiously, the best organized neighbourhood, Jardim da Penha,

with 20,878 inhabitants, had only fifty-two participants in the neighbourhood

assemblies (0.24%).

On the other hand, Regions II and VII have had a higher percentage of

citizens participating. This is a recently developed area that comprises São

Pedro, the squatter settlement commented on in Chapter III.[Footnote #126]

The region is not fully developed and still demands urban improvements,

therefore corroborating the notion that neighbourhood conditions and

participation are intertwined elements. In fact, 49.46% of the requests in the 1996

Popular Budget were related to basic urban improvements; 18.28% to education,

and only 1.08% to landscape improvements (Vitória, 1995d).

Though citizen indifference may be related to the existence of urban

services in the neighbourhood, the number of people involved is still very low,

probably indicating the need to review the provisions.

The discussion of the Budget departing from a geographical basis

(neighbourhood associations) may not be the appropriate way to define citizens’

priorities, moreover, within a city where the provision of urban services is

relatively good considering Brazilian standards and even the neighbouring cities.

Probably, the definitions should be oriented towards groups on an interest basis,

for instance. In this hypothesis, citizens’ organizations involved with culture,

sport, science, dwelling, minorities and others would be more appropriate

interlocutors concerning the allocation of the resources of the Popular Budget.

A second observation to be made regarding problems in the translation of

ideas into institutions is related to the relevance of what is decided in the Popular

Budget. In Vitória it evolves around 10% of the Municipal Budget. In 1994, for

instance, of the eighty-five million dollars[Footnote #127] of total budget, only

nine point three million (10.94% of the total) were to be invested in priorities

elected by citizens” (Gazeta, 1993). This represents a low number, especially if

compared to the 67% of the total budget spent with the payment of municipal

workers (Tribuna, 1993). In fact, regarding the capability of municipal investment,

the present administration allocates two thirds of the budget to be decided, by the

population, through the Popular Budget and one third to projects considered to

be of priority to the city (Lucas, 1995) defined by the Mayor and his staff.

A final observation regarding implications of the provisions set forth has to

do with the significance of localized decisions in relation to the citywide

expectations, that is, the conflict between localized and the panoramic vision of

the city.

The Mayor from the Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira - PSDB,

elected in 1992 to govern the city in the period of 1993 to 1996; claims to have

found the Popular Budget discredited by the population (Fontana, 1995). Though

this is not corroborated by the numbers found in Table 7 above (the participant

neighbours as well as the number of participants per neighbourhood grew

consistently in the period before), the truth is that financial difficulties restricted

the possibilities to follow determinations of all popular assemblies.[Footnote

#128]
Therefore, the PSDB administration decided that, concerning the Popular

Budget,

“it was necessary to regain its credibility and to improve

 its methodology” (Fontana, 1995, p.15. Translated from

Portuguese).
The changes in methodology, according to Fontana, followed two basic

principles: ‘budgetary reality’ and ‘democratic reality.’ The first related to the need

to conform discussions to the possibilities given by the financial situation and

budgetary availability of each year. From this emerged the idea of indicatives,

which substituted the random and unlimited suggestion of projects and services

desired by the various neighbourhoods (Fontana, 1995). Therefore, citizens’

unplanned input was constrained by the broader perspective the local

government had about the budgetary reality.

The second change in methodology is related to a peculiar concept of

democracy, as Fontana explains:

“Vitória was no Republic of Soviets and the democracy

that was desired, more effective and participative, was still

the representative democracy” (Fontana, 1995, p.15.

Translated from Portuguese, italics added).

Despite the tricky use of polar concepts (participative and representative)

to set forth one single conceptualization of Representative Democracy, this vision

is based on a clear rationale: the votes that elected the Mayor (hundreds of

thousands) have more significance than the few hundreds or dozens of votes

that elected the presidents of neighbourhood associations (Fontana, 1995).

Furthermore, according to Fontana, only the Local Government is able to have a

clear and panoramic picture of the city as a whole. Therefore, he says, the

administration decided to

“declare, plainly, in all assemblies, that it would deal with

the priorities chosen by the community with absolute

respect, making all efforts to incorporate them in the

 Municipal Budget; but that it would not hesitate to exclude

them from the Budget if they did not harmonize with the

global project for the city or if they hurt the legitimate

rights of the other neighbourhoods. In summary, the

municipal government, faithful to its democratic conviction

and to the investiture received through popular vote,

would not give up its right-duty to administer the capital

with a vision as a whole and the impartiality that the

condition of ‘privileged observer’ gives it” (Fontana, 1995,

p.15-16. Translated from Portuguese, italics added).

Within this perspective the municipal government is the only one able to

perceive the city as a whole, a quality that people do not possess:

“the people and their leaders need, more and more, to

embody a vision of the city that is more global, less

concerned with local affairs and with immediate needs”

(Fontana, 1995, p.16. Translated from Portuguese).

These observations severely restrict the role of citizens in defining the city

budget, nevertheless, these assertives may also be denied within the same

government, revealing that the Popular Budget may also be a source of

ambiguity regarding popular participation. Lucas, Secretary of Planning in the

PSDB government observes that

“It is a mistake to think that localized interests are

illegitimate. Besides being legitimate, they possess real

political power, and even though the sum total of localized

demands may not reflect the interest of the whole, it is

necessary to remember that the collective interest

emerges in the political process; it is not a prerogative of

 technicians” (Lucas, 1995, p.13. Translated from

Portuguese).

The analysis of the Popular Budget reveal some of the underlying

concepts that informed the definition of these provisions.

Concepts of Social Change[Contents Entry #72] in the Popular

Budget
Concerning concepts of social change, it may be observed that,

underlying the methodology of the Popular Budget, there is a narrow view of how

society is structured. Collectives are acknowledged by their geographic situation,

and from this condition they are expected to define how the Popular Budget is

allocated within the city. This evidences a reduced understanding of the

intersection of different classes, beliefs and interests in neighbourhood

associations. There is an evident exclusion of minorities and interest groups

which are not perfectly represented on a geographical basis (the physically

disabled, evangelicals and other non-catholic groups, etc.).

Denying these groups participation means to avoid possibilities of change

that participation would enable. Emphasizing this, it can be seen that still a great

proportion of the budget ‘naturally’ remains at the discretion of the executive,

without direct participation of the ‘people.’ This form of budgeting is merely

allocative, implying that change must be dependent on institutional control.

Concepts of Democracy in the Popular Budget[Contents Entry

#73]
Concerning concepts of democracy, that is, concerning those that are

entitled to make decisions that involve social processes, the Popular Budget is,
foremost, a process of shared decision-making. However, seen in a broader

perspective, decisions within the Popular Budget process are insignificant in

relation to the city’s total budget and, from this view, it could be said that the

Popular Budget is just a process for government to share and collect information

from people, and the observations by Fontana regarding representative

democracy and “the right-duty [of the government] to administer the capital with a

vision as a whole and the impartiality that the condition of ‘privileged observer’

gives it,” seem to emphasize this condition (Fontana, 1995, p.15-16).

Concepts of Rationality in the Popular Budget[Contents Entry

#74]
Concerning concepts of rationality, that is, related to the basis on what

decisions are justified, the process of the Popular Budget also shows ambiguous

information. On the one hand, the participatory experience itself enables

decisions to be made by those that can actually evaluate the quality of the

allocation of financial resources. Citizens can evaluate quality on the basis that

they are the ultimate users of services and public works.

On the other hand, the Municipal government is seen as the one to

possess the panoramic view regarding the interests of the city. Particularly after

Fontana’s (1995) assertives, it is hard to sustain the ascendancy or balance of

folk knowledge over technical knowledge and, from this perspective, it would be

more appropriate to consider the Popular Budget as a process in which technical

knowledge, not folk knowledge, provides the means and establishes the

conditions for people to have what they expect. It is, therefore, a process mainly

informed by a concept of technical rationality.

[Contents Entry #75]COMPARISON OF THE FINDINGS
The objective of this section of Chapter IV is to summarize the findings

concerning the concepts of social change, democracy and rationality that

underlie the provisions for participation in Vitória. This is done in order to enable

an immediate comparison of the purpose for participation implied in the

institutional provisions and the ideology of participation discussed in Chapter III.

[Contents Entry #76]Concepts of Change Informing Provisions for

Participation
The analysis of the Municipal Charter, of the two Popular Councils and of

the rationale and procedures of the Popular Budget indicate that the provisions

for popular participation imply expectations of social change that is to happen

under institutional guidance. This tends to limit participation to selected

organizations, due to the difficulty to deal with a large number of people within

the institutional realm.

Moreover, any selective process is naturally susceptible to biases and, in

Vitória, in the selection of organizations[Footnote #129] to represent the city, a

misrepresentation of popular organizations in the Municipal Council of the Urban

Master Plan was found where the State and technical bodies overwhelm popular

groups. Besides the fact that this contributed to a technocrat and anti-

participatory character of that council, it should be considered that in the

composition of Councils in a society marked by social inequality, the ascendancy

of elite groups over popular associations stresses the maintenance of the

particular views of those groups being imposed upon disadvantaged groups.

Regarding the presence of popular groups, though the Municipal Council

of Transportation presents an antithetical composition, it is in fact a Council

without a role, that is, its decision-making jurisdiction depends on information that

is out of its control.

 Throughout the analysis of provisions for participation presented in the

Municipal Charter, the two Popular Councils and the procedures of the Popular

Budget, it was found that changes are to occur within the limits established by

the institution. Change is not expected to disrupt the system.

The continuum below (figure 13) aims to graphically interpret the concepts

of change implied in the provisions for participation in Vitória. Elements of the

Municipal Charter were used to highlight the different positions, and the graphic

should be compared with figure 6, previously presented:

Figure 13: Concepts of Social Change Informing Provisions for Popular

Participation[Footnote #130]

[Contents Entry #77]Concepts of Democracy Informing Provisions for

Participation
The following graphic (figure 14) aims at representing the concepts of

democracy implied in the provisions for participation and should be compared

with the one that represents concepts of democracy in the ideology of

participation (figure 7). It was developed using the rationale that supported the

design of the methodology of the Popular Budget.

 Figure 14: Concepts of Democracy Informing Provisions for Popular

Participation

The graphic serves to demonstrate the simultaneous existence of different

concepts of democracy in the design of provisions, favouring an appearance of

ambiguity regarding who is entitled to make decision. This ambiguity was found

to pervade all provisions for participations.

In general, however, it can be said that regarding the possibility of

decision-making by citizens (as implied in the ideology of participation) the

relevance of the provisions existing in Vitória are modest.

First, because significative areas of decision-making in the municipality do

not count with any formal participatory practice. Second, a substantial part of the

local government decision-making authority is concentrated on indirect

administration. Third, popular councils’ decisions depend on the Mayor’s final

approval. Then, the division of seats of popular councils may fail to reflect the

existing social forces within the city. Finally, the decisions of the Popular Budget

are constrained to an insignificant part of the Municipal Budget, when considered

as a whole.

[Contents Entry #78]Concepts of Rationality Informing Provisions for

Participation
It was seen that the Municipal Charter embraces concepts of both
technical and participatory rationality. In the composition of councils, as well, the

ambiguity is also clear. The councils analyzed present influences of different

concepts of rationality. Educational planning, seen before, presented the same

ambiguity. It can be said to be a technical matter concerned with elements of a

participatory rationality approach, but containing corporatist elements masked

with a technical rationality concept.

Relating to the urban planning, it was seen that the activity is considered a

prerogative of the Executive through its technical agency, and despite the

installation of a Municipal Council of the Urban Master Plan, it was observed that,

the council’s composition disregards folk knowledge in favour of technical

knowledge.

In general, it would be more appropriate to emphasize the ascendancy of

the former over the later.The provisions concur to take technical knowledge as

the basis for decision-making in the local government, eventually expanding

Friedmann’s (1967-1968) observation in regard to the need of public programs to

comprise elements that appear ‘rational.’ However, as there was an increase of

the legitimacy of participatory rationality, that is, an acceptance of its terms, this

argument must be disputed in favour of a possible indication of relationship of

complementarity between folk and technical knowledge,

The configuration of the continuum below (figure 15) demonstrates the

ambiguous position generated by the coexistence of two different concepts of

rationality in the provisions for popular participation:

 Figure 15: Concepts of Rationality Informing Provisions for Popular

Participation

In the analysis of the provisions for popular participation in Vitória, it was

seen that there is a simultaneous operation of different and even antithetical

concepts of change, democracy and rationality.

It was seen that in terms of extent, participation in Vitória occurs with a

reduced number of individuals; this is clear with the Popular Budget. At

neighbourhood associations and non-governmental organizations participation is

open to all, however, the number of people involved is low. It was observed that

this is not only related to citizen disinterest but probably to the way provisions are

setup, that is, solely on a geographical basis.

In terms of degree, participation does not achieve the ‘radical’ ratios

implied in the ideology of popular participation. In general citizens do not have

decision-making power. The Popular Councils are usually advisory bodies,

having their decisions or suggestions always dependent on the final approval of

the Mayor. Even within the Popular Budget, the panoramic view that the

Municipality is able to have may serve as a pretext to challenge citizen’s

decision.

Finally, in terms of diversity, it was seen that the provisions for

participation in general imply that civil society is homogeneous, therefore not

acknowledging within the decision-making process the variety of interest groups

that exist in the city.

[Contents Entry #79]CHAPTER V

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
 Chapter V consists of the summation of the thesis. The incongruity

between idea and provisions for participation is explained on the basis that they

developed in different historical contexts[Posted Note #57]. The space for

popular participation in Brazilian contemporary planning and city administration is

also discussed. Finally, recommendations and questions for future research are

proposed.
[Contents Entry #80]INCONGRUITY BETWEEN IDEA AND
PROVISIONS
The thesis of this work is that, despite the maintenance of a ‘progressive’

posture in relation to the subject matter, participatory experiences in Brazilian

municipal governments demonstrate a distinct incongruity between the objectives

of participation that are promoted and the form that participation may actually

take. This has been confirmed through the observations at the conceptual and

institutional levels.

The Conceptual Level[Contents Entry #81]

At the conceptual level, the idea of popular participation reflects problems

and values that were relevant in the period of regime transition in Brazil. It mirrors

a unifying quest against authoritarianism[Posted Note #58], and found

expression in the notion of ‘government by the people.’

