1

63rd

Political Studies Association Conference

25 - 27 March 2013

City Hall Cardiff

Participation and Deliberation in Brazil: a comparative analysis of the Public

Policy Conferences

Cláudia F. Faria

Professor of Political Science Department – Federal University of Minas Gerais- Brazil

claudia.feres.faria@gmail.com

Alfredo Ramos Pérez

PhD student of Political Science of Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

alfredo@redconvoz.org

Abstract

The Brazilian Public Policy Conferences change the pattern of social

participation in Brazil, since they introduce a combination of local, regional

and national levels of participation. This article analyses the key elements of

this process that integrates participatory and deliberative systems. Two cases

are the focus of a comparative analysis: the Health Conferences and the

Conferences on Policies for Women.

Key Word: Deliberative Democracy, Participatory Democracy, Brazil.

Public Conferences on Policies for Women, Public Conferences on Health

2

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to portray the main elements of a Participative

Institution of contemporary Brazil, the Public Policies Conferences.

They will herein be analysed as constitutive elements of an integrated

participatory and deliberative system.

The idea of a plurality of spaces with a diversity of discourses that can

foster the development of deliberative capacities in different degrees is

an important analytical contribution of the proposal of an integrated

participatory and deliberative system. In order to consider the Public

Policies Conferences under this prism one must, therefore, understand

how the different actors participate, discuss and deliberate in a context

with multiple spheres. The local, state, regional and national spheres

involve different patterns of action oriented to the same goal: putting

forward a public agenda to influence the public power as regards the

real and symbolic needs of those who participate in these spaces.

In order to achieve our goal, we will present the key aspects of the

conference process and of the idea of integrated systems, which

underpins the proposed analysis. We will then perform a comparative

analysis of the XIV National Health Conference (XIV Conferência

Nacional de Saúde) and the III National Conference on Policies for

Women (III Conferência Nacional de Política para as Mulheres), both

3

of which occurred in 2011. We will cover their preliminary stages,

which took place in the city of Belo Horizonte and in the state of

Minas Gerais, and its final moment in Brasília. This analysis allows us

to explain to which extent and for what reasons the analysed

conferences accord or not to the idea of an integrated system.

1. Definition and analysis of the mobilisation process of the

Policies for Women and the Health Conferences

We define the Public Policies Conferences as institutional spaces of

participation, representation and deliberation. They require diverse

efforts of social mobilisation as well as of building political

representation and of defining an agenda for public policies (Faria et

al, 2012). Although each one presents its own dynamics, they have all

got public assemblies in which the participants discuss and decide the

policy proposals and elect delegates for the various levels of the

federation, from the local to the national. The process ends in Brasília

with the reunion of all delegates elected in the former stages, held in

numerous municipalities and in the 27 Brazilian states. The

conferences are summoned by law, decree, ministerial or joint

ministerial ordinance or by an edict of the relevant Council, and they

intend to define the guidelines for the Public Policy Plans of the

various levels of the federation. These plans are expected to guide the

actions of both the executive and the legislative of each of these

levels.

4

The conference process establishes, in Brazil, a new scenario for

participatory practices, since these no longer are limited to the local

level but, rather, assume a national dimension. The political

mobilisation pattern in Brazil is undergoing changes since the

promulgation of the Federal Constitution of 1988, which allowed for

the creation of numerous participatory mechanisms, spaces and

institutions, such as the Participatory Budget (Orçamento

Participativo), Public Hearings, the Public Policies and Rights

Management Councils and the City Plans (Planos Diretores). These,

amongst others, promoted participation primarily at the local level.

From Lula’s government (2003-2010) onwards, on the other hand, we

observe the development and increase in number of a group of

national participatory institutions, amongst which the analysed

Conferences are of practical and analytical significance. From 1941,

when the first Health Conference was held, to the end 2012, there

have been 126 National Conferences concerning 45 different subject

areas. There were held, moreover, hundreds of State and Municipal

Conferences that assembled, according to official data, over seven

million people. The table below shows the kinds of Conferences that

have been held, as well as the number and the public policy subject

areas that have included this participatory mechanism since the

beginning of Lula’s government.

