By LUCIANO FEDOZZI*
The federal government's political strategy of not opening up budget discussions with civil society has negative effects, both at the federal level and at other subnational levels of government.
The context of national reconstruction of the State and public policies in Brazil, after the authoritarian and ultra-liberal catastrophe unleashed since 2016, requires the combination of strengthening the institutions representing democracy and the reconstruction of the instances of participatory democracy, created after the Federal Constitution of 1988.
Since Lula's victory, the Federal Government has been forwarding, together with civil society actors and the community politics, the reconstruction of the socio-state spheres of social participation that were destroyed or weakened since 2016, and mainly during the government of Jair Bolsonaro. National councils and conferences were resumed, and inter-council articulation was institutionalized, all important bodies for the democratization of government management and the implementation of policies linked to citizenship rights.
The establishment of the Social Participation Council (CPS), linked to the Transition Office, which functioned as an advisory body to the president-elect, indicated general guidelines for the relationship between the new government and civil society, as well as the respective participation policies to be implemented at the federal level.
Within the scope of the social participation strategy, after the democratic victory, the National Participatory Budget (OPN) emerged as a real possibility, despite the complexity of how this modality works at the federal level. The Observatory of Metropolises and the Brazilian Network of Participatory Budgets (RBOP)[I] presented a proposal, in early 2023,[ii] to implement it, and have been promoting activities to resume Participatory Budgets on the political agenda of cities, since the number of municipalities adopting this practice in the country is decreasing, a paradox in relation to international expansion, as pointed out by the World Atlas of Participatory Budgets.[iii]
The issue of the National Participatory Budget was addressed in the 2022 election campaign, when Lula presented it as a counterpoint to the “secret budget. The opaque practice of congressmen should be replaced by the democratic opening of participation and control by society. In 2023, under the impact of the democratic victory, the implementation of the Multi-Year Participatory Plan (2024-2027), by the Federal Government, demonstrated that the national scale did not impede social participation in the preparation of the budget proposal.
There were 4 million hits on Brasil Participativo, on the internet, with 34.310 participants in the in-person plenary sessions in the 27 capitals, 1,4 million registered on the digital platform, 8.254 proposals and 1,5 million votes.[iv] Brazil has given yet another demonstration of boldness in democratic invention, being the only country on a large geographical scale to carry out this type of practice to define policy priorities, in partnership with social organizations and movements and state governments.
Therefore, the Federal Government's refusal to move forward, from 2024 onwards, in the process of participatory elaboration of the Budget Bill (PLO) has nothing to do with the possible difficulties of the leap in scale (scaling up) in the practices of Participatory Budgets. It is also worth highlighting, against the argument of the difficulties of large scale, the innovative initiatives of Participatory Budgets that have already occurred and are occurring today in states of the Northeast Region, with emphasis on the consolidated case of Paraíba, since 2011, under the direction and protagonism of the PSB, based on the experience of João Pessoa.
This initiative was followed by the states of Maranhão and Piauí (both governed by the PT), as well as Rio Grande do Norte and Pernambuco, which have now decided to begin the process. However, the government of Ceará does not have a stake in this initiative, despite the current governor's experience in coordinating the Participatory Budget in Fortaleza, for some years now. These are distinct participatory models, in which popular influence on decisions is still limited to a small portion of the resources, but they demonstrate how participatory democracy, whether in person or virtual (or hybrid), is possible even on a scale that goes beyond municipalities, as was pioneered by Rio Grande do Sul during the government of Olívio Dutra (PT, 1999-2002).
The federal government's political strategy of not opening up the budget discussion with civil society has had negative effects, both at the federal level and at other subnational levels of government. Firstly, because the dispute over public resources has been taking place in a manner restricted to the institutionality of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, an area in which the federal government does not have a favorable power relationship.
In this situation, it is clear that the dominant sectors of the market, the corporate media and the National Congress have greater power of influence. The popular camp is out of this rigged game. This is a strategy of the Lula government that repeats the first cycle of governments led by the left, in which the option was to have no program to mobilize the population and the most active segments of civil society. It is important to remember that although the National Participatory Budget was also included in the electoral program in the 2002 campaign, the participatory trial carried out in 2003 was also aborted, based on the false argument that it could encourage excessive popular demands that would be frustrated by budgetary limitations.
Now, once again, the left-wing government project is repeating the strategy that assumes the passivity of the subordinate sectors. However, unlike the cycle of the 2000s, when economic growth guaranteed popular support, the traditional model of democracy today appears to be severely worn out and unreliable in the eyes of citizens, a legacy also of the decade of economic crisis that began in 2014, of real episodes of corruption, of the demonization of politics since 2016, in addition to the destruction of policies caused by neoliberalism, which feeds the far right.
The growth of anti-political and anti-system sentiments in Brazilian society is visible. In this context, Brazil is moving towards parliamentarism, with passivity on the part of progressive actors in civil society and social movements, who seem oblivious to the facts.