From the context the idea of participation also inherited its detachment

from the concrete problems of practice. The inability to influence governmental

decision-making during dictatorial rule exempted the advocates of participation

from developing operational definitions of the idea: How will it be put into

practice? What constrains participation in local government? These were

questions that did not concern the promoters of participation because, excluded

from the means of power, they dealt with it solely at the conceptual level

(Gondim, 1989). Ideology, as Melucci has observed, “overcomes, the inadequacy

of practice” (1992, p.58).

This detachment between idea and reality was evident when participation

began in Vitória, as former Mayor Vitor Buaiz (Worker’s Party) explains:

“There is no administrative project. When we talk about

project we mean the ideological level, only. . . . Our

 conception of participation is too precarious; one assembly

with a hundred people can decide about the city destiny”

(Vitor Buaiz, former Mayor of Vitória. Extracted from Pinto,

1992. Translated from Portuguese).

Though Brazilian social, political and economic context has had significant

changes since the time the idea of popular participation started to arise, popular

participation is still emphasized as an escape from an authoritarian government.

[Footnote #131] This is very clear in the following extracted from the interview

with Régis, President of the Popular Council of Vitória:

“It is not the Councillor, nor the bourgeois, that defines

how municipal money will be used. It is the popular

budget, discussed with all communities” (Extracted from

an interview with Vilaça, Gonring, et. al. 1995, p.6.

Translated from Portuguese).

The distinctive element in this ideology of participation is the artificially

constructed unity, civil society. It indicates a misapprehension of the internal and

fragmented order of the civil society it names.

[Contents Entry #82]The Institutional Level

At the institutional level, the development of provisions for popular

participation occurred in a context in which social, political and economic forces

interacted. These conflicts are inscribed within the institutional framework in a

process that acknowledges different interests and ideologies.

These ideologies could be aggregated within three main positions:

[Footnote #132]

- the liberal ideology of free initiative which emphasizes

state retreat to assume the role of guardian of the order;

 - the State ideology of efficiency in city government, which

stresses the autonomy and superiority of technical over

popular knowledge. This position tends to advocate the

input of technicians and expert administrators in city

management, and to see the city as an enterprise;

- the grass-roots ideology, which emphasizes the need of

autonomy of communities and favours the idea of popular

participation.
In response to these different inputs, provisions for popular participation

ultimately reflect the characteristics of the heterogeneous social environment

within which they operate, and not the unanimity implied in the formulation of

ideals. This means that the possibility of radical change envisaged by the

ideology of popular participation is inhibited because it implies a nonexistent

unanimity around major issues.

Therefore, institutional provisions for popular participation imply a purpose

that is different from the promoted idea,[Footnote #133] revealing that the sort

of participation that is announced differs from what is facilitated by institutional

provisions. However, this is not peculiar to Vitória. A word by Loewenstein

elucidates this point:

“This lack of synchronization between ideology and

institutions may help to explain the disappointing progress

and success of democratic constitutionalism in various

regions of the world” (Loewenstein, 1969).

It has been shown that there is an incongruity between the ideology of

popular participation and the provisions designed for it. Provisions do not match

objectives; on the contrary, they imply different purposes. The translation of idea
into provisions, it was seen, is susceptible to the balance of forces that

concurrently operate in the realm of the local government. In reflecting these

forces, institutional provisions imply a different, more ‘traditional,’ purpose for

participation. The objective of the next section is to verify the situation and

alternatives for popular participation.

[Contents Entry #83]BETWEEN IDEOLOGY AND RATIONALITY
Popular participation as we know today appeared worldwide in the late

1960s and by the mid 1970s the idea was disseminated in Brazil, partly because

of the political relaxation process contributing to Brazilian democratization. In the

1980s, as Brazilian political life began its return to normality, popular participation

was projected nationally being incorporated in the discourses of professional

politicians. However, this progressive ascension was interrupted in the middle

1990s, when the idea of participation was not debated with the same passion as

before.

Having passed the period when discussions regarding Brazilian political

life revolved around the authoritarianism-democracy dichotomy, this section aims

at discussing prospects for participation in Brazil and its relationship to Brazilian

urban planning.

The emergence and development of the participatory idea and how

Brazilian political culture changed in these decades will be reviewed briefly. After

its appearance on national scenery, participation was initially distinguished.

However, it is presently ignored as a relevant procedure for public decision-

making.

This historical framework will be used to introduce the hypothesis that the

legitimacy of popular participation in contemporary Brazil cannot rest upon its

ideological character but on its appeal as a provider of rationality to public

administration[Posted Note #59].

Emergence of the Idea of Popular Participation[Contents

Entry #84]
In its development in Brazil, the idea of popular participation incorporated

three distinct visions that gave it different and complementary meanings: it was
seen as a way to foster social changes; it was seen as the accomplishment of

democratic ideals; and it was seen as a procedure that brings rationality to the

public administration.

These visions emerged during the process of Brazilian democratization,

reflecting the development of the idea of participation in a context within which

socioeconomic difficulties were growing and political rights and freedom were

being gained. The emphasis on each of the views varied according to changes in

the context.

[Contents Entry #85]Participation as a Way to Foster Social Changes

In the first instance, popular participation was seen as a way to foster

social changes. It emerged as a practice of urban social movements, particularly

through the agency of Ecclesial Base Communities. Community groups

organized themselves in search of autonomous solutions to their own problems

and as a way to demonstrate political power so that demands from the public

administrations would be fulfilled. In this process community groups instituted

democratic practice as the standard of carrying on collective affairs. However,

the still existing and active dictatorship and the demobilized situation of civil

society hindered these formulations to extend to institutional levels.

Very characteristic of the late1970s and still used today in many popular

rallies, was the slogan 'O povo unido, jamais será vencido,'’[Footnote #134]

which emphasized the notion that together people are stronger and advanced the

importance of political organization in the community as the only way to solve

their problems. At that time, society was in rebellion against the State (Weffort,

1989).

[Contents Entry #86]Participation as a Democratic Practice

 In the second instance, popular participation was seen as the

accomplishment of democratic ideals, a thoroughly democratic practice, a

resurgence of the concept of self-government. This was of particular importance

in the political context at the end of the dictatorship because it established a

paradigm that contrasted to the authoritarian and detached mode of decision-

making practiced in the military regime. In this context the concept of the State as

architect of the public good which legitimized authoritarianism, was being

challenged by the concept of participatory democracy and the idea of autonomy

from the State.

[Contents Entry #87]Participation as Rationality

Participation was also seen as a procedure that brought rationality to the

systems of decision-making in public administration, particularly in urban

planning and city governing. The technocratic way of solving urban problems was

being challenged by the perception that urban problems and their solutions are

political in nature: the political over the technical aspect of governing was being

emphasized. In this sense, it reflected the paradigm shift that dismantled the

technocratic way of thinking of urban planning and city governing which had been

in progress since the 1960s.

Therefore, the idea of participation that was put in practice in many

Brazilian municipalities in the late 1980s, not only embraced expectations of

changes in results (ends) according to influences suffered during its emergence,

but had already incorporated clear concepts regarding the decision-making

process (means): it possessed a theoretical support that transcended the

political-ideological discussion that usually tends to polarize such questions.

However, what can be seen is that despite its theoretical basis, the idea of

participation has functioned, in reality, as an ideology.

[Contents Entry #88]Participation as Ideology
To associate popular participation with an ideology is not necessarily

derogative. On the contrary, it demonstrates that intentions and expectations of a

considerable and active part of the Brazilian population were focused on

questions that were fundamental to our society. In fact, the emphasis attributed

to popular participation during the ‘Abertura Política’ can be seen as denotative

of a civil society in the process of self-discovery, organizing itself against an

oppressive and authoritarian State (Weffort, 1989).

Ideology is a symbolic construct of a social movement, the element

through which it constructs its collective identity (Melucci, 1992). This identity is

established in a relationship to the movement’s adversary and the collective

goals that are sought; it is a relational identity (Touraine, 1977, 1981)[Posted

Note #60].

As an ideology, popular participation is perfectly fit to the context of

Brazilian democratization, serving to integrate different positions within a

common framework of reference. It can be seen, however, that popular

participation as an ideology being able to unify and to influence the decision-

making process is already over.

Disappointment with the Idea of Popular

Participation[Contents Entry #89]

Today there is a widespread belief that in Brazil, ideological positioning of

people has given place to concrete matters that are part of people’s daily life.

The municipal elections of 1996, for instance, have served to demonstrate

apathy to ideas such as that of participation; candidates debated on the basis of

their administrative capacity, not on their political credo and consequent

perception of urban problems. A columnist of Jornal do Brasil perfectly expressed

this new context:

“If obreirismo[Footnote #135] becomes, by fact, the great

winner of this election, it will have been decreed the

supremacy of the technique over the ideology, and over

politics itself . . .” (Ventura, 1996. Translated from

Portuguese, italics in original).

Therefore, it can be said to be an accommodation or even a

disappointment of civil society with regards to the participative mode of decision-

making. The idea of popular participation has not had the same acceptance it

had up until recently. The emphasis on ends substituted the importance given to

means. This turnover seems to suggest that experiences with participation did

not accomplish what was expected.

[Contents Entry #90]Broken Promises

Regarding the idea of participation as a procedure able to accomplish

changes, there is a disappointment with the potential of such procedure. The

dissemination of the idea as fulfillment of the democratic ideal of self-government

emphasized a boundary between present and past in Brazilian political and

planning thought. As a ‘modern’ form of decision-making, participation could be

compared with the ‘outmoded’ ways of the military regime and was used by

‘progressive’ political parties or leaders to contrast their ideas with the

‘authoritarian’ practices of the past.

However, instead of a general reformulation of the principles and

provisions of the local government, institutions were gradually adapted to fit the

new requirements. It was a process that resembled the ‘slow, progressive and

safe’[Footnote #136] process characteristic of the ‘Abertura Política.’

 In the quest for changes that dominated the emergence of the idea, a

rupture with existent institutions was envisioned. However, this rupture did not

occur and participation was accommodated within the framework of municipal

government. Due to its restricted range of action, popular participation came to

be regarded as a frustrating practice that demanded excessive time and brought

few practical results.

[Contents Entry #91]Inefficacy of Provisions to Facilitate Participatory

Practices
Even within the framework of municipality there was no adequate space

for the operation of participatory practices. The improvement of participatory

democracy depends on the exercise of democracy itself (Pateman, 1970, p. 42).

This exercise, however, was restricted in range and had little meaning in relation

to the array of attributions of the municipal government as a whole.

Looking at existent experiences, it can also be seen that they indicate a

limited conception of the purposes of popular participation and assign to it a

modest role within the context of local government.

The Popular Budget, a fundamental constituent of many administrations

that call themselves participative, is an example of the narrow view with which

popular participation is conceived. It is basically allocative,[Footnote #137]

with communities debating upon what services and projects they want, without

the opportunity of discussing matters at a citywide level. It is not that people are

incapable of seeing things from a broader perspective (a panoramic view); they

are separated from these discussions by means of the way the process works:

they are restricted in deciding only at the local - neighbourhood - level. Moreover,

what is decided in a participative way is insignificant in relation to the city budget

in its entirety, reproducing what happens in the city as a whole; participative

discussions of municipal policies related to health, education, culture, planning

and taxation are insignificant or inexistent.

Nonetheless, the main problem with the Popular Budget is the fact that its

participative procedure is not necessarily carried on by following administrations.

In Vitória, though the PSDB Mayor decided to maintain the participatory manner

of governing, the role of participation was changed to accommodate the concepts

of democracy and rationality that the new government subscribed.

In fact, looking at a broader perspective among the peculiarities of popular

participation in Brazil, it is easy to perceive the transitory nature of the many

experiences. The variety of methods used and the amplitude that some

experiences reached within the scope of local government did not account for a

systematic improvement of participation as an institutional practice. The

experiences were generally confined within the mandate of a given elected local

government and dependent on the willingness of the next elected mayor to be

continued. As a result, with few exceptions, popular participation in Brazil has

apparently been unable to generate lasting and ‘radical’ changes.

[Contents Entry #92]Disenchantment With the Idea of Popular Participation

The apathy with regard to popular participation is not only related to the

fact that the way it operates makes it incapable of fulfilling expectations. There is

also a natural disinterest in the idea, and this is due to the fact that with the

disappearance of the adversary, popular participation looses its ideological

function.

The importance given to participation as the fulfillment of democracy is not

as relevant today as it was in the years of its emergence; questions of political

democracy and its ideal model lost significance in public debates. The reason is

that, though economic matters deteriorated in terms of political liberties, Brazil is

more democratic than it was in the mid 1970s. Therefore, the contrast of the idea

of participation represented at that time is now attenuated due to the

advancements accomplished in terms of a system of government.

If, in its emergence, the ideological characteristic of popular participation

served to strengthen civil society, it later helped to constrain the development of

institutional provisions that enabled this strengthening to follow on. While people

were concerned with ideological disputes, particularly the authoritarianism-

democracy dichotomy, adequate attention was not given to the design of

institutional provisions that would enable an effective practice of participation.

This was a question that Gondim observed even before the promulgation of the

1988 Constitution:[Footnote #138]

“Although the military regime ended three years ago, and

after many governments, especially municipal

governments, having had experiences with democratic

administration, discussion still concentrates on the

‘negative’ side, that is, on the criticism of authoritarianism,

when it would be more productive to use the existing

spaces to think of the creation of ‘positive’ alternatives,

that is, to elaborate on concrete proposals to

institutionalize popular participation on different decision

levels and public policy areas” (Gondim,1988a, p.7.

Translated from Portuguese).

It is, therefore, necessary to search for alternatives to fully implement

popular participation. The way participation is briefly enunciated in the 1988

Constitution and in the Municipal Charter of Vitória, besides being too humble, is

merely indicative, demanding to be expanded and detailed. Institutionalization

must occur in such a way that participation is adopted independent of the will of
the Municipal Executive. In this way it may be possible for its archetypal

experiences to leave the quotidian of communities and neighbourhoods and

extend to the ambit of the city.

The questions posed to popular participation are twofold: How is it

legitimated? and How should it be implemented. They demand two separate

responses.