5

Table 1: Conferences held between 1941-2012

AREAS SUBJECT

Minorities and Human Rights

Youth (2008, 2011)

Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals (2008, 2011)

Indigenous Peoples (2006)

Childhood and Adolescence (1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011)

The Handicapped (2006, 2008, 2012)

The Elderly (2006, 2009, 2011)

Promoting Racial Equality (2005, 2009)

Public Policies for Women (2004, 2007, 2011)

Brazilian Communities Abroad (2008, 2009)

Human Rights (96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008)

Development, the Economy and the

Environment

Civil Defence and Humanitarian Aid (2010)

Human Resources in the Federal Public Administration (2009)

Public Safety (2009)

Solidarity Economy (2009)

Cities (2003, 2006, 2009)

Agriculture and Fishing (2003, 2006, 2009)

Nutrition and Food Safety (1994, 2004, 2007, 2011)

Children and the Youth for the Environment (2003, 2006, 2009)

The Environment (2003, 2005, 2009)

Local Productive Arrangements (2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011)

Sustainable Rural Development (2008, 2011)

Social Control and Transparency Conference (2012)

Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (2012)

Employment and Decent Work (2012)

Regional Development (2012)

Education, Culture and Communication

Basic Education (2008)

Scientific Vocational Training (2006)

Science, Technology and Innovation (1985, 2001, 2005 and 2010)

Vocational Training (2008)

Sports (2004, 2006)

Communications (2009)

Culture (2005, 2010)

Education (2010)

Indigenous Education (2009)

Health and Social Policies

Environmental Health (2009)

Health (1941, 1950, 1963, 1967, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2011)

Science, Technology and Health-related Innovation (1994, 2004)

Pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical assistance (2003)

Oral health (1986, 1993, 2004)

Work and Education Management in the Health area (1986, 1994, 2006)

Health of Indigenous Peoples (1986, 1993, 2001, 2006)

Social Assistance (1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011)

Worker’s Health (1986, 1994, 2005)

Mental Health (1987, 1992, 2001)

Total 44 (125)

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on information of the Secretaria Nacional de Articulação Social – Brasil (SNAS)

6

Although not all conferences follow the same pattern, as they have got

their specificities, it is possible to identify common phases in the three

levels (municipal, state and national):

� Accreditation: the participants inscribe themselves for the

conference process and receive the material that will give support to

the discussions – such as the Programme, the Conference Procedures ,

the Proposals and other information.

� Opening Plenary Session: the directing board is designated and the

authorities and organising committees present the process and the

tasks to be done. Many presentations are made aiming at preparing the

participants for the deliberative process. The Conference Procedures,

made beforehand by the organising committees and/or by the councils,

are then debated and modified in a negotiation process.

� Work groups (hereafter WGs): delegates and invitees (the latter

without the right to vote) assess, debate and decide about the

proposals conceived in former stages. They may modify or eliminate

them, and, in some (but not all) cases, present new proposals.

� Final plenary session: the proposals approved in the WGs are

presented and submitted to a new round of discussion. Their special

requests are presented and debated, and the original proposal is then

approved or modified.

� Election of Delegates: the organising committees define the criteria

for this process, taking into account the population of the territory

and/or the degree of mobilisation and participation. The participants

thereby elect their representatives for the next phase of the

7

Conferences, until the national one (which is the last stage of the

process).

The two Conferences analysed in this paper display different patterns,

which we believe are influenced by their different degrees of political

institutionalisation and by the mobilisation of the civil society.

Whereas Health is one of the most consolidated policy areas in terms

of political-administrative decentralisation and participation (Arretche,

2002), actually functioning as a health system in the whole country, it

is otherwise with Policies for Women, as this area has only recently

been thought as a set of public policies of national scope. We hold that

this difference in their institutional and participatory path determines

the quality of the conference process under analysis1.

The first Health Conference occurred 71 years ago, in 1941, during

Vargas’s government. From then to 2011 there were held 14 National

Conferences (and hundreds of local, municipal and state Conferences).

The first Conference on Policies for Women was held in 2004, with a

second edition in 2007. Table 2 below shows various other differences

between both processes, considering variables such as the

mobilisation level, the number of participants, their organisation and

representative procedures. The comparison of these variables allows

for the conclusion that the Health Conferences are more decentralised,

mobilise more people and are more institutionalised.

1 We share the views that hold that, besides the institutional design of the participatory institutions, the

constellation of social forces is a determinant of their success or failure, and actually even define the

design they come to possess (Fung and Wright, 2003; Avritzer, 2009).

8

Table 2: Cycle of the Conferences on Health and Policies for Women

Public

Policy

Cycle of the Conference Representation Summoned

by

Organisation

Scale Number of

Conferences

Number of

Participants

Date Organising

Committee

Criteria for

electing the

delegates

Health

Local 159 5399 04-05 /2011

50%

representatives

of users, 25%

representatives

of workers and

25%

representatives

of managers

and service

providers.

50%

representatives

of users, 25%

representatives

of workers and

25%

representatives

of managers and

service

providers.

Health

Ministry, State

and Municipal

Health

Secretariats.

Public Policies Councils

(Health) and Organising

Committees.

District 9 2023 06-07/ 2011

Municipal 1 1161 22-24/07/

2011

State 1/ 427

Previous

municipal

conferences2

1802 8-11/08/

2011

National 1/ 4347

Municipal and

27 previous

state

conferences3

3428 30/11-

04/12/

2011

Women

District 9 1092 08/ 2011

50% civil

society

representatives

, 50% public

power

representatives

and a public

power

representative

that directs the

board.

