The importance of modern cities, when it comes to new political experiences and the creation of new institutions, it emphasized a lot lately. Cities were never discussed, not only in the field of Universities and in political circles, but also with thousands of NGOs started to study them and propose solutions for its many "dramas."
This situation occurs not only because the process of economic globalization reduces the power of nation states (which "calls attention" of the local area), but also because cities are overloaded with problems, cope with the increasing urbanization of the world the last thirty years. Local governments are forced, then, to answer dozens of questions and their managers are pressed ever more intense. "The local response to new urban dilemmas are often most effective, these responses are the core of local realities, based on local perceptions, their motivations and culture "1, say academics who are dedicated to studying the matter, translating something that today is a consensus: starting point "local" is essential for efficient social policies.
solutions "national" - usually planned by bureaucrats who do not live the daily life of the population - are increasingly powerless. Sociologists, economists and other social scientists, deepened in recent decades on studies on the new role of cities in the new context world. This effort is also necessary to rebuild the nation state, not only from "above" but from "below", or from a new type of decentralization and democratization of new processes that can be experienced daily merged with the population.
also a consensus among leading scholars of urban affairs that "the local government capable of responding to current urban challenges and build a city project and to lead it, has to be a government sponsor" 2. The local government should do, take, take action, not just "manage" services. The formulation is correct, but insufficient. In fact, not enough to be a government "champion", for the same investments can further divide society and increase their social differences. The right thing would be to ask: promoter of what? Whose? What social project? What are the experiments that can be performed in the city, even to conceptualize a new type of state?
Bologna and Barcelona are two beautiful examples of cities that began to think ahead strategically, planning economic development, culture and urban spaces, from new concepts but a new kind of citizenship. The "Models" to rethink the future of cities obviously have ideological and political foundations and the "form" and "content" of the proposals of local governments are linked to the question: Who are your target ?
The experiment conducted by the city of Porto Alegre, the participatory budget is not common. It was not just "encourage" participation in a spontaneous popular "make work" or simply "accept" the mechanisms of formal democracy. It was actually created a new center of decisions that, together with the Executive and the legislature, effectively democratized and integrated political action to ordinary citizens in a new "public space." A non-traditional public space, which gave him power to exercise rights of citizenship and incited citizens to be more demanding and more critical. This new center
decisive that had a direct impact on the nature and timing of public investments was crucial to generating income distribution and contribute to political socialization. Socialize distribute income without politics is very little and can cause some kind of paternalism, which is harmful to the assertion of autonomy of individuals and organizations based in society. Socialize play politics without income, can promote as effectively discouraging political struggle and the "withdrawal" of people to the field increasingly deprived of their stock.
Following the experience of Porto Alegre's Participatory Budget is given a certain type of response to the "crisis state": "The crisis of the state, however, is not only in your fragility established to respond to materials claims of significant sections of society. It is established also in the deepen into their little transparency and impermeability to deal with reality splinter social and continually produces new conflicts and new movements, which are built around new identities and seek to create alternatives to set against the brutal isolation of individuals. The dismantling of the modern lifestyle that is destroying the world in traditional manufacturing (typical of the industrial revolution) and the class structure of which he showed his best example, and the fragmentation of relations appear to have radicalized bureaucratic impotence of the state which can no longer become legitimate again to the citizens. If the predictability of voting every four years, which is at the same time, the strength and weakness representation, provided failure conferred a stroke to the legitimacy of the mechanisms of formal democracy, now makes it much more, because the complexity, fluidity and dynamics of the social fabric requires a permanent confirmation of the legitimacy of poder.3
The long citation has a reason. In the days running, the state in general and in particular the Brazilian state (with rare exceptions), was mostly occupied by private interests. The social crisis is now spreading to all humanity, unemployment, violence and lack of credibility of political institutions, is felt by ordinary people as "impotence of the state." The ordinary citizen feels that the State ignored in relation to their needs and he, therefore, becomes an easy prey to the neoliberal ideology. Its shortcomings become the result of a State "incompetent", who can only "take" resources to society.
The process of Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre is certainly not perfect or resolve this historical dilemma. Moreover, the participatory budget must not only constantly changing (to renew itself and adapt to growing awareness of citizenship), but must be seen as the opening of a road. A path to which priority should be given continuously for, first, restoring the credibility of the state through local experience and, secondly, to show that it is possible to reform it radically. (Reforma, in the sense of changing the relationship between the state x Society and also to "push" the State itself, to put at the service of people's interests.)
FIGHT FOR FREE PUBLIC UMA
is important to note that aside from the fight to demoralize the state (which is promoted by the neoliberal ideology) the social crisis that emerges from the "lifestyle" in this economy grows "the threat gives repression, decreases as the importance of public opinion, which refers only sporadically and, through a system driven by employers (...) communication "4.