Legitimacy of Popular Participation[Contents Entry #93]

Popular participation does not have today, as it had until the early 1980s,

a popular appeal and political prestige able to imprint the fundamental

transformations in institutional spheres that its full implementation demands. As it

was seen, there is a generalized disappointment with the possibility of changes

arising from participatory practices. Additionally, the democratic practices

participation incorporates are not perceived as essential as they were a while

ago.

This means that two of the three viewpoints and the different meanings

assigned to participation are not as relevant as they have been. However, the

matter of popular participation as a procedure that brought rationality to the

systems of decision-making in public administration stands on solid ground.

Despite existing criticism about difficulties in the implementation of

participatory practices, it is commonly acknowledged that participation is a

rational procedure of decision-making, particularly concerning the “human results

that accrue from the participatory process” (Pateman, 1970, p. 43).

Therefore, to think of participation in terms of rationality is to remove it for

a moment from the disputes of political preferences, that is, the domain of

passion, which was the dominant perspective about it, and to bring it to a neutral

territory, the domain of the reasonable. This would be the possible alternative to
enable its implementation in city administration.

[Contents Entry #94]Popular Participation and Rationality

The concept of popular participation was historically constituted, as a

result of the experience of urban social movements that organized themselves

still during the dictatorship and posteriorly found space for expression at the

institutional realm. In this proceeding, a definition arises: popular participation is

a process of decision-making in the public realm that occurs with the involvement
of interest groups. This definition comprises three basic characteristics.

The first characteristic is the notion of process, a succession of activities

that last throughout the duration and in all phases of the decision-making

process. The other characteristic is the partaking of decision-making power with

the public in the institutional realm, which leads to the last characteristic, the

participation of organized community groups, or “representative associations,”as

Brazilian Constitution designates them (Brazil, 1988, Art. 29).

Popular participation therefore contrasts to projects that aim at and are

restricted to specific plans or situations, or are just used as tools for

disseminating information or referendum. Popular participation therefore imply a

new paradigm in planning, which may be called Participative Planning.

[Contents Entry #95]Participative Planning

Participative planning may be understood as a process of decision-

making, not as an activity aiming at elaborating plans. Participation in

participative planning is continuous and systematic, not an alternative to solving

problems that are circumstantial to the process. Therefore, participative planning

demands consummative participation.

The concept of participative planning also embraces the notion that the
fundamental decisions are not technical but political. Planning is perceived as a

political activity because it works with the allocation of values within society or

even because it deals with different values and concepts. As such, decisions in

planning must deal with the different viewpoints, interests and values of the many

agents that operate in the city. This necessarily means removing the definition of

the public interest from the exclusive domain of technicians and planners

because, as Friedmann has observed,

“the common good cannot be assumed a priori, nor can it

be determined by research. It is not a given. The public

good is a notion of process; it emerges in the course of

planning itself, and its concrete meaning is constantly

evolving” (Friedmann, 1989, p.128. Italics in original).

In this sense, planning activities may serve as an arena where people

debate about the city. Planning then, becomes an instrument of social interaction

whose main objective is to make problems explicit, it is a problem-setting activity

(Crosta, 1990). Efficiency in participative planning is not related to its decisions

and direct outcomes, but to the opportunities that stem from the process:

One might characterize the participatory model as one

where maximum input (participation) is required and

where output includes not just policies (decisions) but also

the development of the social and political capacities of

each individual, so that there is ‘feedback’ from output to

input (Pateman, 1970, p.43)

A last characteristic of participative planning is the understanding of a

relationship of complementarity between technical and folk knowledge. It is

related to the recognition that citizens, based on their daily life experiences,

possess knowledge able to inform decision-making. It also acknowledges the

precedence of people’s standard as a basis for the measurement of quality. This

is based on the fact that they have a better understanding of their own needs,

and are the ultimate users.

It was observed that participative planning emphasizes consummative

participation. It is a problem-setting activity, which acknowledges the political

aspect of decision-making, where efficiency is measured in terms of quality of the

process of social interaction, and which distinguishes the relevance of folk

knowledge in informing decision-making.

Once the city is a heterogeneous and complex environment, comprising a

plurality of values, interests and ideologies often in conflict, its administration

requires that planning activity be interactive, flexible and able to adapt to

continuous changes (Smith, 1973). These characteristics are only attainable if

planning is able to acknowledge the input of those different agents. It requires,

therefore, planning to be participative. The logic is explained by Smith:

“Since complex environments are characterized by high

rates of change, information is subject to rapid

obsolescence. And since citizens are intimately involved

with some parts of the environment, they must continually

note - if not adapt to - changes occurring around them. In

this case the citizens’ input to the planning process can

take the form of providing wholly new information

categories or it can serve to update information already

stored in the planning system.

In a planning context, the creative decisionmaking ability

of participants and their evaluation of data for relevance

or obsolescence can relieve the burden formerly on

centralized planning to adequately prepare and evaluate

 all possible alternatives. Participation simply provides a

broader basis and potentially more comprehensive

framework for analysis and evaluation” (Smith, 1973,

p.282).
The legitimacy of popular participation in contemporary Brazil cannot rest

upon its ideological character but on its appeal as provider of rationality to public

administration. By the same token, improvements in institutional framework and

the implementation of participative planning cannot continue to be conducted on

the basis of democratic claims. In the quotidian life of Brazilians in the 1990s this

question is not as relevant as it had been. To redirect popular participation to a

place where it can be used to its full potential, it is necessary to corroborate on its

rational aspect, and on the advances the participatory mode of decision-making

can bring to the city.

However, the implementation of a participatory mode of decision-making

requires two steps; a clear definition of purposes[Posted Note #61], which

implies an understanding of the context within which participation will operate;

and an institutional support for popular participation that is coherent to the

purposes defined and to the social and geographical dynamics of the city. These

steps would demand a comprehensive revision and renewal of municipal

legislation and institutional framework.

 Implementation of Participation[Contents Entry #96]
The implementation of popular participation faces obstacles that are

related to the fact that it demands translation from a conceptual to a institutional

level. Knowing the obstacles that restrain the translation of ideas into provisions

able to promote them may facilitate the attainment of objectives.

The obstacles for the translation of the idea of popular participation into

provisions that facilitate it may be organized around three main interwoven

factors. The first is related to the generally abstract context within which ideas

are formulated, generally detached from practice. Because of this, ideas tend to

lack detail and the enunciation of explicit objectives. Another factor has to do with

the fact that provisions tend to be dissociated from the ideas that originate them.

The third factor has to do with the incompatibility between existing and proposed

conditions. It can be seen that the overcoming of these obstacles demand that

objectives, provisions, and context be part of a single, integrated solution.

In the first place, a clear definition of long term and immediate objectives,

geographical and temporal limitations to participatory practices is a fundamental

element to be worked out. This is an interwoven operation: objectives must be

formulated in relation to existing possibilities of their implementation and to the

conditions, perceived problems, and context of operation.

“Objectives should . . . refer clearly to reducing or

eliminating, preventing the undesirable, improving the

not-so-good, developing the desirable - in short, to

intended changes in a state of affairs. There should in all

project descriptions be a separate place for describing the

intended outputs, the means to be used and the methods

to be applied” (Grabe, 1983, p.29).

The design of provisions - the means by which objectives will be
transformed into results - is also an interwoven relationship; provisions must be

defined in relation to objectives and the context of their operation. The relevance

of an appropriate set of procedures to foster public policies reveals to be of

fundamental importance for objectives to be accomplished, because, as

McAuslan (1980) asserts,

“procedural issues can often determine the answer to the

substantive ones. . . . [It is necessary] to ensure that law

and government are staffed, structured and operated in

such a way that the winning arguments are translated into

policy and administration” (McAuslan, 1980).

Finally, the context within which objectives are defined and procedures

operate is also of fundamental importance. Constraints in innovation are part of

the existing institutional framework. In Vitória, the permanence of traditional

organizational schemes and of outdated legislation consists of obstacles to

popular participation. These obstacles are intensified because of the limited

space assigned to participation within the broader jurisdiction of local

government[Posted Note #62].

The process of definition of provisions able to foster popular participation

has to consider the conflicting environment within which participation is expected

to operate. These conditions should at least be explicit in the process for, as

many authors agree, frustration with the fact that the process itself might not lead

to objective solutions is the main cause for the failure of popular participation.

Recommendations[Contents Entry #97]

The aim of this work has been to make explicit a situation, therefore, the

advancement of recommendations is circumstantial to the problem analyzed.

Moreover, some have been advanced in the previous sections of this chapter.
They all are based on the fact that participation in Vitória needs simultaneous

adjustments at conceptual and institutional levels.

At the conceptual level, popular participation requires a clear statement of

purposes and an operational definition. Objectives and limitations must be stated

(Grabe, 1983), normative choices must be made explicit and critical assumptions

must be professed (Damer and Hague, 1971, p. 228). This would eventually

permit citizen control and evaluation of the participatory process.

At the institutional level, popular participation requires provisions to be

related to conceptual definitions. They must also be designed with the scope of

municipal functions in mind. Participation must be comprehensive or inserted into

a comprehensive vision; that is, it must be considered in relation to the broader

array of local government decision-making mechanisms.

One question remains, though: are changes on the institutional level

sufficient for popular participation to be accomplished and to permit effective

citizen involvement in the decision-making process? This question surpasses the

scope of this work, and may result in an endless pursuit if undertaken:

“Planning evolves through the continual application of old

methods to new problems, and the discovery of new

methods to deal with old problems” (Hudson, 1979,

p.396).
[Contents Entry #98]QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
[Contents Entry #99]About the Relevance of Participation in Vitória
Nunes says there is a practice of clientelism that pervades Brazilian

political culture. That author’s analysis suggests that a

“clientelistic system crosscuts the organization of local

power and, therefore, cannot be understood as just a mere

style of politics peculiar to certain leaders, and not to

others. . . . it does not mean that the Mayor can decide on

a clientelistic government in character or another style of

government. It just means that the Mayor has full

autonomy to chose its clients” (Nunes, 1991, p.94.

Translated from Spanish, italics added).

In this sense, questions that arises are

- How are interlocutors chosen and what is their space in

popular councils and other participatory spaces?

- Are the provisions for popular participation serving the

whole population or is it restricted to already politicized

groups or groups with significant interests in the city, for

example developers?
Democracy is a collection of political rules, but its functioning depends on

the attainment of prerequisites that extend beyond the political to reach the

socioeconomic sphere (Bobbio, 1984; Friedmann, 1973). This means, according

to Gans, that “economic equality is a prerequisite to political equality which in

turn is a prerequisite to democracy” (Gans, 1973, p. 11). Departing from this,

- In terms of social advantages, are there any positive

effects attributable to the adoption of participation within

the municipality?
[Contents Entry #100]About Expectations Regarding Participation
Even though the developed provisions imply that its role in municipal life is

very modest, popular participation has been assigned a major place in political

discourse in Brazil. Of late, people’s expectations regarding participation in public

affairs has had a significant change and whatever is set up seems to be

accepted as participative in nature. The questions that arise from this

observations are:

- Can the expectations and perceptions about participation

of citizens be compared with those promoted by the

municipality?

- Are citizens satisfied with their influence on the city's

affairs? What are the perception of participants and

nonparticipants about popular participation?

[Contents Entry #101]About the Effectiveness of Present Practices

Participation was said to be a rational procedure in public administration.

The questions that arise are:

- In terms of the improving of decision-making, are there

any positive effects attributable to the adoption of

participation within the municipality?

- Is there any criterion of evaluation of the effectiveness of

participation?

- What is the relationship between people's input in

participation and the outputs of the decision-making

process?
[Contents Entry #102]BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aberbach, J.D., and Rockman, B.A. 1992. Does Governance Matter - And If So,

How? Process, Performance, and Outcomes. Governance: An International

Journal of Policy and Administration 5 (2):135-153.

Adams, I. 1989. The Logic of Political Belief: A Philosophical Analysis of

Ideology. Savage: Barnes & Nobles Books.

Aguiar, J.C. 1993. Competência e Autonomia dos Municípios na Nova

Constituição. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.

Alvarez, S.E. 1993. 'Deepening' Democracy: Popular Movement Networks,

Constitutional Reforms, and Radical Urban Regimes in Contemporary Brazil. In

Mobilizing the Community: Local Politics in the Era of the Global City, eds.

Fisher, R., and Kling, J. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.

Antoft, K. 1992. A Guide to Local Government in Nova Scotia. Halifax: Centre for

Public Management, Henson College of Public Affairs and Continuing Education.

Apter, D.E. 1992. Democracy and Emancipatory Movements: Notes for a Theory

of Inversionary Discourse. Development and Change 23 (3):139-173.

Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American

Institute of Planners XXXV (4):216-224.

Banck, G.A. 1986. Poverty, Politics and the Shaping of Urban Space: a Brazilian

Example. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 10 (4):522-540.

Banck, G.A., and Doimo, A.M. 1989. Entre a Utopia e a Estratégia: Um Estudo

de Caso de um Movimento Social Urbano. Vitória: Cultural-ES - Centro Cultural

de Estudos e Pesquisas do Espírito Santo.

Banck, G.A. 1993. Signifying Urban Space: Vitória, Brazil. Cultural and Political

Discourses Behind Urban Imagery. In Urban Symbolism, ed. Nas, P.J.M. Brill:

Leiden.

Blowers, A. 1982. Much Ado About Nothing? - A Case Study of Planning and

Power. In Planning Theory, eds. Healey, P., McDougall, G., and Thomas, M.J.
Headington Hill Hall: Pergamon Press.

Boaden, N., Goldsmith, M., Hampton, W., et al. 1980. Planning and Participation

in Practice: A Study of Public Participation in Structure Planning. Progress in

Planning 13:1-102.

Bobbio, N. 1984. The Future of Democracy. Telos 17 (3):3-16.

Boschi, R.R. 1987. Social Movements and the New Political Order in Brazil. In

State and Society in Brazil, Boulder: Westview Press.

Brasil 1988. Constituição: República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília: Senado

Federal, Centro Gráfico.

Bryden, K. 1982. Public Input into Policy-Making and Administration: The Present

Situation and Some Requirements for the Future. Canadian Public

Administration/Administration Publique du Canada 25 (1):81-107.

Cardoso, F.H. 1986-87. Democracy in Latin America. Politics and Society 15

(1):23-41.