60% civil

society

delegates, 40%

public power

delegates.

National

Secretariat of

Policies for

Women; Social

Development

Secretariat and

Women’s

Coordination

Office

Primarily government

organs.

Municipal 1 317 2-3/09/

2011

State 1/ 43 Previous

municipal and

regional

conferences4

957 17-19/10/

2011

National 1/119

municipal, 118

regional and

27 previous

state

conferences5

2813 12-15/ 12/

2011

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on information of the Secretariat of Policies for Women and the

National Welfare Council.

2 – The idea of an integrated participatory and deliberative

system

The systemic turn (Dryzek, 2010) that occurred in deliberative theory

seeks to answer, at once, the critiques posed by participatory and

agonistic theories. In order to do so, it advances a wider conception of

deliberation. It also addresses problems of scale, since it can deal not

only with a micro perspective, focused on mini-publics, but also with

a macro perspective.

2 Refers to the number of Conferences held in Minas Gerais.

3 Number of Conferences held in the whole country.

4 Number of Conferences held in the state of Minas Gerais.

5 Number of Conferences held in the whole country.

9

Although participation and deliberation are actions oriented to

improving the quality of public life, they work through different

channels. This leads to the fact that “mass participation and quality

deliberation are two concepts in dispute” (Sintomer, 2001: 239). Both

share an interest in the principles of discussion, inclusion and

publicity; nevertheless, whilst participation presumes direct and ample

involvement, deliberation seeks to provide a qualified reflection on

preferences and the actors’ political choice, which may lead to a

curtailment of the process of inclusion (Cohen and Fung, 2004;

Papadopoulos and Warrin, 2007, Blondiaux, 2008).

The potential inclusionary limits that the deliberative practice brings

about are criticised by those who see deliberation as a form of

“dispassionate, reasoned, and logical” communication (Dryzek,

2000: 64) oriented towards consent. This is especially true when forms

of argumentation that grant advantages to certain actors are promoted

(Blondiaux, 2008), (potentially) advancing inequalities (Della Porta,

2011: 89). Mouffe ascertains that the deliberative perspectives “deny

the central role in politics of the conflictual dimension and its crucial

role in the formation of collective identities” (1999: 752).

Faced with a certain deliberative tradition that “unnecessarily restricts

the reasons or the legitimate forms of argumentation in the

deliberative process to those which are strictly rational or logical”

(Jorba, 2009: 28), Sander (1997) argues for the equality of the

epistemic authority of the various discourses. Other authors also

10

defend the fostering of negotiation processes through which are

sought recognition and the interaction between forms of knowledge in

unequal conditions. They hence include other forms of

communication, such as protests, testimonies, rhetoric etc. (Chambers,

2009, Streich, 2002, Young, 2002, Blondiaux and Sintomer, 2004). All

of this is particularly important “when [one notices that] the public

that deliberates is increasingly less homogeneous” (Jorba, 2009: 30).

The idea of a “deliberative system” seeks to establish a dialogue with

these critiques, linking different kinds of actions performed in

different spheres that will comprise the system. This analytical

perspective posits that forms of action closer to participation, such as

public manifestations, bargaining etc., can and must coexist with

forms of action more oriented towards the public solution of conflicts,

such as deliberation (Goodin, 2005; Mansbridge, 1999, 2007;

Hendriks 2006). It thus seeks to render compatible different forms of

action that play distinct roles inside a complex socio-institutional web.

Different spaces with variegated repertoires and divergent

inclusionary degrees come to work as inputs for one another, thus

allowing for the promotion of a bottom-up public judgement (Faria et

al, 2012).

According to Dryzek (2010: 10-12), a system is deliberative only

insofar as it engenders an authentic, inclusive and consequential

deliberation. It is authentic to the extent that it promotes coercion-free

deliberation, through which the different arguments and points of view

11

are taken into account. It is inclusive when it permits the participation

of all affected by the decision (or their representatives). And it is

consequential if the deliberation determines or influences the

decisions.

In his proposal, the deliberative system must possess certain elements.

These are: the public space, where free, unrestricted communication

takes place; the “empowered” space, which comprises formal or

informal spaces capable of exerting influence, and is thus qualified for

the deliberation of actors oriented to the collective decision-making

process; a transmission mechanism, or instruments through which a

wider public sphere may communicate with the empowered space;

accountability between the deliberative spheres and the public space;

meta-deliberation, a specific deliberative field that assesses how the

“deliberative system” may be organised; and, at last, decision-making

capacity, that involves various articulations between the mentioned

components and influences the decision-making process as a whole

(Dryzek, 2010: 10-12).