This phenomenon, the induction of public opinion as a defense to a "system" and a "lifestyle", which is detrimental to the population itself, has also been a feature of modern times. The participatory budget process is also an instrument of struggle against the totalitarian uniformity of public opinion. Another aspect
deep modernization of the Participatory Budget: through the popular councils in place in various parts of the city, he establishing training facilities and breeding of independent public opinion. Communities, by the direct exercise of political action, including passing a critical take on the very power that the privileged classes have on the state, as they spend to live with the pressure itself is performed by the media for certain investments that are agreed upon by elitist interests or social minority.
Al democratize decisions while democratizing information on public issues, the participatory budget is able to generate a new awareness. Through this, people understand the functions State, its limits and decide to spend cash knowingly. Is created in this way, an open space through which conditions arise for the formation of a new type of citizen: an active citizen engaged, critical, which differs from the traditional city, which only claims asserted by isolated exercising their citizenship only through riots isolated and powerless. DEMOCRACY AND BUDGETING
is a consensus today in political science circles that "the field of national state intervention to decrease not to" 5. In reality, this is only partly correct. The ongoing nation-state "Regulating" economic development, only now he is subject to guidelines that relate primarily to the interests of financial capital ("volatile"). This "monitor" the world economic development, as a rule to preserve the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of some hundreds of powerful financial institutions.
policies "national", which are implemented by neoliberal governments in each country, organized the functions of government so that this remains in accordance with the guidelines of financial capital. It is these guidelines that allow a growing backlog because of the large financial conglomerates in the world, that what they call "progress" to solidify as a feature of the new international order: a progress concentration of income and power.
Political democracy is the doctrine of popular sovereignty the central element, that is, by it's rulers through the ballot received a mandate to be fulfilled for a certain period. What is the historical outcome of this process? Is to a democracy that means, at the same time, the possibility of ordinary citizens access to the policy and also restricts their participation.
Through economic power, privileged classes of society, whose representatives have also facilitated access to the media, participate in the electoral process in a much more favorable. That - obviously - does not negate the need for a new project of emancipation incorporate periodic elections and universal, fair and predictable rules, but also obliges us to think new and creative ways to influence the power, to become ever more democratic.
These facts do not change to democracy in less important or point to the "necessity" of a type of authoritarian or dictatorial political regime. Although this scheme is presented as a "defender" of the interests population and workers. The question is radically democratize democracy, to create mechanisms so that she corresponds to the interests of the vast majority of the population and create new institutions, the reform or the rupture, to allow decisions on future decisions are always shared.
"Share" means, in regard to democracy, to allow those who are elected by universal suffrage (political representatives) and those who are referred by other forms of direct participation (social movement directly natives) are agreed new ways to "decide." The Participatory Budgeting an example that goes in this direction, as we shall see its history and its method.
definitions created by the democratic intelligentsia, trained in the traditional Republican doctrine, claim that there is "democracy where there are several groups in competition for the conquest of power through a struggle aimed at the popular vote" 6. The definition is correct, but insufficient. The traditional democratic ideal did not care to be effective ways to "equal participation" or at least "more equal" in public decisions. This is a challenge we must respond.
In truth, the reality of the modern world and the major exclusion provided by social regimes, both democratic and authoritarian, point to the need to change the concept. To primarily look for a concept of democracy in which the conquest of the government, through the popular vote, does not exhaust the participation of society, but on the contrary, allows to initiate another process, creating two centers of democratic power : one, a native of the vote, another native of direct institutions to participate.
This would be a method to decide and at the same time, to generate controls on the state and the government, creating institutions capable of generating policies that have an increasing degree of acceptance and social legitimacy. Policies that are the product of "consensus" and the emergence of "conflict" which, in turn, could open the traveling public scene - if they wanted - the interests of all citizens.
Democracy through this vision can not be separated from freedom and liberty can not be isolated from a minimum equality of opportunity, to create decisions that aim to suppression of increasing inequality between social classes . Inequality to influence and decide on the actual social inequality.
CRITICISM OF FREEDOM AND BUDGETING
The Marxist critique of capitalism, freedom (freedom as mere of "who can do more") is correct, despite the indicated solutions for the traditional Marxist dictatorships have shown historically. The traditional Marxist vision created institutions also increasingly able to assert the freedom of individuals and - on a par with that - to promote equality, able to build a new society.
The Marxist critique of capitalism freedom says that as a rule, freedom is "freedom of the owner" and no real freedom to own property. No free market, but "anarchic freedom that generate selfish monopolies" and the actual deformation state power. Not the 'emancipation of individuals "but" the emancipation of capital ", which happens to act as an uncontrollable force and tends to generate more and more differences, social exclusion and corruption in power (Ernst Bloch," The Citizen Marx ").
revolutionary experiences made to date (although in the beginning constituted sense-oriented trends reduce the social differences) eventually transform "a world of plenty for the few, in a little world for all" 7. Popular revolutions of this century did not improve the State or increased or deepened democracy and political participation. Not promote the common citizen status a city dump the whole society, not end exploitation, selfishness, racism and discrimination against women. Historical essays were not paid off, despite their original ideals were high.
is obvious that the PB is not the whole solution to this problem, but it is certainly a positive for the highly experimental "Local Power" and also points to a universal form of address to the State and create a new type of state. A State which combine traditional political representation (ie, periodic elections and predictable) to direct and voluntary participation of citizens (creating forms of co-management ") for representatives elected by universal suffrage and the participants in direct democracy and voluntary decisions generate increasingly attuned to the interests of the majority.
