LA ESQUINA CALIENTE (THE HOT CORNER) - A STUDY OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY IN ACTION AROUND THE WORLD

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY vs REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

We as citizens of the United States observe politics from afar and the vast majority of us may participate in the political process only to the extent that we go to the polls once a year to vote. We may endeavor to follow the news accounts of our nation's politics as they unfold, and of the consequences those political actions yield, but we have little power to influence our "democratically" elected officials. Perhaps we write an occasional letter to our senator or representative, but we almost inevitably receive a vague and impersonal response explaining why they will vote in our opposition.

Over the decades, our representative democracy has been systematically undermined and has ultimately failed in preserving the well being of the people of this nation. The system that the founding fathers painstakingly devised in order to best serve the interests and the will of the people has been corrupted and the systems of checks and balances on power that they instituted have been stripped away. Most of us accept this reality as being beyond our control and continue to observe, comment, and complain without aspiring to achieving any real change, without any hope of instituting a new system of governance that would instead take directly into account your views, and the views of your neighbors, and would empower you to make real positive change possible in your communities.

This site will attempt to explore in depth the places in the world where people are successfully bringing about that type of change in the face of similar odds, where an alternate form of democracy, which is called participatory or direct democracy, is taking root. Initiative, referendum & recall, community councils, and grassroots organizing are but a few ways in which direct/participatory democracy is achieving great success around the world.

Our system of representative democracy does not admit the voice of the people into congressional halls, the high courts, or the oval office where our rights and our liberties are being sold out from underneath us. Our local leaders and activists in our communities, and even those local elected officials who may have the best of intentions are for the most part powerless to make real positive change happen in our neighborhoods, towns and villages when there is so much corruption from above.

In places like Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, South Africa, India, and the Phillipines, new experiments in grass roots community based governance are taking place. There is much to be learned from these and other examples of participatory democracy from around the world when we try to examine how this grass-roots based governance could begin to take root here in our own country in order to alter our political system so that it might better serve the American people.

In the hope that one day we can become a nation working together as a united people practicing true democracy as true equals, we open this forum…

LATEST ENTRIES:

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

ECUADOR: New Constitution Shifts to Participatory Democracy

In the following article, the vice president of the constituent assembly charged with drafting Ecador's new constitution describes how the document will provide for a major shift from the neoliberal and representative democracy to people power and participatory democracy. This appears to be in line with the example set by Venezuela and reflects the current trend throughout Latin America, the rise of left of center and populist democratically elected governments fueling a major transition towards grassroots empowerment in the region. We the editors view this regional phenomenon as a major improvement, one that is making Latin America one of the most inspiring places in the world for advocates of participatory democracy. - Editor




Ecuador: New Constitution Paradigmatic, Democratic


July 21, 2008
Source:
http://www.escambray.cu/Eng/news/Wecuador080721209.htm

Quito, Jul 21 (PL) - The new Ecuadorean Constitution is revolutionary, paradigmatic and democratic, because it guarantees the rights of citizens and nature, according to Constituent Assembly Vice President Aminta Buenaño.

That Constitution, approved by the Constituent Assembly, marks a before and after, because if it is ratified in September referendum, it will establish the end of the neoliberal model and the beginning of a social and solidarity system, Buenaño pointed out.

It is a deep change for society, because it goes from representative democracy to participatory democracy, in which the core of everything is the citizen, she stressed.

That is why a new power is created, social and transparent control, in which individuals make decisions and public powers are supervised, she told Ecuadorean television.

Another new element, absent in several constitutions, is that it includes nature's rights, so it contains the concept of the Defender of the environment, who will oversee environmental protection, Buenaño said.

Regarding polemic issues, she denied that the Constitution will decriminalize abortions, and recalled that the State guarantees and respects life from the moment of conception.

She added that marriage could only take place between men and women, according to the final document approved by the Constituent Assembly.

The official also denied that the new Constitution hinders freedom of expression in the country, which is guaranteed, providing that citizens' rights be respected.

Buenaño warned against the opposition's disagreement with change and the new Constitution, which it is trying to distort to influence the people negatively.

Therefore, she added, a great campaign will be launched to publicize the content of the Constitution, which will meet the demands from most Ecuadoreans.

Monday, August 4, 2008

MEXICO: PRI Rechaza por Ahora la Democracia Participativa en Michoacán

El PRI en el estado de Michoacán, Mexico ha tomado la decisión de no legislar por ahora las figuras de plebiscito, referéndum y revocación de mandato, mientras el PRD sigue luchando por estos elementos basicos del poder popular y la democracia directa y participativa. - Editor



Rechaza el PRI legislar sobre participación ciudadana

Para el legislador Martín Cardona Mendoza hay otras prioridades como educación, salud y seguridad pública

Martes 29 de Julio de 2008


Fuente: http://www.cambiodemichoacan.com.mx/vernota.php?id=83523

La fracción del PRI descarta presentar una iniciativa de Ley que regule las figuras de participación ciudadana en Michoacán, mientras que el PRD será quien impulse el proyecto pero sigue sin tener fecha para hacerlo.

El diputado local del PRI, Martín Cardona Mendoza manifestó que Michoacán no está preparado para legislar las figuras de plebiscito, referéndum y revocación de mandato por la cultura “politizada que se tiene entre los diferentes grupos”.

Asimismo, manifestó que existen otras prioridades que requieren atención como es el tema de educación, seguridad pública y salud, en lugar de regular acciones que “se prestarían para manipulaciones políticas siempre a favor del partido que esté en el poder”.

“Lamentablemente tenemos una cultura de manifestaciones, plantones y movilizaciones, donde podría resultar contraproducente reglamentar estas figuras jurídicas porque en lugar de resolver los problemas los incrementaría al haber grupos inconformes de diferentes partidos o intereses que buscaría destituir a las autoridades o servidores públicos”.

Asimismo, consideró fundamental contar con una sociedad educada e informada de los problemas de la entidad, de lo contrario el consultar a las personas no tiene sentido si desconocen del tema que opinan.

Por su parte, el coordinador del PRD, Raúl Morón Orozco, señaló que su fracción ya tiene lista la iniciativa de Ley de Participación Ciudadana a través de la cual se reglamenta las figuras de la democracia que permite a los ciudadanos opinar, misma que podría ser presentada cuando los diputados regresen de vacaciones y se reanuden las sesiones a mediados de agosto.

Con ello, el legislador perredistas espera sensibilidad de las otras fuerzas políticas para discutir el tema a fin de avanzar en la democracia participativa que permitirá a los michoacanos involucrarse en las decisiones de las autoridades.

Raúl Morón expresó que entre las figuras de participación que han causado polémica con las demás fuerzas políticas se encuentra la revocación de mandato así como la constitución de los consejos populares.

TAIWAN: Referendum Process Needs Strengthening


Although a Referendum Law was passed in Taiwan in 2003, it has yet to take hold as a common form of participation. While referendums have been held on important issues, participation has been weak and the legal validity of each referendum was compromised because of low turnout. The lack of public participation may be a symptom of an over-worked population, or it may be the result of little confidence in the veracity of efforts by untrustworthy public officials, but the ultimate consequence is a perpetual cycle of disconnect between government and people that must be addressed in order to make the referendum process an effective mechanism for direct democracy. As the author states, all players should be making a concerted effort to strengthen the process. - Editor


Working to strengthen the role of plebiscites


By Chen Lung-Chu

Sunday, Jun 22, 2008, Page 8

Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/06/22/2003415371

Before the Referendum Law was passed in 2003, Taiwan had already held referendums at the local level. Since a committee protesting the construction of a fifth naphtha cracker plant by CPC Corp, Taiwan in Houchin, Kaohsiung City, held the nation's first referendum in 1990, there have been other referendums on various public issues.