Cardoso, F.H. 1989. Associated-Dependent Development and Democratic

Theory. In Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation, ed.

Stephan, A. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cardoso, R.C.L. 1992. Popular Movements in the Context of the Consolidation of

Democracy in Brazil. In The Making of Social Movements in Latin America:

Identity, Strategy, and Democracy., eds. Escobar, A., and Alvarez, S.E. Boulder:

Westview Press.

Christenson, R.M. 1981. Ideologies and Modern Politics. New York: Harper &

Row, Publishers.

Crosta, P.L. 1990. City Planning, Diversity and Change. In The World

Urbanization: Reappraisals and New Perspectives, ed. Satya Datta. Stockholm:

HSFR - Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Cullingworth, J.B. 1973. Problems of an Urban Society. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.

DaMatta, R. A. 1984. O que faz o brasil, Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.

Damer, S., and Hague, C. 1971. Public Participation in Planning: A Review.

Town Planning Review 42 (3):217-232.

Fischer, F. 1996. Risk Assessment and Environmental Crisis: Toward an

Integration of Science and Participation. In Readings in Planning Theory, eds.

Campbell, S., and Fainstein, S. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Foley, D.L. 1960. British Town Planning: One Ideology or Three. The British

Journal of Sociology 11:211-231.

Fontana, A. 1995. Breve História de um Orçamento Compartilhado. Cidade:

Revista de Vitória. Ano 1. Nº1, Janeiro/Fevereiro. Vitória: Prefeitura Municipal de

Vitória: Secretaria Municipal de Planejamento.

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Friedmann, J. 1967-1968. A Conceptual Model for the Analysis of Planning

Behavior. Administrative Science Quaterly 12:225-252.

Friedmann, J. 1969. Notes on Societal Action. American Institute of Planners

Journal XXXV (5):311-318.

Friedmann, J. 1973. The Public Interest and Community Participation: Toward a

Reconstruction of Public Philosophy. Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, 2-7.

Friedmann, J. 1978. The Epistemology of Social Practice: A Critique of Objective

Knowledge. Theory and Society 6:55-74.

Friedmann, J. 1989. Planning in the Public Domain: Discourse and Praxis.

Journal of Planning Education and Research 8 (2):128-130.

Friedmann, J. 1993. Toward a Non-Euclidian Mode of Planning. American

Planning Association Journal 59 (4):482-485.

Galloway, T.D., and Mahayni, R.G. 1977. Planning Theory in Retrospect: The
Process of Paradigm Change. American Institute of Planners Journal 43 (1):62-

71.

Gans, H. 1973. Commentary to John Friedmann's: The Public Interest and

Community Participation: Toward a Reconstruction of Public Philosophy. Journal

of the American Institute of Planners, 3-12.

Gazeta, 13 September 1993, p.13.

George, E.S. 1986. Improving Town Planning in Nigeria Through Popular

Participation. Habitat International 9 (3/4):191-200.

Gertel, S., and Law-Yone, H. 1991. Participation Ideologies in Israeli Planning.

Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 9:173-188.

Glass, J.J. 1979. Citizen Participation in Planning: the Relationship Between

Objectives and Techniques. American Planning Association Journal April:180-

189.

Goldsmith, W.W. 1994. Introduction to U.S. Edition: São Paulo as a World City:

Industry, Misery, and Resistance. In Social Struggles and the City: The Case of

São Paulo, ed. Kowarick, L. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Gonçalves, M.F.R. 1989. Município no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: IBAM/ENSUR.

Gondim, L.M. 1988a. Dilemas da Participação Comunitária. Revista de

Administração Municipal 35 (187):6-17.

Gondim, L. M. 1988b. Entra em Cena a Participação Popular. In Gondim, L. M.

(Ed.), Plano Diretor e o Município: Novos Tempos, Novas Práticas. Rio de

Janeiro: IBAM, Instituto Brasileiro de Administração Municipal.

Gondim, L.M. 1988c. Planning Practice within Public Bureaucracy: A New

Perspective on Roles of Planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research 7

(3):163-172.

Gondim, L.M. 1989. Modelos Alternativos de Planejamento e Gestão Urbana:

Tendências, Possibilidades e Limitações. Revista de Administração Municipal 36

(191):6-15.

Goulet, D. 1989. Participation in Development: New Avenues. World

Development 17 (2):165-178.

Grabe, S. 1983. Evaluation Manual. Paris: UNESCO.

Grant, J. 1994. On some Public Uses of Planning 'Theory'. Town Planning

Review 65 (1):59-76.

Grant, J. 1994b. The Drama of Democracy: Contention and Dispute in

Community Planning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Gutiérrez, G. 1988. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation.

Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hague, C., and McCourt, A. 1974. Comprehensive Planning, Public Participation

and the Public Interest. Urban Studies 11:143-155.

Hamilton, M.B. 1987. The Elements of the Concept of Ideology. Political Studies

XXXV (1):18-38.

Hartung, P. 1995. Carta ao Leitor. Cidade: Revista de Vitória. Ano 1. Nº1,

Janeiro/Fevereiro. Vitória: Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória: Secretaria Municipal

de Planejamento.

Hasenbalg, C.A., and Silva, N.d.V. 1985. Industrialization, Employment and

Stratification in Brazil. In State and Society in Brazil, Boulder: Westview Press.

Healey, P. 1983. 'Rational Method' as a Mode of Policy Formation and

Implementation in Land-Use Policy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design 10:19-39.

Healey, P. 1992. Planning Through Debate; The Comunicative Turn in Planning

Theory. Town Planning Review 63 (2):143-162.

Held, D. 1987. Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hill, D.M. 1974. Democratic Theory and Local Government. London: George
Allen & Unwin.

Hudson, B.M. 1979. Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and

Contradictions. American Planning Association Journal 387-398.

IBAM - Instituto Brasileiro de Administração Municipal 1992. Manual do Prefeito.

Rio de Janeiro: IBAM, Instituto Brasileiro de Administração Municipal.

IBGE - Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística 1995. Situacão

Demográfica, Social e Econômica: Primeiras Considerações: Estado do Espírito

Santo. In Censo Demográfico de 1991, Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.

Jacobi, P.R. 1980. Movimentos Sociais Urbanos no Brasil. Boletim Informativo e

Bibliográfico de Ciências Sociais 9:22-30.

Jacobi, P.R. 1991. Movimentos Reivindicatórios Urbanos e Estado no Brasil.

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 16 (31):57-77.

Jary, D., and Jary, J. 1995. Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow: HarperCollins

Publishers.

Johnston, L. 1995. Ideologies: An Analytic and Contextual Approach.

Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Kiernan, M.J. 1983. Ideology, Politics, and Planning: Reflections on the Theory

and Practice of Urban Planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design 10:71-87.

Klosterman, R.E. 1983. Fact and Value in Planning. American Planning

Association Journal 49 (2):216-225.

Korten, F.F. 1983. Community Participation: A Management Perspective on

Obstacles and Options. In Bureaucracy and the Poor, eds. Korten, D.C., and

Alfonso, F.B. Manila: Asian Institute of Management.

Kowarick, L. 1987. Movimentos Urbanos no Brasil Contemporâneo: Uma Análise

da Literatura. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 3 (1):38-50.

Kowarick, L., and Singer, A. 1994. The Workers' Party in São Paulo. In Social
Struggles and the City: The Case of São Paulo, ed. Kowarick, L. New York:

Monthly Review Press.

Krischke, P. 1990. Social Movements and Political Participation: Contributions of

Grassroots Democracy in Brazil. Canadian Journal of Development Studies XI

(1):173-184.

Krischke, P.J. 1991. Church Base Communities and Democratic Change in

Brazilian Society. Comparative Political Studies 24 (2):186-210.

Levine, D.H., and Mainwaring, S. 1989. Religion and Popular Protest in Latin

America: Contrasting Experiences. In Power and Popular Protest: Latin

American Social Movements, ed. Susan Eckstein.

Loewenstein, K. 1969. Political Ideologies and Political Institutions. In Ideology,

Politics and Political Theory, ed. Cox, R.H. California: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

Lucas, L.P.V. 1995. Planejamento e Orçamento. Democracia e Eficiência.

Cidade: Revista de Vitória. Ano 1. Nº1, Janeiro/Fevereiro. Vitória: Prefeitura

Municipal de Vitória: Secretaria Municipal de Planejamento.

Mabogunje, A.L. 1981. Spaces in Regions: A Critique of Popular Participation. In

Humanizing Development: Essays on People, Space and Development in

Honour of Masahiko Honjo, eds. Misra, R.P., and Honjo, M. Singapore: Maruzen

Asia.

Machado, M.B.S. 1990. O Movimento de Bairro na Discussão do Orçamento

Municipal de Vitória para 1990: Proposta ou Prática de Participação Popular?

Trabalho de conclusão de curso apresentado ao Departamento de Serviço

Social da Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, como requisito para

graduação em Serviço Social, elaborado sob a orientação da professora Maria

de Lourdes Frizera: Vitória.

Mainwaring, S., and Viola, E. 1984. New Social Movements, Political Culture,
and Democracy: Brazil and Argentina in the 1980s. Telos 61:17-52.

Mainwaring, S. 1985. Grass Roots Popular Movements and the Struggle for

Democracy: Nova Iguaçu, 1974-1985. In Kellog Institute Working Paper 52,

University of Notre Dame.

Mainwaring, S. 1987. Urban Popular Movements, Identity and Democratization in

Brazil. Comparative Political Studies 20 (2):131-159.

Mainwaring, S. 1988. Political Parties and Democratization in Brazil and the

Southern Cone. Comparative Politics 21 (1):91-120.

Mainwaring, S. 1989. Grassroots Popular Movements and the Struggle for

Democracy: Nova Iguaçu. In Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and

Consolidation, ed. Stephan, A. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mainwaring, S. 1992-93. Brazilian Party Underdevelopment in Comparative

Perspective. Political Science Quarterly 107 (4):677-707.

Markoff, J., and Baretta, S.R.D. 1990. Economic Crisis and Regime Change in

Brazil: The 1960s and the 1980s. Comparative Politics 22 (4):421-444.

Marx, K., and Engels, F. 1986. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow:

Progress Publishers.

McAuslan, P. 1980. The Ideologies of Planning Law. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Meirelles, H.L. 1990. Direito Municipal Brasileiro. São Paulo: Malheiros Editores.

Melucci, A. 1992. Liberation or Meaning? Social Movements, Culture and

Democracy. Development and Change 23 (3):43-77.

Nickson, R.A. 1995. Local Government in Latin America. Boulder: Lynne Rienner

Publishers.

Nogueira, H., Simões Jr., J.G., and Almeida, M.A. 1992. Experiências

Inovadoras de Gestão Municipal. São Paulo: Pólis.

Nunes, E. 1991. El Gobierno de las Ciudades de Tamaño Medio en Brasil: Los

casos de Marilia y Piracicaba. In Municipio Y Democracia: Gobiernos Locales en

Ciudades Intermedias de America Latina, ed. Rodríguez, A. Santiago: Ediciones

SUR.

Oliveira, J.S.d. 1993. O Traço da Desigualdade Social no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro:

IBGE.

Packenham, R.A. 1986. The Changing Political Discourse in Brazil, 1964-1985.

In Political Liberalization in Brazil, ed. Selcher, W.A. Boulder: Westview Press.

Partido dos Trabalhadores 1994. Bases do Programa de Governo. Vitória:

Partido dos Trabalhadores.

Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Pinto, V.P. 1992. Prefeitura de Fortaleza: Administração Popular, 1968-88. São

Paulo: Pólis.

Poulton, M.C. n.d.. Dominance in the Domains of Planning Theory. Technical

University of Nova Scotia. Photocopy.

Rochon, T.R., and Mitchell, M.J. 1989. Social Bases of the Transition to

Democracy in Brazil. Comparative Politics 21 (3):

Rodríguez, A., ed. 1991. Municipio y Democracia: Gobiernos Locales en

Ciudades Intermedias de America Latina. Santiago: Ediciones SUR.

Sanders, T.G. 1981. Brazil in 1980: The Emerging Political Model. In

Authoritarian Capitalism, Boulder: Westview Press.

Sherwood, F.P. 1967. Institutionalizing the Grass Roots in Brazil: A Study in

Comparative Local Government. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.

Silva, A.A.d., and Saule Jr., N. 1993. A Cidade faz a sua Constituição. São

Paulo: Pólis.

Simmie, J.M. 1974. Citizens in Conflict: The Sociology of Town Planning.

London: Hutchinson Educational.

Smith, R.W. 1973. A Theoretical Basis for Participatory Planning. Policy

Sciences 4:275-295.

Soares, G.A.D. 1986. Elections and the Redemocratization of Brazil. eds. Drake,

P.W., and Silva, E. San Diego: Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies,

University of California.

Telles, V.d.S. 1994. The 1970s: Political Experiences, Practices, and Spaces. In

Social Struggles and the City: The Case of São Paulo, ed. Kowarick, L. New

York: Monthly Review Press.

Thompson, J.B. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Thornley, A. 1977. Theoretical Perspectives on Planning Participation. Progress

in Planning 7 (1):1-57.

Toffler, A. 1984. The Crisis of Democratic Governance. In People-centered

Development, eds. Korten, D.C., and Klauss, R. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

Touraine, A. 1977. The Self-Production of Society. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Touraine, A. 1981. The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements.

Cambridge / Paris: Cambridge University Press / Editions de la Maison des

Sciences de l'Homme.

Tribuna, 31 August 1993, Negócios, p.21.

Valladares, L. 1988. Urban Sociology in Brazil: A Research Report. International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research 12 (2):285-302.

Ventura, Z. Se Não Tiver Hambúrger, Sai Um Candidato. Jornal do Brasil,

Caderno B, 24 August 1996, p.10.

Vink, N. 1985. Base Communities and Urban Social Movements: A Case Study

of the Metalworkers' Strike 1980 - São Bernardo, Brazil. In New Social

Movements and the State in Latin America, ed. Slater, D. Amsterdam: CEDLA.

Vilaça, A., Gonring, J.I., and Simonetti, J. 1995. Interview with Italo Batan Régis.
Cidade: Revista de Vitória. Ano 1. Nº1, Janeiro/Fevereiro. Vitória: Prefeitura

Municipal de Vitória: Secretaria Municipal de Planejamento.