In light of this perspective, Mansbridge et al (2012) identify a system

as a “set of distinguishable, differentiated, but to some degree

interdependent parts, often with distributed functions and a division of

labour, connected in such a way as to form a complex whole” (ibid: 6).

The system must display differentiation, integration, a division of

labour and interdependence, dealing with conflict and problem-

solving via different forms of communication. The parts of the system

12

must be analysed as a whole, i.e., considering the contribution of each

one to the deliberative quality of the entire system – hence building a

deliberative ecology. Such a strategy “allows us to see more clearly

where a system might be improved, and recommend institutions or

other innovations that could supplement the system in areas of

weakness” (ibid: 4-5). Decisions will be democratically legitimate

when they are taken in a context of mutual respect, following an

inclusive decision-making process not devoid of conflict.

The system possesses three main functions. The first is the Epistemic

one, which regards its contribution to the production of opinions,

preferences and decisions informed by facts and the argumentative

logic. The second is the Ethical function, based on its contribution to

promoting mutual respect and recognition between actors, in a context

characterised by the absence of domination and by equal treatment

amongst peers. The last is the Democratic function, which values the

inclusion of actors and interests, recognising “different forms of

action, ranging from protest to cooperative negotiation” (ibid: 9).

By limiting the deliberative or participative processes to the local

scale, the idea of a “deliberative system”, according to its advocates,

aims at expanding deliberation beyond a specific forum, conceiving

them as many forums through time (ibid: 2).

13

3. The process of the Health and Policies for Women Conferences

In order to analyse to which extent the Public Policies Conferences

can be seen as an integrated system, as was herein presented, we shall

depict the different stages of their cycles, as well as the multiple

interactions between the elements that comprise them.

3.1 The Local Health Conferences (LHC), District Health Conferences

(DHC) and the District Conference on Policies for Women (DCPW):

differences and similarities in the beginning of the conference process.

One of the core differences between the two conference processes in

the city of Belo Horizonte regards, as previously mentioned, their

level of decentralisation. Only the Health Conference had a local stage

before the Pre-Conferences – the district stage, held in the city’s nine

regional administrative districts (see table 2).

Neither the LHCs nor the DCPWs debate their Conference Procedures

– an important mechanism that normatively governs the whole

process. In this sense, they display a similar degree of informality.

They both share some characteristics, such as: neither the LHCs nor

the DCPWs debate their internal rules; they make use of direct

participation, without the mediation of representatives (delegates);

they represent the first moment of contact and learning that many

participants have regarding the procedures and the content of the

conference process; and they are the stage in which are elaborated the

14

proposals to underpin the other stages.

All stages of the conference process begin with the accreditation of

the participants, who receive the badges and the documents necessary

for the debate. In the DHCs, the participants receive a report with the

proposals approved in the former stage, as well as the Conference

Procedures, which are debated and modified in the opening plenary

session.

In the health area, some LHCs and most DHCs included the formation

of Work Groups (WGs), divided according to the subjects of the

conference guidelines. In the WGs the proposals directed to the

various government branches are made. In the first stage, the number

of participants in the WGs varied according to the number of

assembled participants, while in the second stage this number

oscillated between fifteen and twenty-five. In the DHCs the

deliberative process is more complex, for the participants are allowed

to modify proposals by special requests and via argumentative

negotiations. Changes in their text, inclusion of ideas and partial or

total elimination of proposals are allowed. The proposals are

prioritised either by a consensus of the group or by voting. In the final

plenary sessions of both stages the proposals made in each WG are

publicly presented, and the group of participants submits them to a

new round of discussion, special requests , argumentative negotiation,

voting and/or approving without voting.

15

Not every Conference of the DCPWs had WGs. In these cases, the

discussions were held in the plenary sessions. This is due to the fact

that the number of participants was not sufficient in all cases for

performing these group activities. As to what regards the debating

mechanism, the Health and Policies for Women Conferences are

similar, despite the fact that the proposals were not voted in the WGs

in most groups of the DCPWs. In both cases, the transmission of the

proposals from the WGs to the final plenary session, when the latter

existed, was deficient. In but few cases the final plenary sessions

constituted a space for debate and the approval of proposals.

In both the WGs and the plenary sessions of these stages, the

discussions, when conducted, were mostly centred on accounts of

personal experiences related to the subject. Based upon these, and

with the help of professionals and activists of the area, the proposals

were made. The interventions of the activists were of more technical

and politicised character, given the professional and militant

knowledge they had of the matter at hand.

After making the proposals, the delegates are elected. In the DCPWs

there can be elected at most twenty regular delegates, regardless of the

resident population of each district. This quantity is defined in the

Conference Procedures of the III Municipal Conference. In some

regional administrative districts the elections for delegates of the civil

society and of the public power occurred separately. This separation

by segment also occurred in all the elections for delegates of the

16

health policy. Each LHC had autonomy to decide how many delegates

it should elect in this stage, even if they all accepted the

proportionality established by law of having 50% of users, 25% of

workers and 25% of managers/service providers. The DHCs observed

the proportionality criteria, but the Municipal Health Council defined

the number of delegates based on multiple criteria, including the size

of the population and the management experience of the regional

administrative district.