In 1994, a referendum was held on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Kungliao Township in Taipei County. In 1995, another referendum on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and a referendum on road construction in Sijhih (¦Á¤î) were held in Taipei County. Other referendums that year included another on nuclear power in Taipei City, one on the construction of Yongkang Park in Taipei City and one on the exploration of Daliao Township in Kaohsiung County.

In 1997, a referendum was held on the reconstruction of Liaoting Community in Chiayi County and in 1998 a major investment project proposed by Bayer AG was put to a referendum in Taichung County.

The same year, a plebiscite was also held in Tainan City on Taiwan's future.

All of these referendums lacked a legal basis, however, so the results were not legally binding. The results of the referendum on the construction of Yongkang Park, however, were recognized by the Taipei City Government as binding.

Since the Referendum Law was passed, six nationwide referendums have been held. In 2004, two plebiscites were held, one on increasing the nation's purchase of anti-missile weaponry and one on negotiations with China on the establishment of a peace and stability framework. In January, two referendums were held in tandem with the legislative elections: the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum on recovering the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets and the KMT-proposed referendum on giving the legislature investigative powers.

Two more plebiscites were held in conjunction with the presidential election in March, both on seeking UN membership.

Although the results of each of the six referendums were affirmative, all were invalid because the total voter turnout fell below the legally specified minimum.

Before the Referendum Law became reality, it was impossible for the public to directly communicate their opinions on important issues to the government. It was not easy to pass this law. Without the efforts of academics, experts, civic organizations and the general public, legally binding direct democracy would never have been possible. However, the referendum system has repeatedly fallen victim to vicious political power struggles, which has led to boycotts that have taken advantage of the high threshold for valid results.

This has shown the deficiencies in the legislation, which must be amended in order for the act to serve its purpose: allowing the public a vehicle to communicate their will on crucial matters.

The government, political parties and the public each have an important role in deepening the nation¡¦s democracy. The government has the obligation to promote referendums and inform the public about them in a fair and transparent manner. Political parties need to throw their weight behind an amendment to the legislation rather than boycotting referendums for their own ends. The public, meanwhile, has a duty to exercise its rights when there is a plebiscite.

Together, the government, political parties and the public should strive to expand the role of referendums in the nation's democracy.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

TURKEY: Hegemony or Democratic Participation?

In light of the recent moves taken in Turkey against the AK party, in which the AK faced challenges to its legitimacy that arose from claims that it is attempting to erode Turkey's secular tradition, the following article provides stimulating commentary. - Editor


Hegemony or democratic participation?

Source:
http://www.zaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=148282

Judicial moves against the democratically elected ruling party, former high-ranking military officers' leadership of gangs and organized crime, and talk of yet more coups; in the claims and counterclaims, outside observers of the Turkish political scene must be wondering what the outcome of these events will be -- the continued hegemony of the protectionist elite or the triumph of democratic participation?


The Turkish political system has long been subjected to various degrees of internal manipulation through a structure of dominance in social relationships. This imposes constraints within the system and leads the protectionist interests to enact draconian measures without clear public support.

Those representing protectionist interests assume control over the rules and mechanisms of decision making itself as if this is their exclusive privilege. In the views reflected in the "Action Plan" leaked from the military we see how they are reluctant to give up their tutelage of the masses, even though they have had hardly any relations with them, in truth. For the protectionist elite, any initiative that does not originate from amongst them and any attempt to shift power relationships within the political system or to acquire influence over decisions is either a threat, a matter of crisis for the regime or a national security issue.

The problem, then, is how to give a precise definition to the parameters of pluralist participatory democracy. Undoubtedly, social relations influence such participation in both directions. From the perspective of the protectionist ruling groups, political participation serves to confirm the priority of their own interests and to secure the subordinated consensus of other social groups; participation takes place within the confines and rules determined by their dominating system, thus -- to a greater or lesser extent -- promoting their interests. To them, the subordinated groups participate politically so as to increase their influence in the decision-making processes or to alter institutional power relationships. They therefore are always more or less excluded from involvement in decision making, and their efforts are seen as non-institutional. The protectionists assume that social, cultural and political representation in Turkey, as well as the identification of any societal problems and their solution, is their sole and exclusive prerogative. This is, again, best seen in the Feb. 28 process and the Şemdinli and Ergenekon (Turkish Gladio) cases and in arbitrary impositions on faith-inspired projects and civil society; it was also observed in the constant vetoes exercised by former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, in the baseless insistence on the quorum of 367 during the presidential elections and in the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) closure case.

These counter-mobilizations against participatory democratic acts and institutions were not based on democratic procedures or political consensus but were and are realized through ideological interpretation. The protectionist system propagates itself and permeates daily life and existential choices. It filters and represses some demands by presenting them as an absolute, existential threat to the very structure of society. When it cannot compete with any alternative in argument, action and services, it simply assimilates any alternative under the familiar rhetoric of threats to the regime, or some variation thereof.

Despite the fact that their interpretation and counter-mobilization is anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian, they attempt to legitimize their acts by reference to events and to exploit division, radicalization and tension in society. Their true self-interest resurfaces at different conjunctures as improprieties, corruption or concealment of other vested interests. One way for protectionist actors to seek a reduction in the risks involved in a decision is to secure a preventive consensus through the use of ideological manipulation. This preventive consensus usually appropriates the name of "Kemalism."

Protectionists implement decisions according to the practical effect of the particular forces and interests intervening in the implementation process. They exert direct pressure on administrative and governmental bodies to secure an advantageous application of any new ruling. They do not represent their interests through transparent replication. Instead, they set boundaries and determine both the potential and limits of action within the system. Their coercive character and decisions were not a functional necessity founded on consensus.

This produces a closed political system in which the principles of law, democracy and social justice can be abandoned, but the most sensitive principles -- those of the republic, secularism and national security -- are bound up tight and exploited. This understanding or notion of democracy runs into problems because, as Fethullah Gülen stated: "The world is a culturally diverse place and no single group, nation or culture has the monopoly on democratic ideas and practice. … Democracy, though it still needs to be further improved, is now the only viable political form, and people should seek to modernize and consolidate democratic institutions in order to build a society where individual rights and freedom are respected and protected. … If we are to proceed to an even more perfect democracy, that can again be achieved through democratic processes." Certainly not through protectionist organizations and their clandestine efforts, such as Ergenekon.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

SOUTH AFRICA: SACP African Participatory Democracy Conference




AFRICAN PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY CONFERENCE




CONFERENCE DETAILS

1.1 OPEN INVITATION

To: All Interested Organisations in Africa

INVITATION TO THE AFRICAN PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY CONFERENCE, 14-16 AUGUST 2008, SOWETO, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA

In the context of fluid global developments and both challenges and potentialities of mass democratic participatory politics in localized processes, the South African Communist Party and the Left Party of Sweden (Vänsterpartiet) through the Left International Forum are engaged in a collaborative effort to host a Southern African conference on Participatory Democracy which will be held in Soweto, Johannesburg in South Africa.

We hope to assemble an array of regional and international civil society activists, social movements, scholars and campaigners in various fields with social, political and gender orientation as well as representatives of rural and indigenous movements with extensive expertise in grassroots mobilization and politics of democratic mass participation. We want to focus on the experience of people’s participation, expanding the democratic space, developing an alternative peoples economic, political, social and cultural agenda, as well as of alternative forms of popular governance.

This conference is a continuation of an International Conference on Participatory Democracy held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2004 and a Latin American Conference on Participatory Democracy held in Caracas, Venezuela, in 2005. Documentation from these conferences is available at our website, www.participamos.org.

We are inviting all South African and other African interested organisations to register their participation for the congress.

