ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
EUROPEAN CONSORTIUM FOR POLITICAL RESEARCH Joint Sessions of Workshops – May 2007 Workshop 4 : “Democracy in Movements. Conceptions and Practices in Contemporary Social Movements” Directed by Donatella della Porta and Manuel Jimenez
The contribution of social movements to the institutionalisation of participatory democracy in France
Cécile Blatrix Université Paris 13 – Paris Nord
[email protected] ;
[email protected]
Abstract : Through different processes, the action of various actors in France over the past three decades has led to what we can call a “participationist context”. This context is characterised by the enhancement of the ordinary citizen’s participation and by the multiplication of participatory procedures. Yet, participatory techniques considered as a whole cannot be considered as the result of a planned conception of what participatory democracy should be. Actually, participatory democracy in France looks like a complex set of discourses, practices and procedures that have in common the idea of the necessity to associate ordinary citizens in public decisions, outside elections. Various groups have contributed, sometimes as an unintended aftermath of their action, to the emergence and development of new forms of democracy and new conceptions of the citizen in France. Thus, the development of participatory democracy refers to various, cooccurring phenomena. As far as social movements are concerned, the social success of participatory democracy can be linked to the action of some “entrepreneurs de cause”, and to “procedural concessions” stemming from specific mobilisations. Thus, in order to show how various social movements have contributed to the emergence and the institutionalisation of participatory democracy in France, we will distinguish groups whose purpose is to develop a more participatory democracy, and groups which have contributed to the phenomenon as an unintended consequence of their action, through specific conflicts.
1
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
Introduction
“Tomorrow, the Republic will be a Republic of transparency, of truth, of confronting points of view before taking decisions, because the authority of the State is all the more fair as it relies on popular deliberation. And this is the real importance of the new Republic I call for, this is the real meaning of participatory democracy, which will be incorporated in the Constitution with popular initiative referendums, citizens’ juries, with the prohibition of plurality of elected offices, with the abrogation of 49.3.” Extract from a speech by Ségolène Royal (Parti Socialiste), Montpellier, 24 th April 2007. For the first time in France the idea of participatory democracy has been at the core of a presidential campaign, which is all the more remarkable as this theme was featured by Ségolène Royal whereas it was not part of the Socialist Platform (“Projet socialiste”). Ségolène Royal’s proposals place great emphasis on participatory democracy, both as a theme of her political agenda, and as a mode of campaigning. Such methods and proposals have led to a vivid political debate, with the resurgence of sceptical points of view towards the idea of associating the ordinary citizen with decision making, and accusations of populism or demagogy. For many people today in France, the idea of participatory democracy is now firmly (may be permanently?) linked to Ségolène Royal, who is seen as the inventor of the idea. Yet, this irruption of participatory democracy, that acquired a higher profile through the presidential electoral campaign, should not conceal the fact that this “invention” has actually been preceded by years of activism on the part of a large range of groups from various sectors in favour of participatory democracy. In this paper my purpose is to account for the way some various groups have contributed, sometimes as an unintended result of their action, to the emergence and the development of new forms of democracy and new conceptions of the citizen in France. Indeed, various kind of associations, in very different contexts, have contributed to the emergence of new conceptions of democracy, which seem to develop in France as in other countries. The development of ideas and practices of participatory democracy in France seems to be mainly the result of two kinds of processes. First of all it can be connected with the action of some groups which purpose is explicitly to reactivate democracy. Since the beginning of the nineties, such groups are trying to form an associational network defending “ active citizenship ”. Through very various actions, they contribute to create a tangle of incentives for the implementation of participatory forms of democracy. Secondly, the development of participatory democracy can be a result of some specific mobilisations against policies or plans (nuclear programmes, and more recently, major infrastructure plans). Indeed, such mobilisations often have procedural impacts rather than substantive ones, with the creation of new participatory procedures.
I.