Vitória, 1989. Decreto nº 8.175 de 21 de dezembro de 1989. Cria o Conselho

Municipal de Transportes. Vitória: Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória.

Vitória 1990. Lei Orgânica. Vitória: Câmara Municipal de Vitória.

Vitória 1990b. Lei nº 3.625 de 22 de janeiro de 1990. Vitória: Prefeitura Municipal

de Vitória.

Vitória 1993a. Discussão do Orçamento 1994: Assembléias de Bairros para

Indicação de Prioridades e Eleição de Delegados. Vitória: Prefeitura Municipal

de Vitória.

Vitória 1993b. Discussão do Orçamento Municipal com a População: Síntese da

Formulação Conceitual e Visão Esquemática do Processo de Discussão. Vitória:

Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória.

Vitória 1994. Lei nº 4.126 de 12 de dezembro de 1994: Estima a Receita e Fixa

a Despesa do Município de Vitória para o Exercício de 1995. Vitória: Prefeitura

Municipal de Vitória.

Vitória 1994b. Lei nº 4.167 de 27 de dezembro de 1994: Dispõe sobre o

desenvolvimento urbano no Município de Vitória, institui o Plano Diretor Urbano

e dá outras providências. Vitória: Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória.

Vitória 1995a. Cidade: Revista de Vitória. Ano 1. Nº1, Janeiro/Fevereiro. Vitória:

Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória: Secretaria Municipal de Planejamento.

Vitória1995b. Cidade: Revista de Vitória. Ano 1. Nº2. Março/Abril. Vitória:

Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória: Secretaria Municipal de Planejamento.

Vitória 1995c. Discussão do Orçamento com a População: Assembléia de

Bairros. Vitória: Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória: Departamento de Promoção

Social, Divisão de Organização Popular.

Vitória 1995d. Orçamento Popular: Assembléia de Bairros, Síntese dos

Indicativos de Obras, Frequência de Necessidades/Solicitação. Vitória:

Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória: Departamento de Desenvolvimento Comunitário.

Vitória 1995e. Orçamento Popular 96: Construindo Juntos a Vitória que a Gente

Quer. Vitória: Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória / Conselho Popular de Vitória.

Vitória 1996. Projeto Vitória do Futuro: Diagnóstico da Cidade. Vitória: Prefeitura

Municipal de Vitória.

Weffort, F. 1989. Why Democracy? In Democratizing Brazil: Problems of

Transition and Consolidation, ed. Stephan, A. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yiftachel, O. 1989. Towards a New Typology of Urban Planning Theories.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 16:23-39.