By June 2008 a conference programme will be available for distribution on our website. For more information, please don't hesitate to contact Mr. Mothusi Mongale, Tel +2711 339 3621, Fax: +2711 339 4244, Fax +27866 179 105, Mobile: +2783 2600 392, thelma@sacp.org.za , Maria.Brendler@vansterpartiet.se

Dr. Blade Nzimande Eva Björklund
SACP General Secretary Left Party Board, in charge of international relations




Conferencia Africana sobre democracia participativa 14-16 agosto de 2008, Soweto, Johannesburgo, Sudáfrica

En el contexto de desarrollos fluidos a nivel global y los desafíos y posibilidades de políticas participativas, democráticas y masivas a nivel local, el Partido Comunista de Africa (South African Communist Party) y el Partido de Izquierda de Suecia (Vänsterpartiet) a través del Foro Internacional de la Izquierda (VIF), están colaborando en la organización de una conferencia sobre Democracia Participativa, que tendrá lugar en Soweto, Johannesburgo, Sudáfrica

Deseamos reunir a un gran número de activistas de la sociedad civil regionales e internacionales, de los movimientos sociales, académicos y activistas en diversos campos con orientación social, político y de género, así como representantes de las zonas rurales y los movimientos indígenas con amplia experiencia en la movilización popular y la política democrática de participación de masas.

Esta conferencia está incluida en una serie de conferencias internacionales sobre democracia participativa organizados por el VIF que empezó en Estocolmo 2004, siguió en Caracas 2005, en Manila 2007, en Diyarbakir y Zagreb 2007. Documentación de estas conferencias están a su disposición en nuestra pagina web www.participamos.org.

En la pagina web también pueden, a partir de Julio, encontrar el programa de la conferencia en Soweto. Para más información por favor no tarde en contactar al Sr Mothusi Mongale, Tel +2711 339 3621, Fax: +2711 339 4244, Fax +27866 179 105, Mobile: +2783 2600 392, lucian@sacp.org.za, o Maria.Brendler@vansterpartiet.se

Dr. Blade Nzimande Eva Björklund
SACP Secretario General Foro Internacional de Izquierda

Para ver más detalles del programa visita la pagina siguiente: http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?include=docs/conf/2008/democracy/details.html

South Africa: Participatory Democracy Must be Deepened

Citizens of South Africa face similar problems to many countries around the world in the respect that although constitutions may provide for public participation, the way our governments actually function is often far from being in line with founding constitutional principles and mandates. -Editor



The people must participate

Published:Jun 17, 2008

Source:
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=784745

Photo: POPULAR STRUGGLE: The goal of a ‘deep democracy’ was conveyed symbolically by the posters of the liberation struggle — they often showed people marching under banners and flags

A lack of effective, democratic engagement is destabilising our democracy, writes Frank Meintjies

Much of the current political uncertainty in South Africa — the lack of focus, a sense of crisis on many fronts, large areas of misalignment between leaders and the population, a resurgence of street protests — can be explained by a lack of effective democratic participation.

South Africa’s struggle was a popular one, and the intention was always to construct a society in which democracy meant more than taking part in periodic elections.

The goal of a “deep democracy” was always part of liberation discourse. That intent was conveyed symbolically by the posters of the liberation struggle — they often showed masses of people marching under banners and flags. It was also captured in a Freedom Charter clause, “The people shall govern”, and expressed through the grassroots education we undertook in the struggle.

Our constitution calls for citizen and community participation as elements of a vibrant democracy. Fourteen years after the advent of the new South Africa, that vibrancy escapes us and the lack of participatory democracy is visible at all levels.

Effective participation is either absent or deficient in the practice of politics , leading to a troubling disconnection between political parties and the people.

In the ANC, this rupture was clear at its Polokwane conference where there was a horizontal split (ANC vs ANC) and a vertical split (bitter conflict between the base and bigwigs).

For other parties the estrangement is indicated in low voter support and a limited role in filling in the cracks in our society.

Participation is largely absent or completely marginal to the operations of national and provincial government. National and provincial government are relatively distant from the people, as are their policy development and review processes.

Early in the new democracy, and especially following the completion of the first round of policy development after 1994, officials took the view that the ANC had a clear mandate to govern and ought not to waste time with wide consultation on policy. W hat was needed for revved-up delivery was a strong government acting decisively.

And so, with limited participation, many government decisions are based on internal conversations, on an over-reliance on technical knowledge and on input from formal interest groups; there is little space or time for community-level engagement.

Technocrats, who by and large do not see public consultation as a core part of their duties, drive decision-making at programming level.

Government imbizos began as a good idea, but they are clearly inadequate. Many burning issues are taken to the streets instead. It is also not clear if, and how, imbizos affect policy making or review processes. Thus, at national and provincial level, the systems exclude the poor and marginalised.

At local-government level, the problem may be worse and has more drastic implications since local government is meant to be most accessible and attuned to citizens and poor communities. Despite various laws calling for effective participation in local governance, indications are that local governments have failed to ensure participation and, in many cases, lack the political will to deepen participation.

For many years, concern has been expressed about the lack of meaningful participation in the drafting of integrated development plans. Usually drawn up by consultants , the plans, in the words of Stephen Friedman, emerge from a simulation of democratic participation rather than the real thing. The thousands of service delivery protests each year testify to an alarming gap between local government and poor communities.

The lack of effective democratic participation is destabilising the new democracy. F or many in society, the sense of shared goals between government and themselves has become weak. We see the fracture of political parties, a breakdown of communication between leaders and people, as well as regular protests (including the current wave of deplorable xenophobia).

With regard to the xenophobia, indications are that the communities concerned had nowhere to raise their frustrations, discuss their perceptions of their foreign neighbours and explore urgent solutions to poverty.

In the last decade or so, meaningful citizen and civil society engagement would have provided us with more robust and sustainable solutions on foreign policy, including responses to regional instability; apart from the greater consensus on how to handle the Zimbabwean crisis, the government would benefit from “intelligence” about attitudes at grassroots level.

Civic engagement may have also circumvented Eskom’s electricity crisis; given the choice, citizen groups may well have opted for gradual increases in the past and expansion of generation capacity instead of initiatives such as Coega and the pie-in-the- sky pebble-bed reactor.

With respect to HIV-Aids; active engagement and true partnership with civil society in the last decade would have ensured a less fragmented national response and more effective rollout of prevention, treatment, care and support.

Our leaders must acknowledge that meaningful and sustained participation does not happen naturally or automatically in formal democracy (regardless of the democratic ideals and struggle credentials of the people involved), but with political will, planning and commitment. If the government’s reward system prioritised it, it could be achieved.

It is time our leaders realised that even though many citizens were initially inclined to leave it to government to deliver us from various evils, many are now reverting to active citizenship and are demanding participatory democracy. — SACSIS

Meintjies is a freelance writer and author of the blog Sideview

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

MEXICO: La Consulta Popular Energética

La consulta energética que tuvo lugar en Mexico este Domingo pasado resultó en un profundo 'NO' a la privatización del la empresa petrolera del estado PEMEX. Aunque la consulta no fue vinculante, tiene impacto politico por que sirve para dar voz a la opinión del pueblo y así los representantes elegidos del pueblo sentirán bastante presión respetar esa voz. Ademas, la consulta fue una buena oportunidad para educar el pueblo Mexicano sobre el funcionamiento de la democracia directa, y sus beneficios. Estos dos articulos proveen más detalles y análisis. - Editor

La consulta como una modalidad de la democracia directa

RAMÓN GUZMÁN RAMOS
Fuente: http://www.lajornadamichoacan.com.mx/2008/07/27/index.php?section=opinion&article=002a1pol

La democracia representativa parte del principio de que el pueblo delega sus facultades de decisión a representantes que son elegidos, por medio del voto universal, directo y secreto, en procesos electorales. Por encima de sus intereses políticos y sus filiaciones ideológicas, estos representantes populares tendrían que moverse en las instancias parlamentarias en función del interés nacional. Se trata de una democracia representativa, sin embargo, en la que se ha producido un distanciamiento enorme entre los legisladores y la sociedad. Las relaciones de representatividad se han roto y el carácter representativo de esta democracia simplemente se esfuma.