3.2 Municipal Health Conference (MHC) and Municipal Conference

on Policies for Women (MCPW) in Belo Horizonte.

Both the MHC and the MCPW started with the accreditation of the

delegates. In this moment everyone receives their identification

badges, which allows for voting in the WGs and in the Final Plenary

Sessions, and the rest of the documents necessary for the discussions.

These include the matrix of proposals defined in former stages,

divided by government branch, as well as the Conference Procedures.

The matrix of proposals is a key document in the whole process, and

clear evidence of the fact that the Conferences internally constitute an

integrated participatory and deliberative system. The proposals

discussed in former scales undergo, in this stage, a new round of

debates, and those considered most relevant are selected.

After the accreditation there are the initial plenary sessions, with

speeches on the various public policies. Only in the case of Policies

17

for Women, however, was there a speech on the assessment of the

conference process (meta-deliberation). The Conference Procedures

were debated in both, but while there were no significant

modifications in the MHC, in the MCPW there was great debate and

changes to the proposals for the percentage of elected delegates. The

public sector workers, who were not managers, got to be counted as

part of the civil society. With this modification, the division of

delegates of this segment changed from 60% civil society and 40%

government to, respectively, 80% and 20%.

The number of WGs was significantly larger in the MHC, with 30 of

them (six for each area), while the MCPW had but five. The number

of participants in each WG was similar in both, on average 35 to 40

people. The proposals were read and debated separately for each

competence area (municipal, state and federal). Their decision process

was significantly varied. In some WGs the text of the proposals could

be altered, by merging some of them and altering their quality and

impact. On the other hand, in other WGs the selected proposals were

only discussed and voted, with no modifications being allowed. In

neither policy was there the possibility of creating new proposals in

this stage.

In this second stage, the circulation of knowledge and the learning,

both stemming from the previous phases and the interactive process,

were much larger. This enabled the participants to build a better-

informed stance on the issues being discussed. Regarding the health

18

policy, it stood out how the arguments no longer referred to local or

district matters, but, rather, assumed a municipal dimension and were

justified in more technically and politically sophisticated manners.

The Final Plenary Sessions also displayed significant differences. In

the MCPW all proposals were read and there was only one special

request, without any significant debate surrounding the remaining

ones. In contradistinction to this, in the MHS the debate on the

proposals the rapporteurs presented led to 54 special requests that

generated further discussion. The final decision was reached by

contrasting votes in favour and against.

The election of the delegates for the State Conference occurred in

specific forums for each segment, as in previous stages. In the MHC

the State Health Council defined the electoral criteria, according to the

population of the municipalities. Contrary to the previous stages, in

which women were overrepresented in both segments, in the MHC

male delegates had more representatives in the segment of users. In

the MCPW more than 95% of the delegates were women. In the civil

society segment, after much discussion surrounding the electoral

criteria, they opted for a territorial representation in which all districts

presented delegates who met separately to elect their representatives.

3.3 – The State Health Conference (SHC) and the State Conference on

Policies for Women (SCPW) of Minas Gerais: consolidating the

representative and deliberative processes

19

As regards the actors, both analysed State Conferences differed from

previous stages in respect to the number and the plurality of

participants and to the greater presence of institutional representatives.

Both enjoyed many presentations on the issues at hand and, once

more, only the SCPW included an assessment of the policies debated

in the former conferences.

In both cases the debate on, and the voting of, the Conference

Procedures led to significant modifications in the process. Two facts

stood out. In the SHC the delegates decided, by majority vote, to

discuss all the proposals in the plenary, and not in the WGs. This

decision was reached after an intense and conflict-ridden debate on the

rule that vetoed changes in the proposals, allowing only for their

approval or disapproval. The plenary voted for modifying the

regulation of the Conference Procedures and of the SHC resolution,

thus altering the methodology of the process. In the SCPW the

participants altered the criteria for electing the delegates. Based on

territorial and mobilisation criteria, each of the state’s regions should

elect their delegates according to their own criteria, while observing

this general rule. The change enacted in the plenary also inverted the

formerly established weights for the criteria, attaching higher

importance to the each region’s level of mobilisation. This led to

changes in the distribution of delegates in fourteen of the twenty

regions.

Given the absence of WGs in the SHC, the delegates read and debated

20

in the plenary the 535 proposals. This impacted the whole process,

which became less deliberative and more plebiscitary. If, on the one

hand, this change demonstrates the autonomy of the delegates, who

could modify the proposals as they saw fit, it also presents problems

for the representativeness and legitimacy of the whole process, since

the delegates did not respect what had been accorded in the former

stages, which had a much smaller plurality of actors.