[Footnotes]
1. The literal Portuguese translation, ‘participação pública,’ is not used in Brazil. Some
leaders use the term ‘participação comunitária’ to indicate community participation.
2. The correct translation to Portuguese of the English term citizen participation is
‘participação do cidadão/ã.’ It is not used in Brazil. Instead, a similar term, ‘participação cidadã,’ is
sometimes used. It indicates the idea of a democratic role of participation, extending the notion of
citizenship to every individual.
3. Mainwaring (1985) explains that the ‘Abertura Política’ reduced the fear people had in
participating and “enabled the movements to construct linkages with other institutions, like the opposition
party, the press, and human rights groups” (1985, p.5). However, the author notes that in the community
of his study, there were signs of repression until 1983.
4. Mainwaring stresses that “the Brazilian regime reached the point where the most
important decision arenas were open for dispute only in 1982” (1985, p.33).
5. The Municipal Charter of Vitória was promulgated in 1990.
6. The general understanding was that, in the coming democratic regime, those excluded
from the governing process could have their say in governmental decision-making, deciding their own
destiny, and benefiting from the allocation of resources by the State.
7. The issue, however, is that to talk about popular participation is different from the
institutionalization of participation. In this sense, what is questioned in this work is the difference in
meaning between the kind of popular participation promoted and that facilitated.
1. The modes are ‘developmental,’ ‘adaptive,’ ‘allocative’ and ‘innovative planning.’
2. Friedmann, 1967-1968, says, “an attempt to be functionally rational in that the objectives
of the system are supposed to be determined externally through a political process.” (Italics added)
3. Friedmann, adds that “it is especially relevant in rapidly changing social systems. It is, in
fact, a method for coping with problems that arise under conditions of rapid change, and will tend to
disrupt existing balances” (1967-1968, p.246).
4. In the first (Friedmann, 1967-1968) mentioned paper, there are four aspects, which are
later extended to six (Friedmann, 1993). Here, five characteristics will be highlighted.
8. “Ordem e Progresso,” is the Portuguese for Order and Progress.
9. “ Regarding the idea of efficiency, Markoff and Baretta make the following observation:
“The language of efficiency, which Latin American technocrats shared with their counterparts in the
multinationals and which was also shared by a segment of the military imbued with a managerial credo,
criticized policies favoring underclasses as technically flawed and criticized politicians bidding for the
underclasses as irrational and malevolent” (1990, p.421).
10. In reality these categories are interrelated, their territories overlap and their boundaries
are not sharp. They will become clear as they are discussed.
11. According to Simmie (1974, p.10-12), the forms of social interaction may be defined
within four parameters: total cooperation; total anomie; total alienation; and total conflict (anomie and
alienation result from the impossibility of total cooperation or total conflict to perpetually exist). However,
as a simplification, this work will adopt consensus and conflict as the two polar concepts of social order
(Thornley, 1977, p.5).
12. Simmie explains that in capitalist societies,“there is conflict between groups over their
values and aspirations, and their ability to satisfy these in terms of the acquisition of scarce and desirable
resources and power[Posted Note #63]” (Simmie, 1974, p.36).
13. Extracted from Thornley, 1977, p.7. According to the author it is based on Dahrendorf,
R. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in an Industrial Society. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
14. In contrast to ‘natural’ progressive adjustments of the social system.
15. This follows Thornley’s observation about the work of Almond, G. and Verba, S.,1965.
The Civic Culture. Boston, Little & Brown. These authors define the political culture as a composite of
parochial (lack of attitudes), subject (passive attitude) and participant political orientations (Thornley,
1977, p.15). A brief summary by Jary and Jary (1995, p.497) also helped in this discussion.
16. A minimum of participation, or the possibility to participate, contributes to the
maintenance of the system because it constrains the power of the elite to a certain extent.
17. According to Thornley, Dahrendorf describes “three forms this regulation could take: (1)
conciliation. This takes place within specially created institutions such as parliament. Peaceful discussion
occurs between the opposing parties; (2) mediation. Both parties agree to consult an outsider who gives
advice. Usually this advice broadens the range of options and reduces irrationality; (3) arbitration. The
rules of the game will stipulate that either of the parties can call in an arbitrator whose decision will
sometimes be final” (1977, p.17).
18. This can be observed in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, where the authors state
that “political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing
another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of
circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of revolution, it makes itself the ruling class,
and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these
conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes
generally, and will thereby, have abolished its own supremacy as a class. . . In place of the old bourgeois
society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free
development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Marx and Engels, 1986, p.54).
19. Freire says that the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ is a “humanist and libertarian
pedagogy” (1970, p.40).
20. Freire, a Brazilian professor, explains that, “the pedagogy of the oppressed is an
instrument for their critical discovery that both they and their oppressors are manifestations of
dehumanization.” (1970, p.33)
21. ‘Conscientização’ is the Portuguese word for consciousness.
22. Freire says that “dialogue with the people is radically necessary to every authentic
revolution. This is what makes it a revolution, as distinguished from a military coup.” (1970, p.122)
23. Freire says that “attempting to liberate the oppressed without their reflective participation
in the act of liberation is to treat them as objects which must be saved from a burning building . . .” (970,
p.52). Furthermore, “because liberating action is dialogical in nature, dialogue cannot be a posteriori to
that action, but must be concomitant with it. And since liberation must be a permanent condition,
dialogue becomes a continuing aspect of liberating action” (Freire, 1970, p.134).
24. Concerning this, Thornley explains that “if planning is seen as one of the agencies
through which society could be radically transformed, then a form of participation akin to that of the Paris
commune could be envisaged. . . . [However, he says that] if planning is viewed as an element of social
control, then only a very restricted role for participation is desired” (Thornley, 1977, p.31).
25. Held presents ten “Models of Democracy,” which, he says, “could reasonably be divided
into two broad types” (1987, p.4).
26. Held observes that “within the history of the clash of positions [about what is to count as
‘rule’ by ‘the people,’] lies the struggle to determine whether democracy will mean some kind of popular
power (a form of life in which citizens are engaged in self-government and self-regulation) or an aid to
decision-making (a means to legitimate the decisions of those voted into power - ‘representatives’ - from
time to time)” (Held, 1987, p.3).
27. This extract is part of Held’s commentary on the work of R. Nozick: Anarchy, State and
Utopia (1974).
28. Nozick’s ideal state, according to Held (1987), “should maintain a monopoly of force so
that it can protect individual rights in bounded territories. . . . enforcing the operation of the framework,
adjucating conflicts between communities, protecting the individual’s right to leave a given
community . . . .[However,] a government can only legitimately intervene in civil society to enforce
general rules, rules which broadly protect ‘life, liberty and state’” (Held, 1987, p.246-7, and 250).
29. The question of existing inequalities places substantial difficulties on the pursuit of
freedom stressed by the New Right thinking. The concept of freedom of the individual before society
must be seen from the viewpoint of society, therefore it is relative to the condition of other individuals
within it. In this sense, it comprises two interwoven components. First, a passive one, demanding the
equality of every individual before the law. Then, an active one, demanding that the means to pursue
freedom be available to all. However, as Held highlights: “Inequalities of class, sex, and race
substantially hinder the extent to which it can legitimately be claimed that individuals are ‘free and equal’”
(Held, 1987, p.254-6).
30. Extracted from Held (1987, p.251, 262).
31. Arnstein (1969) uses in her article the term citizen participation, a concept that differs
from the Brazilian notion of popular participation. Nonetheless, the relevant matter here is that the
question of participation may be systematized according to degrees of decision-making power allotted to
the public, where public may denote either an aggregate of individuals, as in the North American
manner, or an agglomerate of organized groups, as in the Brazilian way).
32. Arnstein uses the term citizen power,’defined as the “power needed to affect the
outcome of the process” (1969, p.216).
33. Bobbio explains, “emancipation of civil society from the political system . . . has
contributed toward civil society’s becoming an ever more inexhaustible source of demands vis-à-vis the
government which, in order to perform its function, must provide adequate responses” (1984, p.14). This
situation is the opposite in authoritarian governments, which have some control over demands and may
answer more quickly to social requirements, so that, in essence, authoritarian governments tend to
present an image of being more efficient than democratic ones (Bobbio, 1984, p.13-5). In the same way,
Held observes that both overload and legitimation crisis theorists, “claim that state power is being eroded
in the face of growing demands: in one case these demands are regarded as ‘excessive,’ in the other
they are regarded as the virtually inevitable result of the contradictions within which the state is
enmeshed” (1987, p.237).
34. The election of representatives, for instance.
35. According to Bryden (1982), this classification was introduced by Verba and Nie in:
Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman H.; ‘Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality.
New York : Harper & Row, 1972.
36. Held observes that: “Politics as a governmental decision-making system, will always be
a radically imperfect system of choice when compared to the market. Thus ‘politics’ or ‘state action’
should be kept to a minimum” (1987, p.250).
37. Glass (1979) identifies five general objectives for participation: information exchange,
education, support building, decision-making supplement, and representational input.
38. It is generally admitted that popular participation stems from citizen pressure.
Cullingworth observes that “the pressures for citizen-participation are no longer simply a reaction against
the results of planning: they reflect a mounting desire from the public to be involved in the formulation
and execution of policy. . . . Well-established lines of authority are now being questioned: the rules of the
political game are changing. The issue is not only one of what is to be decided, but how the decisions
are to be made and by whom. Planning is not a technical means to a political end: it is itself part of the
political process” (1973, p.184).
39. For Arnstein, “citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power” (1969, p.216).
40. This question and some of the following observations are based on an study by Smith
(1973).
* According to Hudson, it “focusses primarily on technical relationships and objective realities, to the
exclusion of subjective and emotional discussion sparked by divergent perceptions of problems being addressed”
(Hudson, 1979).
** Hudson notes that there are cognitive limitations of decision-makers (Hudson, 1979).
41. The purposes of public administration and planning decision-making in the city entail
meanings that can be dissociated from both the society and its source of authority. Relating to this,
Thornley states that “although the impetus for participation in planning may have come from a number of
different directions (e.g. grass-roots dissatisfaction, theoretical reappraisal of democracy or the American
experience), its interpretation and implementation depends to some extent upon the attitudes to planning
itself and its purpose in society” (1977, p.31).
42. Hague and McCourt, observe: A “concern with the overall ‘functioning’ of the city, a
rather imprecise notion associated with a comprehensive overview of the city which can be expressed in
terms of physical standards . . . The concept effectively neutralizes the issues at stake, since no one can
credibly argue in favour of ill-functioning” (1974, p.151).
43. This observation is made clear in a work by Frances Korten (Korten, 1983, p.185).
44. This distinction is employed by Friedmann (1967-1968) and Simmie (1974) and follows
one made by Mannheim, about substantial and functional rationality. The former is concerned with
rationality in the establishment of objectives, the latter with the development of actions that lead to those
objectives.
45. The author is presenting ‘radical humanism,’ a theory that stresses “the profound role of
social relations and communication” in the explanation of planning (Poulton, n.d., p.15).
46. Within the realm of small and more or less homogeneous groups, participation is said to
have a positive effect on participants, enabling individual identification and commitment to the community
(Boaden et al., 1980; George, 1986). Such a concept is much appreciated in development programmes
because, as Goulet stresses, “when they [the people] participate, thereby becoming active subjects of
knowledge and action, they begin to construct their properly human history and engage in processes of
authentic development” (1989, p. 165). A complementary observation says that: “Organized participation
taking advantage of the weight of numbers offers the only real hope of obtaining from the society more
favourable responses to their immediate needs, in particular larger incomes, more security of livelihood,
and better access to the services for which the State is responsible” (United Nations Economic
Commission for Latin America, 1970, quoted in Mabogunje, 1981, p.99).
47. The implication here is meant to be that there is a dialectical relationship between theory
and action. This means that, though theory may eventually precipitate action, it is also a result of action.
It will be seen that an ideology is not elaborated previously,but develops within the emergence of a social
movement.
48. Christenson adds to this observation: “An ideology is advocated, not as a haphazard and
scattered collection of ideas, but as an ordered arrangement of logically related ideas offering an
explanation and vision of human destiny. It is a pattern of ideas integrated through a few basic premises,
containing its own, often self-fulfilling, rules of change and development. Although advocated as such, an
ideology may not (and need not) be internally consistent” (1981, p.6).
49. In general, an ideology is oriented towards the justification and self-legitimation of a
particular viewpoint, and in doing so, arguments against other positions are advanced (Hamilton, 1987).
50. Melucci defines ideology as “a set of symbolic frames which collective actors use to
represent their own actions to themselves and to the others, within a system of social relationships”
(1992, p.56). The author observes that “it is . . . always possible to identify, more or less explicitly, in the
ideology of a social movement, a definition of the social actor who is mobilized, of the adversary against
whom the movement must struggle and of the collective objectives of the struggle. These three analytical
elements are combined in a complex system of representations, that defines the position of the collective
actor with respect to the opponent and the collective goals” (Melucci, 1992, p.57).
51. In fact, Touraine defines a social movement as a collective actor within a specific
historical context, and “combination of a principle of identity, a principle of opposition, and a principle of
totality” (1977, p.311; also 1981, p.81).
52. Cardoso says that the process of identity formation in a social movement can “be seen
as a play of mirrors” (1992, p.292).
53. ‘Principle of opposition,’ according to Touraine (1977; 1981).
54. ‘Principle of totality’, according to Touraine (1977; 1981).
55. For Melucci, “ideology is one of the main tools which can be used to guarantee
integration. The multiplicity of interests and demands which are always to be found in an organized
movement must be mediated and unified. Ideology co-ordinates, articulates and makes coherent these
demands, associating them with general principles. By reformulating values and norms of the group,
ideology consolidates the collective identity and prevents internal conflicts from destroying unity. At the
same time, it determines the criteria for the identification and punishment of those who deviate from this
norm.” (Melucci, 1992, p.61)
56. The idea of ‘rebirth’ is important because it provides a common element upon which the
movement can claim its legitimacy and gain support. According to Melucci “in the moment of its
formation, the movement restructures old social allegiances in a new collective framework, combining
the defence of an identity still referring back to the past and the emerging new problems. In this situation,
the only sure points of reference, the only known language, the only images to be entrusted with the new
claims, belong to the past.” (Melucci, 1992, p.58)
57. The political relaxation of the military regime which gradually restored some democratic
guarantees. Literally it may be translated as Political Opening.
58. This author is worth citing. Cardoso was a leading Brazilian sociologist, later a politician
deeply involved in the process of ‘Abertura Política’ and the formation of new Brazilian political parties.
He is presently the country’s president.
59. The Brazilian minimum monthly wage, called ‘salário mínimo,’ is set by the federal
government. Presently it is worth approximately Can$130 (US$100).
60. Extracted from Cardoso (1989, p.305).
61. Information originally extracted from Jornal do Brasil, 30 Dec. 1983, Caderno I, p.13
(Soares, 1986).
62. Soares observes that one of the words used at the time was ‘entreguismo.’ It means to
give up one’s wealth to others.
63. Therefore “preventing strikes and political destabilization” (Soares, 1986, p.297).
64. Brazilian Congress served as a stage for the loss of support of the military regime.
Soares explains that it “rejected several of the administration’s wage bills and thus prevented the regime
from privately negotiating the standard of living of Brazil’s salaried population with IMF representatives.
Several more moderate bills had substantial congressional support, but they were defeated by the
government majority (Soares, 1986, p.297).
65. ‘The Social Bases of the Transition to Democracy in Brazil,’ is based on two researches:
Representation and Democracy in Brazil, 1972-1973, by Youssef Cohen, Philip Converse, Amaury de
Souza, and Peter McDonough; and As Eleições Brasileira de 1982, conducted by researchers headed
by Bolivar Lamounier and Amaury de Souza (Rochon and Mitchell, 1989).
66. Extracted from Rochon and Mitchell (1989, p.309).
67. Extracted from Rochon and Mitchell (1989, p.341).
68. “All three schools are heterogeneous but one has a functionalist core, one a Statist core,
one a grassroot (basismo) core” (Cardoso, 1989, p.311).
69. Cardoso says that this view was “especially strong among the regime’s ideologues”
(1989, p. 312).
70. Cardoso explains that in this view, “Real democratization will arrive (and is arriving,
according to those who hold this perspective) as it is crystallized in the spontaneous solidarity of the
disinherited. It lives as comunitas, experiences of common hardship which form a collective we based on
the same life experience that is transformed only when, through molecular changes, the simultaneous
isolation of the State and the exploiters - which will perish at the same time - comes about” (1989, p.313
- italics in original).
71. In Cardoso’s words: “as who were the ‘historical subjects’ of the desired
democratization” (Cardoso, 1989, p.313).
72. “Enlightened bureaucracy, considered the incarnation of the metaphysical will of people”
(Cardoso, 1989, p.314).
73. Cardoso explains that “the general will, in this case, is presented as the incarnation of a
partiality which in its totality expresses a goal or a desire” (1989, p.314).
74. The integrative function of ideology has been already noted.
 75. Mainwaring observes that “in Brazil, popular participation has historically been limited;
the society has a lengthy history of elitism, which has largely excluded the popular classes from the most
important institutions. . . . the popular sectors have had a weak political presence” (1987, p.133).
76. Cardoso describes it: “It is evident that ‘possessive individualism’ and the idea of citizen-
property owner as the basis for democracy is a weak basis for justifying the democratic struggle in an
associated-dependent society such as Brazil. What is at stake today [1983] is not the ‘freedom of the
individual’ versus the totalitarianism of the State. The subject of individual freedom (psychological,
physical, political) is naturally an integral part of a political process which follows upon a struggle against
a military dictatorship which oppressed and tortured. But the social inequality and the fragility of the
individual before business and the bureaucracy calls for the legitimation of a ‘collective’ historical subject
- that is, the union, the community, the movement, and even the party - which appear as actors to
oppose themselves to arbitrariness and exploitation” (Cardoso, 1989, p.322-323).
77. This was not limited to institutional politics, but generalized in society. Cardoso points
out that “this process was visible, for example, in the strikes, especially in those job categories, such as
public employees and teachers, where ‘assembly-ism’ put in check the process of ‘bargaining through
representatives’” (1989, p.323).
78. Mainwaring highlights four restricting factors that restrict the direct transposition of
perceived difficulties into forms of social action that characterize social movements. The first one is the
group or individuals’ awareness of the state of their own condition within society and consecutive
definition of their needs. This, while stemming from objective circumstances demands the intermediation
of social values and parameters as to define the meaning of such circumstances and the objectives for
which to fight for. The other is that needs are not only restricted to material conditions, but also
encompass “affective and religious” factors, which may be given priority over the participation in popular
movements (1987, p.141). A third element is the possible skepticism on the possibility of change, which
might lead to passive attitudes, and finally there are different ideas on the appropriate form of social
action. All these elements corroborate for the possibility of fragmented individual responses and
nonetheless, there was, in Brazil, a great development of popular movements during the ‘Abertura
Política’ period.
79. Corroborating to this, all articles reviewed present the same perception and emphasize
the same agents (see Cardoso, 1992; Jacobi, 1991; and Krischke, 1990; for very similar observations on
this issue). Mainwaring argues that “the transformation from a relatively passive social identity to one that
at least encourages participating in popular movements does not occur spontaneously. Rather, it
requires some experience that impels the individual to rethink his or her worldview. In isolated cases, this
experience can occur without mediation from an outside institution. More commonly, however, the
transformation of identity has required the intervention of actors who help a more critical consciousness”
(Mainwaring, 1987, p.146).
80. The Church, Mainwaring argues, because it stimulated grass-roots participation. The
Left, “at the leadership level, . . . developing strategies for social movements” (1987, p.146). The
Workers’ Party assume especial relevancy in this work due to its commitment with the idea of popular
participation and to the fact that it was the party that originally institutionalized the first program for
popular participation in Vitória.
81. ‘Comunidades Eclesiais de Base,’ is the Portuguese name for Ecclesial Base
Communities.
82. Ecclesial Base Communities.
83. In the words of the Pope, the Church has made an “option or love of preference for the
poor” (quoted in Gutiérrez, 1988, p.xxvii).
84. Meaning that there were ‘social origins for misery’ (Krischke, 1991).
85. Vink observes that the method for dealing with emerging problems follows three steps:
“see, judge and act” (1985, p.102). The first step is related to the dissemination of information of
concrete problems perceived within a specific community. Then, there are commentaries and
discussions about the causes of such problems. These are usually on the basis of the relational situation
of the poor within society and the affirmation of the inequity of such situation. Finally, solutions and
courses of action are proposed and agreed upon. When decisions are followed through, the community
evaluates the course of action taken.
86. Krischke seems to agree with the amount of participants but for him the number of such
communities is around 80,000. He says that “each of them brings together between 15 and 25 people to
debate regularly (weekly or fortnightly) the problems of their daily lives in the light of the Bible” (1991,
p.187).
87. Many authors stress that the relaxation of the military regime was accompanied by a
reduction of the confrontation that some sectors of the Left intended in the more authoritarian years
(Packenham, 1985).
88. The following quote is from Levine and Mainwaring: “In all the cases where CEBs later
became prominent, political closure was decisive in magnifying their impact as CEBs became the only
available vehicles for popular organization. At the same time, repression radicalized many bishops and
pastoral agents, who then intensified efforts to create and extend CEBs. Further, the national security
states were so manifestly antipopular that they unwittingly encouraged the politicization of most CEBs by
repressing just about any collective popular action, no matter how innocuous its initial goals” (1989,
p.211).
89. Though, there are different modes of operation within the Brazilian Catholic Church.
90. Krischke says that “this strategy of church reform tends therefore to project its influence
on the ‘horizontalization’ of social relations outside the church” (1991, p.199).
91. The emergence and development of the PT needs to be assessed because it constitutes
an important sector of the Left and a significant element in Brazilian political life. According to
Mainwaring, “friends and foes have perceived the PT as one of the most important innovations in recent
Brazilian Politics” (1988, p.99). Above all, the importance to briefly review the work of the PT, is that it
was through this party that popular participation was first institutionalized in Vitória.
92. This fact actually illustrates two characteristics of the party. First, its commitment to the
idea of popular participation. Then, the commitment of its representatives in the Congress to the
deliberation of the party. This contrasts with the generally individualist Brazilian politician.
93. During the previous administration, these popular groups had proposed that an
amendment be made to allow popular participation in the elaboration of the municipal budget. However,
this proposal was denied by the Legislative body.
94. Francisco Weffort is an intellectual and political leader in Brazil, one of the founders of
the Workers’s Party.
95. The text books of these two ideas, A Theology of Liberation (1971) and Pedagogy of the
Oppressed (1968) are from the period when the dictatorship in Latin America, and in Brazil, in particular,
was at the peak of its repressive practice. CEBs started in 1972.
96. Once more, it is important to highlight the work of external agents in the formulation of
ideologies: “All of the movements have some leaders who can discuss the global nature and goals of the
movements and can articulate a sophisticated vision of society and social transformation, including
awareness of the movement’s importance in the contemporary Western world” (Mainwaring and Viola,
1984, p.31).
97. Liberation Theology, as seen in Chapter II, also has a strong component towards a
change in the social order: “It is becoming more evident that the Latin American peoples will not emerge
from their present status except by means of a profound transformation, a social revolution, which will
radically and qualitatively change the conditions in which they now live” (Gutiérrez, 1988, p.55).
98. Lula is the nickname for Luis Inácio da Silva, a metal-worker that became one of the
founders and the most important leader of the Workers’ Party.
99. São Paulo, the richest Brazilian state, is the birthplace of the Workers’ Party.
100. This involvement, which has been thoroughly stressed in Chapter II, demands the
development of a ‘new consciousness’ which must be accomplished individually and collectively.
101. Popular Council of Vitória is the federative entity of the neighbourhood associations and
community movements of Vitória.
102. Complementing this view of participatory democracy is a statement by the President of
the Popular Council related to controlling municipal affairs: “We are a legitimate and parallel power, but
not of confrontation, but of participation and vigilance. We want everybody to be conscious and to
participate and to look over what is theirs, that nobody be remiss” (Extracted from an interview with
Vilaça, Gonring, et. al. 1995, p.10. Translated from Portuguese).
103. The idea of a communicative rationality, “to replace that of the self-conscious
autonomous subject using principles of logic and scientifically-formulated empirical knowledge to guide
actions” is stressed (Healey, 1992, p.147).
104. Brazilian Constitution states: “The Federate Republic of Brazil [is] formed by the
indivisible union of States, Municipalities and the Federal District . . .” (Brasil, 1988, Art. 1º. Translated
from Portuguese).
105. Meirelles observes that in Brazil, Municipalities have administrative and political power
equivalent to States, considering “the competencies that are defined for each, within the Constitution”
(1990, p.116. Translated from Portuguese).
106. Though not dissociated from the ideas that constituted the ideology of popular
participation. A clear example is Article 29, X, which acknowledges collectives as units for participation.
107. This Preamble has already been quoted in this work to place the Municipal Organic Law
in the historical context of the emergence of popular participation. It will be quoted again to become
object of analysis and discussion.
108. The words “authoritarian form of government” may provide a clue to this connection. It
seems to emphasize that well-being is, in fact, the emancipation of the civil society.
109. Though, there is no detail concerning the fact that the city comprises diverse interest
groups: What precisely does ‘people’ mean?
110. Brazilian anthropologist DaMatta (DaMatta, 1993) highlights the fact that, instead of
expressing the established social practice, Brazilian laws tend also to point out a sublime goal, an
aspiration too visionary to be achieved.
111. In the elaboration of this work no evidence was found of the existence of that
Committee.
112. Similar to R. Dahrendorf’s perspective. See Chapter II.
113. This is contrary to the educational and compulsory aspect of a participatory democracy,
that implies“the formation of a knowledgeable citizenry capable of taking a sustained interest in the
governing process” (Held, 1987, p.262). In the participatory view, citizen’s involvement is not only
acceptable, it is desirable.
114. The fact that the ability to make the final decision is still with the Councillors deserves
consideration.
115. In practice, this occurred through the participation of parents in meetings and seminars
at the schools, and in special meetings in which different segments of society attended (Nogueira,
Simões, et al., 1992).
116. A similar article (Article 182) defines that Health Units will hold direct elections for
General Unity Director and for their Director Council.
117. There are two kinds of possible initiatives: private and general (Aguiar, 1993). Private
initiative is reserved for the Mayor; general initiative may be launched by any of the other agents.
118. The Municipal Council of Environment (Vitória, 1990b), for instance, represents a
diametric situation. Though, like the Council of Urban Master Plan, it deals with technical matters, seven,
out of its twenty-five seats, are held by non-governmental organizations (twenty-eight percent), including
popular or community associations not necessarily dealing with environmental matters.
119. In Portuguese, ‘Assembléia de Abertura do Orçamento,’ is the current terminology for
the First General Assembly of the Budget (as previously called).
120. In Portuguese, ‘Orçamento Popular.’
121. It is interesting to note that a folder prepared by the Municipality observes that the
priority voted by neighbourhood associations coincide, “in most of the cases,” with the one presented by
the Municipality (Vitória, 1995e. Translated from Portuguese.).
122. In previous years, another delegate was directly chosen by the community movement or
neighbourhood association administration (Fontana, 1995).
123. Data adapted from information available ate the City Hall (Vitória, 1995c; 1995d).
124. Data adapted from information available ate the City Hall (1993a).
125. Enseada do Suá is a peculiar case due to the fact that this has been originally set as a
residential neighbourhood that, against its dwellers’ will, has been progressively transformed into a
mixed zoning (services and residential). This has led that neighbourhood to mobilize against these
changes.
126. São Pedro, is well documented in English planning literature (Banck, 1986; see also
Banck and Doimo, 1989). Banck observes that even the naming of the streets configures the collective
memory of the movement that was very strong in the neighbourhood. Compared to Brazilian tradition of
designating thoroughfares with the names of notables, in São Pedro an “anti-hegemoic discourse” is
forwarded (Banck, 1986; 1993), and streets can be termed as Street of the Shout, Victory, and so on.
127. This total is in American dollars, and is approximately equivalent to Can$ 122 millions.
128. Fontana, Secretary of Social Action in the first two years of the PSDB administration,
observes that “the credibility of the Budget was regained, as demonstrates the growing participation of
the population in the assemblies. A growing number of neighbourhoods ‘register’ to participate in the
process” (1995, p.16. Translated from Portuguese, italics added). However, this is not corroborated by
the data presented in table 7, which was elaborated at the City Hall (Vitória, 1995c; 1995d).
129. The Executive defines the composition of Popular Councils but this definition may
eventually be challenged by the Municipal Council.
130. Article 3º states the following: “Constitute fundamental principles of the Municipality of
Vitória . . . to collaborate with Federal and State governments in the construction of a free, just and
solidary society” (Vitória, 1990, Art.3º, I).
131. This confirms Bobbio’s assertion that “the main inspiration of democratic thought has
always been liberty understood as autonomy, i.e., as the capacity for self-government” (1984, p.8).
132. This is inspired in the works of Cardoso (1989), and McAuslan (1980).
133. The fact that institutional provisions provide a purpose of participation of their own, not
necessarily correlated to the ideas promoted, but is based on the conjecture that different provisions for
participation imply, through their unique attributes, distinct purposes for participation (Thornley, 1977).
134. In English: ‘A united people can never be overcome.’
135. ‘Obreirismo’ stands for a concept of making politics through the spreading of urban
projects on a citywide basis. These projects are meant to be constructions that can be visually perceived,
therefore enabling the citizen (voter) to distinguish between administrators that do and those that do not
do.
136. ‘Lenta gradual e segura,’ is the Portuguese expression for slow, progressive and safe, a
catchword of the ‘Abertura Política’ period. It was used by the military regime to determine the way the
political relaxation process would proceed.
137. According to Friedmann, “allocative planning is the assigning of resource increments
among competing uses” (1967-1968, p.238).
138. The suggestive observation of Gondim (1988a), is complemented by Nunes, who in
examining the case of an intermediate city that, as Vitória, was governed by the Workers’ Party, notes
the absence of projects regarding the institutionalization of popular participation (Nunes,1991, p.101).
[Sidebars]
[#1] To Jandira, my love.