Los legisladores del PAN y del PRI apelaban, precisamente, al argumento de la democracia representativa, apoyados ferozmente por los grandes medios de información, para negarse a abrir el debate a la participación directa de la sociedad, nada menos que sus representados. Decían que ellos habían recibido ya las facultades par tomar decisiones de la sociedad y que podían hacerlo por sí mismos, sin necesidad de consultar a sus electores. Era una cuestión de los diputados y los senadores, no de la chusma.

Mal entendida y mal aplicada, la democracia representativa se ha convertido en un sistema de toma de decisiones en donde sólo participan quienes han recibido sus constancias de mayoría en los procesos electorales y no se sienten obligados a consultar con sus electores las cuestiones que se analizan y se resuelven en las instancias legislativas. Esto es algo que el pueblo sabe y resiente. De ahí la consecuencia: la crisis de credibilidad en este sistema político se hace cada vez más grande, creíamos que irresoluble en sus propios términos, alejando a los ciudadanos de las urnas, quienes buscan y construyen sus propias formas de organización para participar con su presencia directa en los asuntos que a todos conciernen.

La acción que realizaron los legisladores del FAP en su momento, cuando decidieron tomar las tribunas del Congreso para exigir un debate abierto a la sociedad sobre la iniciativa de Calderón, le inyectó a esta democracia representativa nuevo vigor. Desde el Congreso de la Unión un porcentaje considerable de legisladores planteaba la demanda de extender corredores hacia la sociedad civil, es decir, la reconstrucción de los puentes entre la clase política, que se nos ha estado convirtiendo en una aristocracia de élite, y la sociedad en su conjunto. La iniciativa de Calderón es un asunto de profundo interés nacional, algo que no se puede resolver respondiendo a intereses de las empresas trasnacionales, que han acumulado riquezas inmensas a costa de saquear los recursos naturales en el mundo, sino con la participación de todos los mexicanos. Era hora de combinar las tres modalidades fundamentales de toda democracia que se precie: la representativa, la participativa y la directa.

Pero esa acción de los legisladores del FAP no hubiera sido posible, ni hubiera alcanzado el objetivo que se propuso, sin la existencia de otro factor fundamental: la movilización ciudadana. Muchos creyeron que tras el fraude de 2006, o mejor dicho, tras el golpe de Estado anticipado que se orquestó y se consumó en su contra, Andrés Manuel López Obrador se quedaría eclipsado. Pero el presidente legítimo –ahora hasta la expresión ha sido prohibida, seguramente para que la desmemoria se imponga– se dedicó a recorrer los municipios y los territorios del país. Una campaña que a muchos les pareció frenética, como si se hubiera tratado de un escape de la realidad. El caso es que López Obrador aprendió la experiencia y se propuso darle a toda esa simpatía de millones de ciudadanos que lo respaldan una expresión organizada.

Ya no se trataba sólo de llenar el Zócalo con esa rebeldía popular que provenía de todos los rincones del país. Había que construir en el recorrido una estructura organizativa que le diera articulación al descontento y a la voluntad de luchar por un país mejor. Y ha sido esta organización ciudadana lo que ha permitido detener la privatización de nuestro petróleo. La toma de las tribunas del Congreso de la Unión por parte del FAP se vio respaldada por una enorme y poderosa movilización de cientos de miles de ciudadanos.

Vimos en ese momento lo que parecía ya inconcebible en el país: la vinculación dinámica, interactiva, dialéctica, democrática, vigorosamente combativa, entre la acción parlamentaria y la movilización ciudadana.

Los privatizadores se vieron obligados a ceder. Se abrió un espacio especial para que el debate tuviera lugar en el Senado. Especialistas de diversas áreas relacionadas con el petróleo acudieron a expresar sus enfoques y sus análisis con respecto a la iniciativa de Calderón. La mayoría de ellos ha coincidido en que se trata de un intento por abrir Pemex a la participación de las empresas privadas, con lo que se estaría cediendo soberanía nacional, ya que intereses particulares estarían interviniendo en las decisiones que en adelante se tomen sobre nuestros recursos energéticos. El debate fue una conquista democrática. Poco a poco ha bajado a otros niveles y ámbitos de la sociedad. Ha servido para mantener vivo el interés de la población en el tema y para que la gente pueda hacerse de un criterio más fundamentado al respecto.

Pero siempre fue obvio que el debate no era suficiente para detener la reforma petrolera. Podría pasar que a la hora de las votaciones el PAN y el PRI ignoren los resultados del debate y retomen su postura original, o incluso que se intentara filtrar una nueva modalidad privatizadora a través del PRI. Sería un acto de traición al pueblo mexicano, pero igual lo harían. Es algo que ha advertido con precisión Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Por eso mantiene en alerta máxima al movimiento ciudadano. De ahí la demanda de pasar del debate a la consulta popular. De la democracia participativa a la democracia directa. Que la sociedad exprese su voluntad con respecto a la reforma y que los legisladores acaten su mandato. Pero hemos visto el tamaño del miedo que los privatizadores expresan hacia el pueblo. Un miedo que disfrazan con su menosprecio reaccionario. Lo que dicen ahora es que la iniciativa es una cuestión de los expertos y los legisladores, y que la gente común, como nosotros, no tenemos la capacidad para tomar una decisión así

El principio de toda democracia es que la soberanía del país reside esencialmente en el pueblo. El pueblo delega esta función a los legisladores y gobernantes que son elegidos en procesos electorales. Pero a condición de que éstos representen con fidelidad los intereses auténticos de la nación. De no ser así, entonces el pueblo tiene el derecho, consagrado incluso en la Constitución, de cambiar la modalidad del sistema político y recuperar la soberanía para que regrese a su fuente original. Es a lo que le temen realmente los privatizadores neoliberales. Se han colocado por encima de este principio fundamental y se proponen instaurar ya una nueva dictadura de partido, como la que mantuvo durante más de siete décadas el PRI. La consulta, entonces, tiene una significación histórica. Esto lo sabe el pueblo. Por eso se moviliza y se mantiene dispuesto a defender la soberanía nacional con las acciones que se requieran. La consulta popular sobre la iniciativa de reforma petrolera es hoy un ejercicio de participación ciudadana que dejará un precedente histórico para darle a nuestra democracia un nuevo tirón.

Los órganos electorales de la federación y de los estados, a excepción del Distrito Federal, se negaron a organizar directamente la consulta. Esto incluye a nuestra entidad. El Instituto Electoral de Michoacán expresó su negativa a hacerse cargo de este proceso de recuperación de nuestra democracia. Ni siquiera aceptó dar asesoría y capacitación para que el movimiento ciudadano, que crece exponencialmente en todo el país, lo hiciera por su cuenta con las herramientas apropiadas. Estos órganos electorales esgrimen argumentos que se caen por sí solos. Que no hay leyes que contemplen una modalidad de la participación social como ésta. Pero habría que recordarles una y otra vez que tampoco hay leyes que lo prohíban. A final de cuentas, lo que sucede es que los órganos electorales han terminado por alinearse en las filas de los privatizadores. También por omisión se atenta contra el destino soberano de nuestro país.