The participatory budget process performs the critical practice of freedom merely formal, through which the citizen votes and goes home. Through it people can directly and specifically to operate the fight for their rights, combining the individual decisions (wanting to participate) with the collective participation (which generates public decisions).
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES AND
The idea of \u200b\u200bthe participatory budget in Porto Alegre started the campaign for mayor in 1988. At that time the government program of the Workers Party proposed to democratize the new management decisions based on "popular councils". The aim was to allow every citizen may interfere with the creation of public policy and other decisions of government, that they had relevance to the future of the city.
The proposal was much more settled general principles originating in the Paris Commune and the "Soviets", which itself in experiences from local reality.
The dominant view in the party and also other parties who supported the application on the left, at that time (1988), was making a "transfer" of power to the organized working class. With that would gradually "replaced" traditional political representation, coming from the polls, direct democracy.
was undoubtedly a progressive and positive vision, though extremely simplistic. The government program is not designed as a transfer of power would operate, how to emerge the new institutions of popular power and how it would be "resolved" their own relationship with the Chamber of aldermen, who constitutionally be given a huge amount of skills, also to be a body with clear political legitimacy.
In the first year of government that emerged with the victory of the left, there was a large influx of population in all plenaries popular neighborhood. In the 16 regions of the participatory budget in the poorest communities fleeing en masse from the meetings. They, through their direct participation, would have the task of deciding on investments that were demanded for decades. But, everyone wanted everything at once. They demanded that the government rescued the "promises" and initiate election "immediately" works to improve the quality of life in those regions historically abandoned by the municipal government.
The government, however, had no resources or projects. It was necessary, before making a major tax reform, generating local savings (through local taxes themselves) and thus enhance the city government to respond to demands and create a minimum level of credibility. Dialogue was needed with the city, creating political conditions for citizens to believe in the new methods of governing, which, for the first time in the history of the city, include ordinary citizens.
Through difficult negotiations with the House of aldermen, with broad participation of delegates and representatives Participatory Budget, was the first major tax reform. Other tax changes were made along the two governments in the PT and the Popular Front. Such changes had resulted in increased tax collection capacity of the municipality (own collection), which rose gradually from 25% of total revenues (collected in the first year, 1989) to around 51% of total revenue (in 1996 .) This mark was reached in the last year of 2 Popular Front government in the city, which ended on December 31, 1996.
The "cash on hand, however, did not occur immediately because the work was necessary, before, to pay outstanding bills of the previous government. The intense involvement of communities, which occurred in 1989, fell sharply in the following year, the participatory budget meetings designed to "discuss the collection" and "program works." The disappointment was great. The tax reform (carried out during the first year in office) was to take effect only sensitive to the population since 1992. In this year were initiated most of the works determined over the first two years of Participatory Budgeting.
Even with the limited participation of citizens in the plenary sessions of 1990 (second year the first government), the Mayor still respected the decisions of the population. When the investment started, albeit late, circulated in the neighborhoods of the popular classes and mainly in those who lived and experienced by lower income workers, that "those works had been decided with the participation of several community organizations." In fact, the nature and type of work and expressed the awareness of each region and level of organization achieved by the community until that time. The specific response to the demands placed by the people themselves had a remarkable effect. GROWTH
The Beginning of the end of the second year of government, the participatory budget and was designed as a new political fact, structuring a new political relationship between the state and society in Porto Alegre. With the works appear, with information circulated word of mouth "and with the information sent through a TV program, guided by the Coordination of Social Communication of the Mayor, communities began to be aware that was worth worth going to the Budget. " The city began to be aware that the government really recognized in its citizens, the source of his most important decisions. "Something new" on the way rule was actually happening.
This "something new", which was the implementation of decisions taken by a poor social and mobilized base, coupled with transparency of information, began to form a new popular imagination. On the outskirts of the city, the leaders most closely identified with the "customers" and the exercise of personal influence, or were left without a hearing or began to change their behavior.
Throughout the implementation of the participatory budget, the government made a continuing effort to make it clear that did not discriminate the presence of any citizen. Or ideological conviction or supported by commitments in nature. Always reiteraba que el proceso era un proceso abierto, que todos eran iguales frente al gobierno, pudiendo ejercer libremente su influencia y luchar por las inversiones que creyesen necesarias. Para eso, bastaba con que mostrasen capacidad de movilización y proporcionasen la participación activa de los interesados en los nuevos procesos decisorios