[#2]
[#3] Consensus

•Every society is a relatively persistent, stable structure of elements.

•Every society is a well-integrated structure of elements.

•Every element in a society has a function, i.e. renders a contribution to its

maintenance as a system.

•Every functioning social structure is based on a consensus of values among

its members.
Conflict

•Every society is at every point subject to processes of change; social

change is ubiquitous.

•Every society displays at every point dissensus and conflict; social conflict

is ubiquitous.

•Every element in a society renders a contribution to its disintegration and

change.

•Every society is based on the coercion of some of its members by others.

[#4] Legal democracy

Principle(s) of justification

•The majority principle is an effective and desirable way of protecting

individuals from arbitrary government and, therefore, of maintaining liberty

Key features

•Constitutional state

•Rule of law

•Minimal state intervention in civil society and private life

•Free-market society given fullest possible scope

Participatory democracy

Principle(s) of justification

•An equal right to self-development in a ‘participatory society,’ a society

which fosters a sense of political efficacy, nurtures a concern for collective

problems and contributes to the formation of a knowledgeable citizenry

capable of taking a sustained interest in the governing process

Key features

•Direct participation of citizens in the regulation of the key institutions of

society, including the work place and local community

•Maintenance of an open institutional system to ensure the possibility of

experimentation with political forms

[#5]
[#6] Technical Rationality

•Knowledge able to inform the decision-making process is technical.

[Footnote #139]

•Instrumental participation.

•Efficiency is better perceived in terms of tangible outcomes (Hague and

McCourt, 1974).

•Planning is a problem-solving activity (Crosta, 1990).

•“Planners as technicians . . . can simply ignore political considerations of

the public interest (Hudson, 1979).”

Participatory Rationality

•There are different and complementary forms of knowledge.[Footnote

#140]

•Consummative participation.

•Efficiency is related to betterments brought to the process of social

interaction (Hague and McCourt, 1974).

•Planning is a problem-setting activity. (Crosta, 1990).

•”The public good is a notion of process, it emerges in the course of

planning itself, and its concrete meaning is constantly evolving” (Friedmann,

1989l).

[#7]
[#8]

Figure 10: Municipal Government Functions

[#9]

Figure 11: Administrative Structure of the Executive in Order of Budgetary

Importance
[#10]

Figure 12: Administrative Structure of the Executive and Existing Popular

Councils
[Posted Notes]
[#1] Social movements in Brazilian democratization emerged in opposition to
institutionalized forms of politics within the State (Krischke, 1990) There is however a
paradox in this affirmation because, although there is a search for autonomy from the
State - defined as the adversary - popular movements have also seen the State “as
their interlocutor at the negotiating table.” (Cardoso, 1992, p.291; also Jacobi, 1991)
Among Brazilians it is common to associate the State with the interests of powerful economic groups.
Whether this belief is based on empirical evidence, as those presented above, or just represent part of
the country’s culture, it does not make any difference. The fact is that people feel that the ‘rich’ always
benefit from Governmental centralized decisions about the allocation of goods. In plain words, people fell
that the public sphere was dominated by private interests, that is, the public sphere was privatized.
[#2] purpose (what participation is expected to facilitate in the urban realm) and the
role (the space of participation in local government) for participation differs from the
form that participation may actually take.
[#3] A preliminary observation of participation in Vitória indicates that although,
promoted as a ‘democratic and progressive’ way of public decision-making, its role in
local government differs from the stated purposes.
[#4] The incongruity between conceptual and institutional levels arrive as the
translation of the former into the latter requires a detailing of purposes and the
delimitation of areas of action. Translation implies the transfer of a model situation into
a real world configuration, and in this process, three main problems interfere.

[#5] The verification of underlying concepts and assumptions requires analyzing the
means by which they are fostered, and relating them to their political and
socioeconomic environment
[#6] Thompson has suggested “three levels at which forms of discourse may be
studied qua linguistic constructions and with a view towards explicating their ideological
features” (1984, p.136). First, they can be studied as narratives, which is generally this
form of history presentation that an ideology assumes in order to maintain a relation of
domination. Second, they “may be concerned with the argumentative structure of
discourse,” . . . [which may unveil] not only their procedures of legitimation, but also
their strategies of dissimulation” (1984, p.136). Finally, discourse analysis may observe
the syntactic structure. (1984, p.137).
[#7] The evaluation of each domain separately, precedes the analysis of the
correlation between them. However, to compare both, it is necessary to establish a
common ground of inquiry, based on the purpose of participation each domain implies.
This involves two interrelated aspects: the degree of citizen control expected to be
given up, and the amount of social change admissible.
The degree of citizen control varies according to the relevance attributed to citizen’s
practical knowledge and personal views, in contrast to the expertise of technicians and
the city administration. The amount of social change admissible varies according to the
social structure and depends on the fact that certain groups have control over
government, which tend to favour groups like themselves. How much change is
admissible, depends on how much control will be given up.
[#8] Participation and Planning: Modes of Social Action
The fact that categories overlap will be also used to make reference to two modes of
social action, according to a classification presented by Friedmann. (1967-1968) This
classification, aimed at categorizing planning within alternative modes of “guidance of
change in a social system”(Friedmann, 1967-1968, p.225). Of the ‘four
modes,’[Footnote #141] proposed by the author, two are of special interest:
‘Allocative’ and ‘Innovative Planning.’
“Allocative planning is the assigning of resource increments among competing uses”
(Friedmann, 1967-1968, 238). Such resource allocation, requires a central guiding
agency, however, the general objectives are not defined within the decision-making
process, but explicitly or implicitly assumed from outside of it. It implies that the main
concern is in the maintenance the existing balance of the system, within which the
process is validated.[Footnote #142]
An innovative decision-making process, or ‘innovative planning,’ according to
Friedmann’s definition, differs from allocative planning in that it is “a form of social action
intended to produce major changes in an existing social system”[Footnote #143]
(Friedmann, 1967-1968, p.244). There are four main characteristics of this model of
action[Footnote #144] (Friedmann,1967-1968; 1993).
First, an emphasis on “new social objectives” (1967-1968, p.244), which implies a
reorientation of social action towards specific aspects of social life, upon which action
would result in significant structural changes in the social system. For this reason it is
basically selective and focused in terms of its action, and contrasts to allocative
planning, which behaves comprehensively in its attempt to master and maintain the
system.
Second, innovative social action is involved with the dissemination of the new values
through institution building. Its actions seek decentralization (in contrast to central
guidance) through the empowerment and organization of groups, so that the objective
of a central decision body is to provide a dispersion of decision centers, therefore
disseminating the efforts for change among these institutions instead of retaining and
mastering changes as in a controlled environment.
Third, in terms of resource management, innovative action emphasizes concentration
instead of dispersion of resources. In Friedmann’s definition, it is “more interested in
mobilizing resources [to areas that are understood to be providing more substantial
transformations,] than in their optimal allocation among competing uses” (1967-1968,
p.246).
Fourth, innovative planning relies on “negotiation, mediation and the art of compromise”
(1993, p.483). Innovative action also “operates in real rather than imaginary time” (1993,
p.483), which means that instead of formulating plans for posterior action, its brings
“knowledge and practice to bear directly on the action itself” (1993, p.482). Therefore, it
is constantly guided and continuously adjusted, both in terms of the desirable ends, and
of means to achieve those ends. In this sense, it is also “present, rather than future
oriented” (1993, p.482).
Nonetheless, the focus on the present, as a mode of action in the decision-making
process does not negate the desirability of a vision for the future. Friedmann says that,
“innovative planners are more limited in focusing mainly on the immediate and narrowly
defined results of the proposed innovation, and more ambitious in advancing a major
project and laboring diligently to introduce it into society” (1967-1968, p.246). In fact, the
visionary aspect is a pre-condition that permeates the whole innovative model.
The quest for social change, which seems to make the difference between the various
categories of concepts, requires an innovative mode of social action, and this is what
seems to have been the emphasis in the democratization period in Brazil. However, at
present it is more likely that different modes of operation occur simultaneously, and
where the emphasis in political discourse has been mostly of the ‘innovative’ type, in
practice it tends to be more allocative in nature (Friedmann, 1967-1968).
What would the general aspect of the decision-making process (in planning and city
administration) that stems from this whole concept of stability be? Its performance
would lean towards an allocative model of decision-making. The emphasis would be on
distributing existing resources between various competing needs (Friedmann, 1967-
1968, p.246), that is, on maintaining the existing balance of the system.
In terms of the decision-making process, this concept would imply an ‘innovative’ model,
to repeat Friedmann’s (1967-1968), categorization, given the emphasis on changing
social systems.
[#9] Thornley explains that “the problem of social change arises when the equilibrium conditions under
which the system normally functions are disturbed. If this happens, then control processes are brought
into operation to bring the system back into adjustment. [Thornley advances that in Parson’s view point,]
the concept of a system implies an interdependence of the elements and subsystems within society. This
means that no single overriding factor is responsible for initiating change. As a result, there are no social
processes which systematically make for deviance and social change to match those that contribute
towards equilibrium” (1977, p.6, italics in original).
[#10] “While a crude total dichotomy between capital and labour is not found in capitalist society,
nevertheless, elements of both these groups are always to be found in conflict and always dispute over
the allocation of resources and power”
[#11] However, as the author admits the extent of the influence of previous
oppressors’ once revolution is taken over, has to be dealt with an dynamic “communion
with the people,” [Posted Note #64](Freire, 1970, p.132-133)
[#12] “The antidote to manipulation lies in a critically conscious revolutionary
organization, which will pose to the people as problems their position in the historical
process, the national reality, and the manipulation itself.
[#13] Freire considers leadership necessary for the revolutionary process, as he puts it: “Those
whose interests are served by that reality cannot carry out this transformation; it must be achieved by the
tyrannized, with their leaders. This truth, however, must become radically consequential; that is, the
leaders must incarnate it, through communion with the people. In this communion both groups grow
together, and the leaders, instead of being simply self-appointed, are installed or authenticated in their
praxis of the people.” (1970, p.124)
[#14] What appears evident in both liberal and participatory views is the treatment of
government-society relationship. In the first, local government appears as an executive
for social wants, therefore connected to society, as able to interpret and obey its wants
and needs, but at the same time dissociated from society, as an independent agent.
because of ... implies a discussion of the relationship between govern and governed,
which is seen as dichotomist, once government, usually associated with elite groups,
and subjects, thought as powerless groups, form two extremes of society Whereas
such dichotomy is biased because neither consist of homogeneous groups it
emphasizes the way people perceive government and vice versa. Arnstein explains
such dichotomy in her typology for participation using the following words “The
justification for using such simplistic abstractions is that in most cases the have-nots
really do perceive the powerful as a monolithic ‘system,’ and power-holders actually do
view the have-nots as a sea of ‘those people,’ with little comprehension of the class and
caste differences among them. (1969, p.217).
[#15] Aberbach and Rockman, 1992, point out, that it is “an assumption common to
the way that citizens often think of government; that government can be evaluated only
by the consequences that seem to derive from it whether or not these actually are
attributable to the process of governing.” (p.136)