Pero la consulta va a pesar de todo. Más de mil 200 mesas serán instaladas hoy en todos los municipios de la entidad –a excepción de Cherán– para que los ciudadanos acudamos a expresar nuestra opinión con respecto a las intenciones del gobierno federal de privatizar Pemex. Lo que hay que procurar es que la consulta tenga credibilidad. Esto sólo se logra si los organizadores y los participantes procuramos que se dé en un ambiente de participación y de transparencia que no deje dudas. Sólo así la consulta, a pesar de la ausencia de los órganos electorales, podrá contar con la legitimidad que sólo el pueblo le puede otorgar a las decisiones colectivas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrevista con el Doctor Luis Daniel Vázquez, especialista en democracia

“La consulta energética sólo tendrá impacto político menor”

Fuente: http://eleconomista.com.mx/politica/2008/07/25/653/%E2%80%9Cla-consulta-energetica-solo-tendra-impacto-politico-menor%E2%80%9D/

La consulta ciudadana y el plebiscito son herramientas democráticas muy valiosas, pero cuando tienen el consenso de todas las fuerzas políticas, opina el experto del FLACSO.
La mayoría de los mexicanos respaldan la propuesta de reforma energética presentada por el presidente Felipe Calderón y apoyan que el sector privado invierta en Pemex. A su vez, 80% está de acuerdo en que los políticos consulten a los ciudadanos sobre el futuro energético del país, revela una encuesta realizada por GEA-Isa sobre el tema.

Para conocer la conveniencia, impacto y efecto que tendrá la consulta que el gobierno de Marcelo Ebrard organiza este domingo 27 de julio, El Economista online platicó con el Doctor Luis Daniel Vásquez, coordinador de la Maestría en Derechos Humanos y Democracia del Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO).

Como ciudadano, ¿cómo debe verse la consulta energética que se desarrollará este domingo en el DF?

R: Puede verse de distintas maneras, dependiendo de quién la observe. Puede verse como un ejercicio de participación ciudadana o puede verse simplemente como un método retardatario para una toma de decisión gubernamental.

Al no ser vinculante, ¿cuál es y será el impacto de la consulta?

Es verdad, no es vinculante, no tiene ningún impacto legal. Sin embargo, aquí la pregunta es si la democracia mexicana debería tener mayores instrumentos o instituciones relacionadas con la democracia participativa y qué tipo de decisiones gubernamentales son las que se deberían someter a este tipo de prácticas y, en su caso, cuál debería de ser el método de vinculación.

Yo diría que la consulta que se desarrolla este 27 de julio no tendrá efecto alguno, en términos gubernamentales. Quizá donde pueda tener algún efecto sería en el terreno político, pero aquí también su impacto sería menor, ya que, aunque se está invitando a la ciudadanía, sólo será en el DF y seguramente sólo participarán aquellos que están más cercanos al “No”, aquéllos que están más identificados con rechazar la propuesta del Presidente y aquellos que se sienten más cercanos al PRD. Esto minimizará el impacto político que debería tener la consulta.

Sin embargo, lo que deberíamos de pensar, tanto los políticos como los ciudadanos, es que la consulta es un elemento importante que deberíamos utilizar con mayor frecuencia en la toma de decisiones gubernamentales.

¿Cuándo o en qué temas se deberían utilizarse herramientas como la consulta ciudadana y el plebiscito, y cuándo los temas deberían dejarse exclusivamente a la discusión en el Congreso?

Esta es la parte más interesante del debate petrolero, pues va más allá de la reforma misma. Me parece que ahora en América Latina, y más con la llegada de gobiernos de izquierda, se está haciendo más evidente de que no tenemos un modelo económico que nos termina por gustar. Ni tampoco estamos seguros cuál es el tipo de democracia con la cual nos sentimos más contentos; con una democracia acotada, liberal procedimental, que dé menos instrumentos a los ciudadanos. O nos gustaría una democracia más populista, que implica un mayor nivel de participación.

Parecía que a finales de los setentas, ochentas, y principios de los noventas nos inclinábamos por una democracia acotada. Sin embargo, luego de la crisis de 1995 en México y de las crisis asiáticas y de Rusia a finales de la década pasada, parece que ese acuerdo se empezó a caer.
Ya no estábamos tan seguros de que lo que nos gustaba era la economía liberal (o neoliberalismo, como algunos la llaman), ni tampoco estábamos tan seguros de que lo que lo que nos gustaba era una democracia acotada. Eso se hizo evidente cuando en 1999 gana la elección Hugo Chávez en Venezuela, y después Néstor Kirchner, en Argentina; Evo Morales, en Bolivia, y Rafael Correa, en Ecuador.

El problema en este momento en América Latina y en México es que no tenemos un acuerdo fundacional. Ahí respondo a la pregunta: una consulta debe utilizarse cuando, lo que estamos sometiendo sea un acuerdo fundacional de la Nación. Ahí debe existir una consulta, porque ahí es donde aún no tenemos acuerdo, donde las naciones suelen partirse en dos, como ocurrió en el referéndum revocatorio de Hugo Chávez, en Venezuela; o cuando Costa Rica decidió por medio de un plebiscito firmar o no el TLC con EU.

En México, si hubiera existido un acuerdo de consulta nacional donde hubieran participado todas las fuerzas políticas hubiera valido la pena.

Finalmente, ¿cuándo deben usarse este tipo de consultas?, cuando la decisión en sí misma implique un acuerdo de nación, porque sus ciudadanos están divididos en dos. Ahora, ¿cuándo no se debe usarse?, cuando se trata de política fiscal, por ejemplo (nadie va a votar porque le suban los impuestos), ni en la administración de la política, pues para eso es la democracia.

Retomando lo anterior, ¿el tema energético debería llevarse a una consulta nacional o debería dejarse la discusión al Congreso?

Me parece que en este tema valdría la pena una consulta nacional. El problema de la consulta del 27 es que no superó los problemas que antes comenté; no tiene el acuerdo de las tres fuerzas gobernantes y no tendrá, en consecuencia, el respaldo que este tipo de consultas debería tener.

Ahora, democráticamente hablando, ¿sirvieron de algo los foros energéticos (o petroleros) que se celebraron durante meses, y con más de 100 ponentes, en el Senado?

Esa respuesta no lo puedo dar ahora, sino después de que veamos cómo se discute en el Congreso la reforma energética. En este momento, parece que fue un diálogo de sordos. Parece que aquellos del PAN, y algunos del PRI, que estaban en favor de la reforma, siguen estando en favor. Y parece que los PRD, y algunos del PRI, que estaban en contra siguen estando en contra. Y tampoco termina de claro, cuál será el proceso de negociación, a pesar de los acercamientos que han tenido los tres partidos mayoritarios. Sin embargo, quizá nos llevamos una sorpresa y logran una reforma por consenso.

¿Cómo debe funcionar la democracia en temas como el energético, como una democracia de consenso o una de mayorías (donde hay ganadores y perdedores?

Esa está muy complicada. No hay una ley de cómo debe funcionar la democracia. Al final la democracia nunca ha sido un procedimiento de consenso, la democracia, el instrumentos que utiliza para salvar, precisamente este tipo de disputas, es la mayoría, por eso es que hay una votación, y por eso hay una mayoría que gana. Esa mayoría obviamente puede ser de distintos tipos, puede ser simple o calificada. El método democrático no es método de consenso, sin embargo, cuando existe el consenso, mucho mejor.

No siempre existe el consenso, para eso está inventada la democracia. Lo más importante en estos casos es respetar las garantías de las minorías. Sin embargo, en el debate de la reforma energética no veo qué minoría pueda resultar vulnerada por un acuerdo de la mayoría. Me parece que en el caso de la reforma energética habrá, y será suficiente, un acuerdo mayoritario, lo cual no resta democraticidad al acuerdo. Sigue siendo un acuerdo democrático, porque la democracia se maneja como acuerdos de mayorías.