The participants of the SCPW divided themselves in six WGs on the

various axes of the II National Plan for Policies for Women. The

groups were supposed to debate and choose proposals for the state and

national level. The general process consisted in suppressing some

proposals and working on the approved ones by merging many of

them and correcting, suppressing or altering their text. New proposals

could also be presented. The size of the groups was much larger than

in previous stages – they had between 70 and 90 participants. This was

more demanding for the mediators, who intermediated discursive

interactions more diversified in their arguments and strategies. The

mechanisms for approving the proposals varied from public

acclamation to voting, in order to solve conflicts or corroborate the

consensus that had been reached.

The final plenary session of the SCPW aimed at approving the

proposals made in the WGs. In this plenary, as opposed to the plenary

sessions of the previous stages, the consolidation of the proposals

occurred after a debate that allowed for the modification and

21

suppression of the proposals. Of the 63 proposals approved in the

WGs, 43 were subjected to special requests. As in the WGs, the

reasons presented to maintain or alter the proposals combined legal

and political references, as well as personal and local experiences. In

many cases the proposals showed clearer and more objective writing.

New proposals could also be made in this stage. The plenary session

was marked by conflict, as that surrounding the legalisation of

abortion – the most polemical issue in the SCPW. As such, it was the

proposal with the most special requests. The result was to maintain the

legalisation proposal, reached in a tight voting.

In both cases the election for delegates occurred in specific spaces for

each segment. The criterion for distributing the delegates of the SHC

to each region of the state was defined by the National Health

Council, according to their population. As in the municipal stage,

there were more male delegates in the segment of users, the same

happening, in this stage, in the segment of managers/service providers.

This tendency did not prevail only the segment of workers. As a

consequence of the modifications of the Conference Procedures, a

great part of the debate in the SCPW consisted in establishing the

electoral criteria for each region. This led, on the one hand, to a debate

on what the group considered that should be represented (age,

ethnicity, entities etc.), and, on the other, to a marked conflict

surrounding the legitimacy of the representation of the delegates –

which made clear both the power relations and the tensions within the

representatives of each region.

22

3.4 The National Health Conference (NHC) and the National

Conference on Policies for Women (NCPW): the ending of the

conference process

The last stage of both cycles maintained the four earlier analysed

phases of the process. After the accreditation, there was the

distribution of the consolidated book of proposals and the Conference

Procedures. The opening speeches were made and the Conference

Procedures were debated. It is worth mentioning that the NCPW was

the only conference in which the President of the Republic, Dilma

Roussef, participated. In her opening speech, she stressed the

importance of the Conference to ensure another form of governability,

founded on the social participation of all affected.

The discussion of the Conference Procedures in the NCPW was not

marked by much polemic, except only when deciding the number of

proposals the WGs could prioritise. In the NHC, in contrast, the

opposite occurred, notwithstanding the virtual debate held before the

NHC in order to build previous agreements6. Of its 29 articles, 24

were subjected to special requests, and the greatest polemic regarded

the use of secret electronic means to vote for the proposals. The

delegates argued that the secret voting with electronic ballot boxes

would distort the “public character” of the process and, based on this

argument, electronic voting was discarded.

6 The debate was organised by the Collective Health and Nutrition Nucleus (Núcleo de Saúde Coletiva e

Nutrição), in partnership with the Participative Democracy Project (Projeto Democracia

Participativa), both of the Federal University of Minas Gerais.

23

Both Conferences had many speeches on the issues under discussion

and also had some innovations in the formation of the actors. The

NCPW had “debate circles” on subjects such as racism and

lesbophobia, economic and social autonomy, amongst others. The

NHC included “thematic dialogues”, in which specialists and

researches of the area debated with government technicians, health

workers and users.

Social movements played a central role in this stage. In the NCPW the

meetings organized by Women’s Entities are worth mentioning. They

were nationally articulated and promoted previous in-person debates

on some proposals to be presented in the WGs. Meanwhile, in the

NHC there were public manifestations of social movements and

unions of the area, against the Ministry of Health’s proposal of

establishing public-private partnerships for service provision in the

whole country. The defence of a national public health policy marked

many debates.

The NHC had 17 WGs, each with approximately 200 participants. The

NCPW, in its stead, had 24 WGs in the first day to discuss and

deliberate on the issue of economic autonomy, and 24 more WGs in

the second day to debate the issues of personal, political and cultural

autonomy (eight for each subject). The number of participants in these

groups varied from 50 to 100 delegates. There was more autonomy in

the NCPW, for the delegates could alter the proposals as well as

include new ones. Besides having a large number of participants per

24

WG, an electronic system was used in the NHC that did not permit

increasing the debate time or including new proposals, but only

accepting or rejecting them.