[#16] for whom the nature planning, consequently, is necessarily political, and the
persistence of the “technical, professional and apolitical . . . myth” (p.72) about
planners’ work is the reflect of two antipolitical ideologies that are embodied in the
profession. (Kiernan, is discussing the lack of theoretical support among Canadian
planners’ practice, but stresses that the considerations might be applicable to “their
counterparts in other countries.” (1983, 71)) These ideologies are the ‘unitary public
interest model’ (forwarded in the previous section of this work) and the ‘rational-
comprehensive decision-making model.’ They contrast to the understanding of the
political content of planning (and decision-making), on the basis that, for this other view,
decision-making is a distributional activity (regarding the variety of interests within the
city), and that, instead of relying on objective knowledge (rational), it is dependent on
underlying subjective values. Kiernan, 1983
[#17] The “unitary public-interest model” is dependent on the idea of a consensual society, and
“contends that the goals of planning are essentially universally shared and transcend any special,
sectional interest.” (Kiernan, 1983, p.77) In this circumstance, it is implied that planners, city officers and
politicians have a common standard of values that entitles them to make adequate choices for the
community.
[#18] Technical or Synoptic Rationality
•Focusses primarily on technical relationships and objective realities, to the
exclusion of subjective and emotional discussion sparked by divergent
perceptions of problems being addressed.
•Planners as technicians . . . can simply ignore political considerations of the
public interest.

Criticism of Synoptic Rationality

•Insensitivity to institutional performance capabilities . . . Failure to
appreciate the cognitive limits of decision-makers, who cannot ‘optimize’
but only ‘satisfice’ choices by successive approximations.
•Artificial separation of ends from means . . . Presumption of a general
public interest rather than pluralist interests.
[#19] The term decision-making will be used here instead of ‘planning,’ although this is the term used
in Smith’s work, and many others consulted, all dealing with decision-making within the ‘planning’
process. The selection is due to confusions it might generate with land-use planning, which would reduce
the scope of this work.
[#20] “Blowers, 1982, provides a more unfavorable observation in about planners’ knowledge in his
“Much Ado About Nothing? - A Case Study of Planning and Power.” For him, “planning is not a matter of
expertise, nor a rational nor technical procedure which controls the environment. Rather it is a weak
activity, performing essentially a passive bureaucratic function.” (p.156)
[#21] Alternative scenarios, related to the role popular participation is expected to play
in local government, emerge from the interplay of differences within those set of
concepts: social order, democracy, rationality.
[#22] is that the definition of consensus or conflict, or the definition of what
predominates in society, will tend to disguise the existence of conflict. In this sense, the
institutionalization of popular participation depends on participation itself. The
imposition of an elite and rational decision-making procedures in local government, in a
city where different interests are clearly operating, indicates a sort of fascism. If
participation occurs in the planning realm, it indicates what Arnstein (1969) calls
tokenism.
From this typology, it becomes clear that to use participation without the intention of
furthering democracy means to emphasize communication (by means of discourse,
rhetoric) without devolution of power. This is precisely the circumstance categorized as
‘tokenism,’ in which demands for citizen’s involvement are answered with deceiving
forms of participation, that is, participation without authority in the decision-making
process.
[#23] According to Jary and Jary, social movement is “any broad social alliance of people who are
associated in seeking to effect or to block an aspect of social change within a society. Unlike political
parties or some highly organized interest or pressure groups, such movements may be only informally
organized, although they may have links with political parties and more institutionalized groups, and in
time they may lead to the formation of political parties.” (1995, p.615)
[#24] Ideology for Touraine (1977), is “any definition of a social interaction from the viewpoint of one
of the actors.” (p.461)
[#25] Melucci explains that “Ideology overcomes the inadequacy of practice: the less capacity for
action the movement, as yet weak and unorganized, has, the greater will be the production of
symbolism. This is the moment of the fusion of the various components of a movement into a new form
of solidarity, where the expressive dimensions and emotional identification with collective goals prevail.”
(Melucci, 1992, p.58)
[#26] unite existing and different identities within a singe expectation of change (1992,
p.58)
[#27] Ideologies emerge in times of crisis as people demand alternative explanations
to the negative situations that surround them. Such explanations appear as discourse,
that is, “methods of intellectual expression” that manifest an ideological system. (Apter,
1992)
[#28] These may be normative ideas, concerned with the optimal democratic system,
and, in Brazilian situation, may also be explanations for the causes of the attainment of
democracy.
[#29] Subsequently, there is the establishment of a conflict between State and civil
society for the control of the other. (Cardoso, 1992, p.311-312)
[#30] Cardoso says that,“to the extent that the democratizing demand today comes drenched with this
character, destabilizing politico-institutional consequences are nourished” (Cardoso, 1989, p. 323).
[#31] Brazilian State has been markedly authoritarian with a strong presence in
regulating and controlling civil society. This has contributed to the emergence of a dual
state of citizenship, one, that of the individual that is . The other, built on relationships
This might explain the emphasis on collectives.
[#32] with the development of social movements in that period. How this idea became
adopted by municipalities may, therefore be explained by the direct pressure of such
movements, but also by the overall influence that the grassroot perspective exerted
upon Brazilian political culture.
[#33] Having followed Cardoso in his observations of possible reasons and
explanations of why the country was breaking with the authoritarian order, it is wise to
question how does, in Brazilian ‘Abertura,’ the idea of democracy developed? and why
did, in Vitória and other cities alike, it unfold into the idea of popular participation?

[#34] as Mainwaring (1987) clearly puts it, “of translating some roughly common
material needs into a viewpoint that it is possible and desirable to form social
movements that will pressure the state into improving urban services.” (1987, p.140)
[#35] The development of Brazilian democratization was accompanied by the
emergence of an ‘ideology of popular participation;’ a set of ideas related to local
government, in close contact, and influenced by the context of their emergence.
Therefore, to perceive the meanings of that ideology, it is necessary to understand the
context of its emergence. This correlation between ‘context’ and ‘idea’ is necessary in
order to shed some light on Brazilian rationale, establishing a working definition of
Brazilian popular participation (especially because it consists of a series of information
that must be pieced together). This rationale is based on that, as people perceive
inadequacies of the existing order towards their own life, they turn to ideologies that
offer better perspectives, or justify their expectations and actions, not legitimated by the
predominant ideology. (Christenson, 1981, p.7-15)
[#36] As people perceive inadequacies of the existing order towards their own life,
they turn to ideologies that offer better perspectives, or justify their expectations and
actions. (Christenson, 1981)
[#37] the participation of lay people, to the promotion of justice, and
[#38] of solidarity and in a certain way, autonomy, which CEBs advocated.
[#39] These concepts emerged in the context of the country’s democratization, giving
shape to what is denominated here the Ideology of Public Participation, that is, the set
of ideas that aim to situate participation as a democratic procedure and to justify it as
the fulfillment of democratic requirements. The reasoning is unmistakable, for
"democracy is based on the hypothesis that everyone can decide everything."({Bobbio,
Norberto, Telos, 3-16, 1984, #2975} p.13).
[#40] Regarding the three categories of concepts that directly inform popular
participation (Chapter II), the work of CEBs made substantial contributions. These were
aided by different elements, not only stemming from the religious beliefs of the
institution, but by the adaptive character of CEBs (and the Church in general).
[#41] The PT lost the following municipal elections. However, this seems to be the result of the
personal image forwarded by the competing candidates at the time. Both personal image and party
programs interact and influence the voting behaviour. Not only the candidate elected sponsors
participatory experiences, but PT was elected to the State government.
[#42] Answer by Ítalo Batan Régis, President of the Popular Council of Vitória. Original in
Portuguese: “Q: Qual a maior virtude da administração municipal? A: É o Paulo Hartung ser fiel ao
compromisso democrático que ele fez com o povo de Vitória. Ele cumpre o que a sociedade quer. Ele
não é o dono do poder”
[#43] However, it should be noted, and Krischke highlights it, “the thrust of the CEBs radical intent is
clearly motivational, for it never takes on a precise meaning and program” (1991, p.200).
[#44] the scope of local government decision-making attributes. It will formulate an
account of the institutional arrangements for popular participation and contrast them to
[#45] Constitutionally, it means the ability of self-organization (creating its own ‘organic
law”), self-government (with its own representatives), self-legislation (when dealing with
local affairs and to supplement federal and state legislation) and self-administration
(servicing the population and receiving and applying tributes).
[#46] Apart Federal and State Constitution, which make some general requirements
to the organic law, this represents an autonomous expression of political will.

[#47] The correct translation would be “of the decisions . . . . . . ,” what, in fact, does
not mean anything
[#48] The correct translation would be “of the democratic improvement . . . . ” what, in
fact, does not mean anything
[#49] All are entitled to participate “of” Municipal decisions, and “of the democratic
improvement of its institutions,” this article states. The text is not clear even in
Portuguese, and what was intended to be expressed seems to be that people are
entitled to participate in the process of decision-making, and that this process, which
aims at improving Municipal institutions, is democratic in nature.
[#50] However, as a remedy to such a detached relationship between law and society, in Brazil “the
notion of citizenship experiences a variation, that prevents it from fully undertaking its catholic and
homogenizing political purpose” (Da Matta, 1993. Translated from Portuguese).
[#51] “Art. 150 - The Municipal Government will maintain a process of continuous
planning, aiming at promoting Municipal development, well-being of the population and
the betterment in municipal public services, integrating it with the region in which is
inserted.” (Vitória, 1990, Art.150)
[#52] Art. 232 - To the Municipal Executive is incumbent on planning and operation of
the collective transportation of passengers.
Extraordinary Paragraph - The establishment of bus routes and the operation of new
transportation lines will be previously submitted to approval by the population P,
through representative entities of the community.
[#53] In review, the Municipal Charter in Vitória presents ambiguous information
regarding the underlying concepts for participation. Any analysis of its content could
lead to affirmation of its ‘more radical,’ or of its ‘more traditional’ approach towards
participation. Any situation would be acceptable depending on one’s view point.
No doubt the Charter opens significative spaces for popular participation, that were not
available before. However, as the provisions previewed are analyzed through the
paradigm of underlying concepts, it becomes more difficult to emphasize such
presupposition.
[#54] On the other hand, as change is limited to improvements in the existing order, it
is likely that representative and elite decision will still share great portions of local
government decision-making, once this order favours them. Either stability is a
condition of the social order, due to the common values society holds - and elite would
naturally assume decision-making power - or stability is itself the value that society
holds and seeks to reach - and command would be given to elite for the maintenance of
the order. In any of these situations, representation (instead of direct participation) is
likely to be admitted as a strong component of the decision-making process.

[#55] TO BE VERIFIED
[#56] This occurs in popular councils because the Mayor Whereas in the legislative
process there is an interaction between Mayor and Legislature, the inauguration of
Popular Councils and its composition can be attributed mainly to the Mayor for even if
the project is amended, s/he tends to master the whole process.
[#57] Municipal Council of Environment :
This Council was created in 1990, with multiple purposes related to the environment,
including the definition of the “Municipal Policy for the Environment,” and directives
environmental impact assessment should follow. (Vitória, Lei 3.625) It holds, therefore,
significative competencies.
Its composition is of 19 members. Six are from the municipality (5 Secretaries
(‘Ministers’) and the Municipal Attorney). Two are from Federal and State Government
Agencies;
[#58]
[#59] , having had dissimilar influence relating to concepts of social change,
democracy, and rationality
[#60] . This quest finds its expression in the notion of ‘government by the people.’ It
was a symbolic creation that entailed expectations and meanings that served to provide
social movements unity and motivation.
The idea of popular participation developed into an ideology which was detached from
the concrete problems of practice. The inability to influence governmental decision-
making during dictatorial rule exempted the advocates of participation from developing
operational definitions of the idea:
[#61] Finally, some comments regarding the need to adequate institutional
frameworks for participation will be set forth.
[#62] In general, an ideology is normative in orientation, stressing ideals of how
society and government should be. It departs from a particular interpretation of current
circumstances and projects a situation that is defined as desirable. It functions to
provide unity to the movement and to advance the movement’s position within the
political environment.
[#63] The ‘progressive’ allusion forms the persuasive facet of the public participation
ideology in Brazil. The idea of a ‘progressive’ or even ‘radical democratic vision’
(Alvarez, 1993), is evocative of a contrast to authoritarianism, thus popular participation
(discourse and practice) serves as a reference for an ideology.
[#64] It has been seen that different ideological perspectives (and correlated interests)
coexist in the city. This is a characteristic of a pluralistic society, and will result in the
fact that institutions will adapt to this pluralistic environment reflecting the struggles
between the competing interests and ideologies operating within its realm. such
institutions develop provisions - like those for participation - according to the influence
of these different interests. Moreover, the administrative structure of the municipality,
with the strong mayor that leads the political process and that acknowledges
participation according to her/his own discretion, must also be highlighted. In this
aspect, Vitória has had the opportunity to be governed by two ‘progressive’ mayors.
However, if a more ‘authoritarian’ one is elected, the accomplishments could be lost.