Fuente: Francisco Nazifh

MEXICO: PEMEX Privatization Rejected in Referendum

This past Sunday in Mexico a referendum organized by the opposition PRD party of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was held in Mexico City and 9 other Mexican States. The 'citizen consultation' was an attempt to employ direct democracy to the question of President Calderon's proposed measures that would allow partial privatization of Mexico's state owned PEMEX oil company. The measures would allow foreign oil companies to partner with PEMEX in future exploration and development. Although turnout was lower than expected, the non-binding referendum resulted in a resounding NO to the privatization efforts. The hope of the PRD is that the vote will both enlighten the people about the need for more direct democracy while at the same time influencing lawmakers who are currently debating the changes to energy policy. Here are two pieces from the LA times on the subject. The first gives a summary of the results of the referendum and the second provides some more backround information. - Editor

Mexican voters oppose Calderon's plan for oil industry

In the capital, more than 80% issue a resounding 'no' to the proposal to allow private firms a greater role. In the nine states that also voted, more than 90% give the plan a thumbs down.

By Marla Dickerson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 29, 2008

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-mexvote29-2008jul29,0,417576.story

MEXICO CITY -- Turnout was light, but voters in a nonbinding referendum gave an overwhelming "no" to President Felipe Calderon's proposal to give private firms a bigger role in Mexico's government-controlled petroleum industry.

More than 80% of those who cast ballots Sunday in Mexico City opposed the plan, according to the official tally of the federal district released Monday. The results were even more lopsided outside the capital, where nine of Mexico's 31 states also participated. With about two-thirds of the ballots counted, more than 90% of those voters gave the president's proposal a thumbs down.

Slightly more than 1.5 million people cast ballots Sunday. Organizers had been hoping for a turnout twice that size in the greater Mexico City area alone.

Orchestrated by the opposition Democratic Revolution Party, the so-called Citizen Consultation was the first of three public referendums to be held throughout Mexico over the next month to gauge public opinion on pending energy reforms.

The results have no official bearing on legislation being hashed out in Congress. But the left-leaning PRD is gambling that strong public opposition will force lawmakers to back off proposals to open portions of the state petroleum monopoly to private or foreign firms.

Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, a PRD member and potential presidential candidate in 2012, praised the event as a way for ordinary Mexicans to be heard on a matter vital to the nation's future.

"The will of the people that was expressed freely is clearly opposed" to the president's legislation, Ebrard said.

Critics lambasted the event as a politically motivated stunt to embarrass Calderon in the middle of heated negotiations. Members of the president's National Action Party had charged that one of the two questions on the ballot was worded to elicit a "no" response, making the results a foregone conclusion.

The head of Pemex, the state-owned oil company, dismissed the significance of Sunday's results.

"The turnout was limited . . . the conclusions were expected," said Director-General Jesus Reyes Heroles.

Mexico is the world's sixth-largest petroleum producer, and the industry is the nation's largest taxpayer. But output and proven reserves are sliding badly after years of government neglect. Pemex lacks the expertise and capital to tap Mexico's deep-water crude deposits. Mexican law prohibits foreign and private firms from investing in the energy sector.

Calderon in April sent legislation to Congress that would loosen some restrictions on Pemex, enabling it to team up with foreign oil companies to extract the nation's undersea oil. His plan also calls for more private investment in areas such as refining and storage.

Opponents say Calderon's real objective is to privatize Pemex, a charge the president denies.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mexico's capital, 9 states vote on nation's oil industry




By Marla Dickerson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 28, 2008

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-mexoil28-2008jul28,0,7669056.story

MEXICO CITY -- A bitter debate on how to rescue Mexico's troubled state-owned oil company went directly to the people Sunday as residents of the capital and nine states voted in a nonbinding referendum on President Felipe Calderon's plan to open some portions of the petroleum industry to outsiders.

The vote, organized by the opposition Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, has no official bearing on energy legislation making its way through Congress. But opponents of Calderon's reforms hope a decisive "no" vote will force legislators to back off.

The balloting was the first of three so-called Citizen Consultation referendums over the next month that will eventually cover Mexico's 31 states and federal district. Organizers were gearing up for as many as 2 million people to cast ballots in the capital alone Sunday, although a light turnout was reported at some polling places.

Mexico City's historic center was bustling with poll workers wearing T-shirts emblazoned with "I decide," the referendum's slogan. A six-piece band performed "The oil isn't for sale," a popular refrain among Mexicans wary of privatizing Pemex, the state oil company.

A mix of urban youth, working people and seniors, some wearing sombreros and traditional garments, lined up at the outdoor polling stations. Some said they viewed participation as a civic duty.

"The petroleum . . . belongs to the people and to the Mexican nation," said Rafael Mendoza Villeda, an agricultural consultant. "We are defending the oil that's at the heart of the country."

Shoemaker Jose Picon Fuentes said he doubted that Mexico's industry could be strengthened with more private-sector help. "The people want the oil to stay in the hands of the state," he said.

Foreigners "are going to obtain the earnings and take them all," he said.

The PRD has promoted the referendum as an exercise in direct democracy and a way for ordinary citizens to have a voice in a vital issue.

Critics have dismissed the event as political theater directed by leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the PRD candidate who lost to the conservative Calderon by a razor-thin margin in 2006. Many voters in Mexico City were expected to be party members or employees of the capital's PRD-controlled government. Media reports suggested some were being pressured by their bosses to participate.

The wording of the two questions on the ballot was drafted by academics from respected Mexican universities. But Calderon's National Action Party has charged that at least one of the questions is structured in such a way as to elicit a "no" response from voters.

Pemex is the world's No. 6 oil producer, a major supplier to the United States and the Mexican government's largest taxpayer. It's also a powerful symbol of national sovereignty.

Mexico annually celebrates the 1938 nationalization of its petroleum resources. Booting foreigners from its oil patch, chief among them America's Standard Oil, was one of the country's proudest moments.

But legislators for decades treated Pemex like a cash machine, siphoning its revenue while reinvesting little in exploration and development. Now Mexico has less than a decade's worth of proven reserves remaining. Pemex lacks the expertise and capital to drill deep-water wells, which can cost more than $100 million.

Through the first six months of this year, Mexico's total oil production averaged 2.86 million barrels a day, the lowest output since 1996.

Calderon in April introduced legislation that would allow Pemex to team up with foreign oil companies to extract Mexico's undersea oil. His plan also calls for more private investment in areas such as refining and storage. Opponents say Calderon's real objective is to privatize Pemex, a charge the president denies.

PRD lawmakers paralyzed the House and Senate chambers with a two-week sit-in to prevent a speedy vote on Calderon's reforms. They were helped by brigades of working-class women who camped outside the buildings to prevent legislators from rival parties from entering.

A pro-Calderon group countered with television spots comparing Lopez Obrador to Hitler, Mussolini and the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who shut down their nations' legislatures.

The standoff ended with an agreement to hold hearings in which dozens of experts testified on many issues related to Pemex. The public remains deeply divided. A poll conducted this month by the national daily Reforma showed that 48% of those surveyed supported Calderon's legislation, while 52% were either opposed or undecided.

The Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which ruled Mexico for seven decades, has come forward with its own energy reform proposal. The plan puts stricter limits on the role of the private sector than the president's version.

Analysts say the PRI's involvement is a sign that a compromise will probably be reached when lawmakers return from their summer recess. But some doubt that any reform crafted to appease bickering politicians will be enough to turn around Pemex.

And at a time when other Latin American governments are asserting greater control over natural resources, persuading Mexicans to loosen their grip on their petroleum won't be easy.

"Everyone in Mexico knows that Pemex needs to change," said Enrique Bravo, Latin America analyst at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk consulting firm.

But with oil selling near record prices "it's hard, politically speaking, to convince people that they should share it with private companies," Bravo said. "That's a tough sell."

marla.dickerson@latimes.com

Times staff writer Deborah Bonello contributed to this report.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Switzerland: Direct Democracy and the Environment

As this article illustrates, environmental groups have been able to implement conservation measures using Swiss direct democracy. Initiative and referendum allow the populus to protect their environment and ecology when higher powers in government and industry may have no incentive or desire to do so. - Editor


Switzerland ranks No. 1 in the green index, scoring near-perfect marks.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143682

For a glimpse of primeval Europe, head for the high mountains of eastern Switzerland. In the wild scenery of the Swiss National Park, the authorities have sought to re-create the conditions that prevailed 5,000 years ago. No trees are felled, no meadows mown and no animals hunted. The ibex and the bearded vulture, once driven to near extinction, now flourish again after their reintroduction in the last century. Wolves have returned to the region, and so has the occasional bear.