Regarding both Health and Policies for Women, the justifications

presented based themselves in technical and political arguments,

aiming at solving national problems. The argumentative exchange led

to a change of preferences in many subjects, with the exception of the

most polemical ones – as the public-private partnerships, in the NHC,

and the legalisation of abortion, in the NCPW. It also made evident

that many participants possessed participative experiences that they

used in the negotiation process, both inside and outside the plenary

sessions. A great part of the participants adopted an informed stance,

built during the learning process the Conference cycles provide. In the

NCPW, the discursive diversity and the personal appeals grew less

numerous, hence leading to a more qualified flow of knowledge –

albeit also more professionalised and derived from previous

participative experiences than in the former stages.

In the final plenary sessions, the proposals that met with acceptance in

70% of the WGs were considered approved. Those with a lower

acceptance level, but still sufficient to be discussed in plenary, were

read and debated. In the NHC only 19 proposals (5% of the discussed)

were submitted to the plenary, and the voting consisted in approving

or eliminating them. In the NCPW most of the proposals presented for

debate in the plenary were approved without the need of voting.

25

Contrary to what occurred in the NHC, the plenary of the NCPW

could alter the text of the proposals, modifying or merging them. The

legalisation of abortion, once more, emerged as the most polemical

issue in the III NCPW. In this case, the most explicit proposal for

legalising abortion led to open conflict between several hundred

Women in favour of and against legalisation. Ultimately, the proposal

was submitted to voting and approved in the final plenary session.

4. Conclusions

This article compared two kinds of Public Policy Conferences based

on the idea of an integrated system. This idea, as indicated earlier,

defends the connection and coordination of an ensemble of social

practices performed in different spaces and scales, all with the shared

objective of including different voices in the deliberative construction

of a common public policy agenda.

The analysis of the Conference processes showed that the health and

Policies for Women Conferences differ in their capillarity and in their

mobilisation capacity. This is proven by the decentralisation of their

processes and the number of participants. In both cases, as the stage

changes the organisational complexity increases, as demonstrated by

the presence of a variety of resources such as the Conference

Procedures, the WGs, the speeches and the book of proposals, as well

as by the discursive quality.

26

Based on their rules and institutional design, one can say that the

analysed Conferences conform to a vertically integrated process. Their

different scales are connected and serve as inputs for one another. The

participation and deliberation processes in the WGs and in the Plenary

sessions, in the various levels, subsidise the succeeding scales by

means of the participation and the debate on the proposed subjects.

The representative procedure also allows for this connection between

the parts. It does so by electing delegates in the different scales, as

well as by the discursive formulation of the proposals that are debated

and/or modified along the process.

Regarding deliberation, in the case of the Health Conference the

changes of rules, regulations and resolutions that occurred during the

whole process made of the Conferences a more aggregative process,

particularly in the state and national levels. In the Conference on

Policies for Women (CPW), on the other hand, the opposite took

place. As the scale progressed upwards, the debates in the WGs and in

the Final Plenary Sessions gained in quality via the possibility of

modifying, altering and improving the presented proposals.

The state level of the Conference on Policies for Women modified

almost 80% of the proposals that came from previous stages, a figure

that in the national level increased to almost 95% of the proposals

presented for debate. In the Health area this process did not occur in

the same manner. In the national level the rules that were determined

forestalled a more substantive debate and the modification of the

27

proposals.

On the argumentative pattern, in the initial stages – local and district –

of both processes a more informal discourse prevailed. It comprised

personal experiences of the civil society representatives, alongside

arguments based on technical knowledge of the professionals of their

respective areas. As the scale increases the first repertoire is overtaken

by more technical and politicised knowledge, mobilised by the social

movements, and/or by the participative knowledge stemming from the

experience of the Conference and of other participative institutions.

Many communicative styles intermesh in the PWC, even if those

closer to participation and social mobilisation predominate.

It is worth highlighting the debates on the Conference Procedures as a

form of meta-deliberation. In both cases these debates, which

modified the conditions of the process, referred to questions such as

the methodology for devising proposals, how to select the latter and

the representation criteria. In both policy areas and in various scales,

the possibility of a democratic discussion on the organisation of the

Conferences substantively altered them, thus showing the influence of

the participants in both processes.

The formation and learning are also conditioned by the change of

scale. In an initial moment, the information transmitted refers to local

particularities or to the very participative process of both Conferences.

Contrarily, in the national stage there is a myriad of panels and

28

speeches to subsidise the debates in the WGs and in the plenary

sessions, which positively contributes to the progress of the

discussions. In the WGs the reasons presented for justifying the

proposals and the flow of information on local, municipal or regional

particularities increase the knowledge on the issue under debate. The

very process of the Conference implies a strategic learning on how to

mobilise different elements in the debates and secure support to

certain proposals.