Considering the vast experience of Participatory Budgets in hundreds of metropolises and cities in the country, during the last three decades, it is possible to affirm that, if implemented and well conducted, in a transparent manner and together with civil society actors, participatory budget management could constitute an important counter-narrative in confronting the setback represented by the capture of public resources, by physiological and patrimonialist forces in the National Congress, articulated locally.
The approximately R$50 billion in mandatory amendments have already been felt in this year's municipal elections, causing an imbalance in the competition due to the resources made available to city halls, links in the conservative networks of the National Congress.
In this context of setbacks, a well-conducted Participatory Budget could contribute to the creation of a public arena for discussion on the generation and use of public resources, where civil society actors can position themselves and actively participate in the dispute focused on this fundamental part of the heart of the State. The National Participatory Budget could help a part of society made up of organizations and social movements to enter this game of strangulation and siege of the Lula Government.
It should be noted that the fair and correct action of the Supreme Federal Court – by entering into this strategic dispute over amendments – provided justification for actions in the National Congress that seek to remove power from this instance of the republic, a path used by the extreme right in the dedemocratization processes that are underway in several places around the world. Participatory Budgets are not a panacea for the ills of representative democracy, but they undeniably contain enormous democratizing potential in the relationship between the State and society.
As academic research has shown in recent decades, no democratic innovation procedure in the world has greater potential for political and social inclusiveness than Participatory Budgets, when they are implemented for real, something that also applies to their redistributive potential for urban well-being. They allow the active inclusion of popular sectors in policy decisions, reconfiguring the bases on which the exercise of power and class hegemony in society takes place.
They also allow for the politicization of issues that are apparently technical, such as fiscal policy and fair forms of financing public policies, a highly relevant topic for the effectiveness of democracy in providing well-being, which is generally restricted to government technical circles and elite market experts, in addition to parliamentarians.
A second democratizing contribution of the National Participatory Budget concerns its likely stimulating effect on subnational governments, especially municipalities, coordinating the use of federal resources transferred and inducing increased participation, transparency and social control in cities, including over mandatory amendments, which have become widespread in the country's legislative houses.
As the cycle of expansion of Participatory Budgets in the 1990s and 2000s showed, many progressive and even liberal-conservative city governments, as well as local civil society actors, are encouraged to adopt more democratic and participatory practices when other institutions also do so. Undoubtedly, the National Participatory Budget could have a demonstrative effect of supporting democratic resistance by encouraging the dissemination of local and state Participatory Budgets, which need support when liberal democracy itself is threatened.
The possible fear of a Participatory Budget “confronting” the National Congress is unfounded, given the approval of the participatory PPA in 2023. Furthermore, renouncing in advance the natural divergences on the best ways for governments to prepare budgets is renouncing the dispute for hegemony of political projects. It is capitulating to authoritarian, elitist and neoliberal projects.
On the other hand, in a context in which the seizure of resources for electoral and power purposes is deepening, the situation is one of passivity on the part of social movements and civil actors from the democratic and progressive camp, greatly reducing the federal government's room for maneuver. This situation of fragility contrasts with the activism and mobilization of the social and political sectors of the extreme right, which holds the public initiative despite the electoral defeat in 2022 and the failure of the coup in January 2023.
No relevant civil actor from social movements has yet presented any initiative to mobilize in defense of public resources on transparent, constitutional and republican grounds. The coup to seize resources from the Executive seems to be nothing more than a fight between the powers. Without a doubt, the social crisis, the precariousness of work and the fragmentation of consumer society reinforced by digital hyper-individualism are impacting the capacity for collective action of social movements and organizations in the progressive field, but this alone does not explain the passivity observed in the face of the seizure of resources that are lacking in public policies and that are changing the political system towards parliamentarism, without changing the Federal Constitution.
This situation demands that civil actors from the progressive and left-wing camps react, otherwise the setbacks to democracy will be irreversible, strategically tying the country to the alliance of the physiological backwardness of the right – in the networks that unite city halls and congressmen – with the neoliberal project of the elites under the ideological hegemony of the extreme right. We believe that one of the possible forms of this reaction – without a panacea – is the deepening of democracy, using what Brazil created and exported to the world, the Participatory Budget.
*Luciano Fedozzi is a full professor of sociology at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Book author Porto Alegre Participatory Budget: 35 years. From the counter-hegemonic model to dedemocratization (available in [email protected]).
Notes
[I] Network defends social participation in the planning and execution of the federal public budget.
[ii] View at: https://www.observatoriodasmetropoles.net.br/orcamento-participativo-op-alia-democracia-cidadania-ativa-e-justica-urbana/
[iii] Cf. survey carried out in 2019, around 10 thousand cities in 70 countries around the world carry out practices that call themselves Participatory Budgeting. See Dias, N., et al. (2021). World Atlas of Participatory Budgets 2020 – 2021. Portugal: Epopeia e Oficina. Retrieved from http://www.oficina.org.pt/atlas-mundial-orcamentos-participativos-2020.html
[iv] https://www.gov.br/secretariageral/pt-br/ppa-participativo
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