A rare gesture to nature conservation from a nation famously devoted to commerce? Not so. When it comes to environmental protection, the Swiss can point to tradition. As far back as 1914, the nation created the oldest national park in the Alps or anywhere in Central Europe. And the tradition persists with a heap of legislation that establishes more than 20 new national parks. Small wonder that the country took first place in Yale and Columbia's Environmental Performance Index with a set of near-perfect marks.

It's an achievement that few would challenge. More than half the forests that cover 30 percent of the country have gotten Forest Stewardship Council certification, the international hallmark of good practice. In the EPI, Switzerland scored 65 in the effectiveness of its conservation measures, compared with an average of 25 for its neighbors and 51 for others of similar wealth. This is all the more impressive considering its population density—176 people per square kilometer, more than twice the figure for Greece, largely concentrated in the valleys and lowlands. The country has managed to juggle the needs of people with the needs of its wildlife, earning it more than double the average European score for biodiversity. "You can swim in any of our lakes, and turn on any tap and drink the water with pleasure," says Hans-Peter Fricker, head of the Swiss office of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Why such dedication? One explanation begins with history and the importance of the Alpine landscape in the national psyche. The four original cantons that came together to form the nucleus of the Swiss nation in the 13th century encompass spectacular mountain landscapes. "The Alps are part of the whole Swiss mythology," says Reto Soler, Swiss representative of the International Commission for the Protection of the Alps. "It is where Switzerland was born."

Environmentalists have taken advantage of Swiss direct democracy, which allows citizens to demand a referendum on the issues of their choosing. The current construction of the world's longest and deepest rail tunnel beneath the St. Gotthard massif in the Alps—to divert heavy freight traffic off the roads—follows a national vote. So, too, did moves to ban heavy foreign trucks.

More than 40 years ago Parliament passed laws to protect wetlands, meadows and Alpine streams and glaciers. Care for the environment is now written into the Constitution. An article added in 1996 explicitly obliges the government to promote sustainable farming and the upkeep of the rural landscape. New parks, seen as a boost for tourism and conservation, will be scattered across the country.

On the environment, this nation isn't standing still.

© 2008

Friday, July 25, 2008

NIGERIA: Participatory Democracy Key to Sustainable Development

This article from Nigeria highlights the trends that many activists have been reporting in that country. It outlines the reasons why participatory democracy is the best system for self-governance and how it can improve the way that countries develop. -Editor


Participatory democracy as tool for sustainable development

Saturday, Jul 5, 2008


Source: http://www.thetidenews.com/article.aspx?qrDate=07/05/2008&qrTitle=Participatory%20democracy%20as%20tool%20for%20sustainable%20dev&qrColumn=OPINION


The fact that democracy connotes a system where the citizens are actively involved, either directly or indirectly, in making decisions affecting their destinies has elicited a widely held belief that democracy is the best form of government.

The debate on the extent to which popular sovereignty should be guaranteed has existed over the years among political philosophers, especially among the social contract school. While scholars like Thomas Hobbes and Roseau subscribe to absolute sovereignty, John Locke emphasises limited state sovereignty in which the citizens can hold the government accountable. The Lockian idea has been the basic of the American (otherwise known as liberal or preventative) democracy which Nigeria has adopted since the second republic.

Today, representative democracy, especially in the or consciously replaced, sometimes with such ideas as politics of accommodation, elitism or godfatherism. Godfathers are those with considerable means to successfully foist their will on the public, instead of their political parties doing so. Under this circumstance, political parties lack the capacity to act contrary to the wishes and aspirations of these godfathers because they depend on them to bankroll their campaigns and deploy their influence to see candidates through elections.

When this takes place, it becomes impossible or even an offence for citizens to question the actions of the government, since in the first place, the process of election was not on the whims and caprices of the electorates.

The consequence of this scenario further reproduces itself in situations where sustainable development is defined as a development that meets the needs of the present without even compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is a development that is not only all encompassing but equally enduring.

It is no gain saying, that when the citizens are actively involved in the democratic process, inform of voting their choice candidates, involvement in the development programmes, consultations before bye laws are enacted and even criticising existing structure and making policy recommendation, it becomes easy for them to enjoy some since of belonging. It also gives them the room to take part in deciding their destinies. Most importantly, participatory democracy help, to a large extent, in the appropriate channelling of the development programmes.

Furthermore, to ensure participatory democracy, citizens should be made politically conscious by both the National Orientation Agency (NOA), the public and private print and non print media and the non-governmental organisations.

The government can also do this by encouraging and enabling laws that will properly and fundamentally integrate local agencies like the C.D.C., the community based organisations (CBOS) among others in the planning and execution of projects especially in the rural areas.

This will help not only to erace the conversion of the LGA treasury into a group and family purse, but will also expunge situations where elected political leaders become unquestionable and unaccountable to the people.

Class and ethnic marginalisation is another important antithesis to sustainable development. Political office holders and indeed our democratic system should ensure that programmes on both infrastructural and human capacity development cuts across class and ethnic boundaries. It is when these are done that we can hope to see the possibility of domesticating the aims of the New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) as well as the United Nations Millennium and Development Goals (MDGS) to which Nigeria is a signatory and which stimulated Nigeria’s initiation of a new medium term development strategy titled the National Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) in May 2004.

Participatory democracy will also help to engage the idle youth and by so doing reduce social volatility and youth restiveliness .

With the recent conclusion of the local government elections the emerging leaders should see the entire local government as their constituencies irrespective of party and intra party affiliations. Their policies and programmes should assume a colouration of “NO VICTOR NO VANGUISH”.

It is only when these are done that we can claim to have made our democracy not only participatory and people oriented but equally an agency for sustainable development.

Uranta is a political scientist and lecturer at RSCOE, Port Harcourt.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Venezuela: Community Councils vs. Bureaucracy

The following piece gives an interesting assessment of the basics behind the communal councils in Venezuela and how they are creating a grassroots based system of government while at the same time providing channels by which the bureaucracy that has traditionally stifled that participatory democracy can be bypassed and rendered harmless to the process of strengthening the people's power. - Editor




Reconfiguring Democracy: Venezuela's New Communal Councils Confront Bureaucracy

From
Issue 381 - December 2007-January 2008



Kendra Fehrer Ponniah is is a Ph.D. student in Development and Anthropology at Brown University, in Providence, RI. This article is based on research she conducted in January and December of 2006 and June of 2007, interviewing communal council members from seven communities near Barquisemeto, Venezuela.




Pro- Chávez demonstrators, September 5, 2006. Photo: Cesar Aponte


In mid-2006, several months before the presidential elections, the Venezuelan government headed by left-leaning President Hugo Chávez passed a new law. The law was called the Law on Communal Councils, and it was a cornerstone of the new political strategy to deepen democratic participation in Venezuela. As of June 2007, there were 20,000 registered communal councils across the country, plus tens of thousands more in formation. Televised speeches from the floor of the national assembly referenced the communal councils as the pivotal means of social change in Venezuela. On the tall walls of the subway stations in Caracas, gigantic red murals proclaimed the communal councils as an engine of Venezuela's transition to 21st century socialism.

From Representative to Participatory Democracy


The communal councils are essentially neighborhood assemblies with political and fiscal powers. As described in the law, they function as neighborhood planning councils, responsible for decisions regarding infrastructure and planning-for example, where to set up the new multi-purpose sports court or what sorts of services to request for disabled youth within the community. In addition, the councils can initiate their own projects with funds obtained from the federal, state, and municipal governments and they are expected to bring together under one umbrella representatives from various community groups.