Regarding representation, we can state that, whilst in both areas it

integrates the different stages of the process, it also undergoes a

change of meaning in each of the analysed policies. In the health area

representativeness assumes a marked territorial character,

fundamentally representing the proposals and demands made in the

former stages. It is otherwise in the CPW, whose forms of

representativeness are more linked to the participation in certain

entities and movements or to the association with particular policy

areas. Nevertheless, as the scales increases the representation criteria

become more complex, thus developing new factors of legitimacy.

Each forum for electing the delegates becomes a conflict-ridden arena,

due to the composition of both the civil society and the public power,

which have different projects and legitimate different modalities of

representation.

The NCPW, in contrast to the NHC, presented in various moments of

its many stages – particularly during the initial speeches – an

29

accountability of the results of the policies for women, as well as an

assessment of the implementation of the proposals deliberated in

previous Conferences. Besides these and some virtual mechanisms for

controlling the implementation of proposals in experimental stages,

there are no mechanisms, in either process, for controlling the

implementation of the approved proposals – notwithstanding the fact

that the resolutions of the health Conferences and Councils are of law-

like status. This is one of the great problems of these participative

institutions. Councils and Coordination Offices, in the various

government levels, do not assume the task of controlling the approved

proposals, however much they may be spaces whose core function is

precisely this. Thus, the health area, in spite of the mentioned

capillarity it acquired via the mobilising work of the countless existing

councils – local, district, state and national –, does not yet adequately

fulfil this function. This can explain, for example, the repetition of

thousands of proposals from one edition to the other.

These evidences allow us to conclude that, on the one hand, the

Conferences in both policy areas form a vertically integrated system,

successfully linking one stage to the other. On the other hand, by

looking at the integration and coordination between the Conferences

in different areas, as well as with other participative institutions as the

Councils, we realise that, from the horizontal point of view, the

national participatory and deliberative system must still be improved

in order for it to effectively perform the epistemic, ethical and

democratic functions suggested by the theory at hand.

30

References

Arretche, Marta. 2000. Estado federativo e políticas sociais:

determinantes da descentralização. Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo: Revan,

FAPESP.

Avritzer, Leonardo. 2009. Participatory institutions in democratic

Brazil. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Blondiaux, Loic. 2008. Le nouvel espirit de la democratie. Paris:

Seuil.

Blondiaux, Loic, y Sintomer, Yves. 2004. “El imperativo

deliberativo”, Revista de Estudios Políticos, 24: 95-114

Chambers, Simone . 2009. “Rethoric and the public sphere: Has

deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy?” Political

Theory 37: 323-350.

Cohen, Joshua, and Fung, Archon. 2004. “Radical Democracy”, Swiss

Political Science Review 10: 26-46.

Della Porta, Donatella. 2011. Democrazzie. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals,

31

critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- 2010. Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Faria, Claudia, Petinelli, Viviane e Lourenço, Isabella. 2012.

“Conferências de políticas públicas: Um sistema integrado de

participação e deliberação?”, Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política 7:

249-284.

Fung, Archon and Wright, Erick. 2003. Deepening Democracy:

Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance.

London: Verso,

Goodin, Robert. 2005. “Sequencing deliberative moments”, Acta

Politica 40: 182-196

Hendriks, Carolyn. 2006. “Integrated deliberation: Civil Society´s

dual role in deliberative democracy”, Political Studies 54: 486-508

Jorba, Laia. 2009. Deliberación y preferencias ciudadanas: un

enfoque empírico. La experiencia de Cordoba. Madrid: CIS:

Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Every day talk in the deliberative system”,

en Stephen Macedo, ed., Deliberative politics: essays on democracy

32

and disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.

- 2007. “Deliberative democracy or democratic deliberation”, en

Shawn Rosenberg, ed., Deliberation, participation and democracy:

Can the people govern?. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mansbridge, Jane, Bohman, James, Chambers, Simone, Christiano,

Thomas, Fung, Archon., Parkinson, John, Thompson, Dennis, and

Warren, Mark. 2012. “A systemic approach to deliberative

democracy”. (mimeo)

Mouffe, Chantall. 1999. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic

Pluralism?”, Social Research 66: 745-758

Papadopoulos, Yannis. and Warin, Philippe. 2007. “Are innovative,

participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic

and effective?”, European Journal of Political Research, 46: 445-472.

Sanders, Lynn. 1999 “Against deliberation”, Political Theory 25: 347-

376.

Sintomer, Yves. 2011. “Deliberation et participation: Affinité élective

ou concepts en tension?”, Participations 1: 239-276.

Streich, Gregory. 2002. “Constructing Multiracial Democracy: To

33

deliberate or not to deliberate?”, Constellations 9: 127-153.

Young, Iris. 2002. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.