A typical communal council is made up of about 20 people, elected by a community of no more than 400 families. The geographic basis of the communal council allows members to know each other, precipitating an accountability that most representative politics fail to achieve, and furthermore ensuring that political and economic decisions made by the council are embedded in the social framework of the community.

The communal councils diverge from the typical representative democracy in one other significant way. All decisions made by the communal council can be reversed by popular vote. The vote, taken in assembly (at which 20% of all persons over 15 in the community must be present), is binding.

Community members seem to sense that this emergent form of local government is profoundly different from the previous form, in which political participation occurred once a year at the voting booth. A sentence heard over and over among community organizers is that the communal councils are transforming Venezuela into a "participatory" democracy, rather than a "representative" democracy. The communal councils provide a structure for direct democratic participation.

The potential impact of communal councils to transform the Venezuelan social and political fabric is no doubt exciting. However, like all processes of change, this one is not without challenges.

Confronting Bureaucracy

The situation faced by La Tamaca*, a neighborhood outside the city of Barquisimeto is emblematic of the challenges many community organizations face. The residents had pooled their recourses to construct a wall that would separate their community from the uninhabited land behind their homes. Together they had raised over $30,000 Bs. (10,000 USD) to complete half the wall. Once the community established a communal council, they applied for funds from the municipal government to complete the construction. The municipal government granted those funds, nearly twice what the community itself had raised, to complete the second half of the project.

The catch was, despite strong objections from the community, that the municipal government declared that it would now manage the project.

Instead of hiring workers and contractors from within the community, the municipal government hired its own contractors and suppliers. Five months later, the funds had run out, and the remaining half of the wall was only partway done.

Even with the many pro-poor initiatives over the last decade of Chávez's administration, communities are still fighting for a voice. The efforts of many, like La Tamaca, are being frustrated by the "politics as usual" attitude of many municipal and state governments. In the words of one community member: "We have a lot of public officials who are reactionaries dressed up as revolutionaries. They are more interested in their jobs than in this [revolutionary] process."

One of the purposes of the communal councils, according to a high ranking government official, is precisely to address this problem. By creating a direct link to the president and federal ministries, the communal council structure allows organized communities to bypass, or at least challenge, the clientelistic bureaucracy of municipal and state governments. Under the new law, communal councils can apply for funds directly from the Ministry of Participation and Social Development. However, some critics argue that this structure creates the danger of too much national control over grass-roots community structures.

City Council or Social Movement?

At their best, the communal councils can be used as political leverage to represent community interests at odds with the local government institutions. "Hidrolara [the public water company] is defunct," proclaimed Ismila, a community organizer in a working class neighborhood to the east of Barquisimeto. For the previous two days raw sewage had been backlogging into the streets along ten blocks of the neighborhood, including the block in front of the community health clinic. Despite numerous calls to the engineer appointed to their area, the engineer had been delaying his arrival. After he missed the appointed time for the second day in a row, five members of the communal council decided they needed to take more immediate action. They called four more colleagues from the council and caught a ride into the city center, where the Hidrolara offices were located.

At the office, they demanded to speak to the person in charge of emergency maintenance. Two hours later they left with an engineer to remedy the problem. Ismila said: "We learned today that Hidrolara is useless as an institution, it does not work for the communities. These officials think they know everything and don't listen to the community until there's a problem."

Some state and municipal institutions in Venezuela serve particular political interests, rather than the public good. When the public institutions do not fulfill their ascribed duties, the communal councils like that in Ismila's neighborhood can apply pressure. Although the council itself did not have jurisdiction over the water system, through their recognition as a communal council they have the political resources to apply political pressure to ensure the democratic distribution of water.

Not all communal councils are as politically astute as Ismila's, but a surprising number are. The community members who participate in the communal council possess a wide range of political experience, from complete novices to seasoned community organizers. Commonly, a communal council will contain five or six long-term organizers who see the communal council as simply the newest framework for emancipatory politics. It is often these more experienced organizers who are instrumental in forming the communal council.

In the case of Ismila's community, the communal council formed out of the Health Committee. The Health Committee was established several years ago, when the community was told that they were eligible to receive a Cuban doctor in the community. "There are lots of rumors that the doctors are there to hurt people, they don't have proper training, etc. We had to educate the community that this wasn't true. Thankfully, the doctor we got was very good and little by little, people stopped being afraid and came. When we heard about the communal councils law, we knew we had to get involved. Now the Health Committee is a working group of the communal council." The communal councils serve the powerful political function of coalescing a variety of community efforts.

Does Pluralism Include the Anti-Democratic?

Contrary to the perception by many of Chávez's critics, the communal councils are not composed exclusively of flag-waving Chávez supporters. In the town of El Cují, communal council member Mirabel identifies as the opposition. During the last elections, she transformed her home into a "hot corner," a common opposition protest tactic, which involves blasting anti-Chávez music onto the street and blaring sirens every 15 minutes to signify that Venezuelan democracy "is under attack." Why does she participate in the communal councils? "To keep an eye on the Chavistas," she responds, "to make sure they're not mishandling funds."

Opposition to President Chávez is located mainly, but not exclusively, in the small, active, and largely unencumbered middle and upper classes. Although some communal councils have been formed in elite neighborhoods, these do not represent the majority. The majority of communal councils are in poor and working class neighborhoods.

Still, even within poor communities, a minority do tend to identify as opposition, often because of enduring affiliation with the previously dominant parties. So, not infrequently, a communal council will have several staunch opposition members.

Despite the highly charged political rhetoric around the communal councils as a key element of the Bolivarian Process, within the actual meetings of the councils party-politics are seldom discussed. More often, topics of discussion deal with urgent community needs. Instead of playing a divisive role in the community, the communal councils appear, in some cases, to be fulfilling a reconciliatory role. Through regular interaction in meetings, often accompanied by socializing outside formal gatherings, the communal councils are becoming a space for breaking down political barriers.

Although pluralism is a central tenet of a democratic society, when some of those diverse constituents are actively anti-democratic the situation becomes a bit more complex.

While the minority opposition represents its position as one of advocating for democratic rights, the democracy for which the opposition advocates is essentially a liberal democracy, bent on the protection of private property and individual rights. It is precisely this form of democracy that has prevailed in Venezuela historically, and which the current government is trying to transform. The model proposed by the opposition conflicts with Venezuela's emergent radicalized democracy, which seeks to expand collective rights and responsibilities. For example, the constitutional reforms rejected in a referendum on December 2, 2007 included language to create three new types of collective property.

Why do political frameworks matter to the communal council? Although opposition and pro- Chávez residents can agree on addressing urgent community needs, the types of solutions offered to neighborhood problems could be vastly different. A liberal democratic model is not incompatible with the neoliberal framework that dominated the country for the last decades. Under this model, a communal council could offer micro-credit for individual businesses, without precipitating any shift in consciousness towards new notions of collective responsibility and social development.

One project I observed did just that. An organizer from another council explained, "The communal council gave out loans for everything, to start a phone stand, to buy motorcycles to use for ëmoto-taxis', to start hair salons… there was a lot of individual profit, but not a lot of community benefit." In contrast, a reconfigured democratic model would value not only the material benefits to the individual, but how the collective would benefit, both materially and in terms of participation.

The communal councils do not have an easy task. They face the challenge of maintaining political pluralism, challenging entrenched political and economic interests, and responding to the demands of a population whose basic needs have been ignored for decades. As one long-time activist said with both optimism and concern, "The communal councils are our primary hope for the long-term success of the revolution. They have the potential to change the very fabric of this country."


From Issue 381 - December 2007-January 2008