The French Patchwork Participatory Democracy
We can notice that, when they mention some participatory techniques, participatory democrats disagree on the types of participatory procedures that would be able to bring out such transformations. Moreover, they do not give many precisions about the concrete organisations of the participatory opportunities they suggest. Yet some common trends can be
2
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
drawn from the literature about participatory democracy. We can notice that the socalled participatory model of democracy is not an argument in order to abolish all representative institutions. Moreover, even if some authors plead for a conception of participatory as a whole, most of them consider implicitly or explicitly that participatory democracy does exist as soon as at least one participatory techniques has been set. What participatory democrats suggest is to widen the opportunities for direct participation by providing new arenas outside the traditional representative system, mostly in smallscale settings. The necessity of the existing, representative institutions is not questioned (Pateman, 1970; Mansbridge, 1980; Macpherson, 1977; Barber, 1984; Resnick, 1984; Dahl, 1992). Thus, according to most of the participationist authors, participatory democracy can exist inside the existing, representative system. According for Benjamin Barber, participatory institutions “…should complement and be compatible with the primary representative institutions of largescale modern societies. Although there is necessarily a tension between the theories, strong democratic practice can only come as a modification of liberal democracy” (Barber, 1984, p. 262).
Most of the authors argue that participatory democracy is not a threat for representative democracy, but rather an opportunity to strengthen and improve the functioning of representative institutions. They tend to do as if representative democracy could not be, not only completed, but really changed, by the development of participatory techniques. Yet we can wonder if participatory techniques are only new techniques additional to the representative structures, or if they might change the very dynamics of representative democracy. Conversely, participatory techniques that emerge in a representative context may be shaped in a representative turn. In fact it often seems that this literature tends to consider implicitly that participatory institutional designs are somewhat equivalent. Very few authors wonder whether the institutional participatory design can affect the very dynamics of participatory democracy and have different impact from a national context to another.
In France, there is now a right to participate to public decisions, that is being more and more officially recognised and codified. As in many other democracies, a right for citizens to participate and have their say in the decisionmaking process is being more and more officially recognised. This phenomenon is clearly linked to a general context of crisis of representative democracy strongly felt par the elective. During the parliamentary debates about the legalisation of participatory procedures, the necessity of institutionalising these new techniques of participation is explicitly linked to the idea that representative democracy is in crisis : “We have lived, for several years, a real crisis of representative democracy. This is the reason why we have to complete representative democracy with decision making methods for citizens themselves; It is urgent to set in this country a real, participatory democracy system”. JeanPierre Balligand, Chamber of Deputies, 12nd juillet 1994 (discussions about local referendum).
3
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
“The steady decline of participation, including participation to local elections [….] must urge the legislator to facilitate participatory democracy […] in order to strengthen representative democracy and to bring citizens and their elected representative back together”. Daniel Vaillant, Minister of the Interior, during the parliamentary debates about law “Démocratie de proximité”, Chamber of Deputies, 13rd june 2001. Thus, the “crisis of representative democracy” has led to manifold initiatives from political elites in modern democracies. But some of the socalled participatory procedures have been set with aims which, at least when they appeared, had nothing to do with the idea of increasing political participation. Yet, we cannot say we assist to an institutional reform, or a real public policy. Indeed, participatory institutions are obviously not the result of a systematic programme of participatory reform, but rather the result of various cooccurring phenomena. It is only through different processes, that the action of various actors over the past three decades has led to what we can call a “participationist context”. This context is characterised by the enhancement of the ordinary citizen’s participation and by the multiplication of participatory procedures (Blatrix, 2000). But participatory techniques considered as a whole cannot be considered as the result of a planned conception of what participatory democracy should be. Actually, participatory democracy in France looks like a complex set of discourses, practices and procedures that have in common the idea of the need to involve ordinary citizens in public decisions, outside elections. The development of participatory democracy refers to various cooccurring phenomena. The social success of participatory democracy can be linked to the logic of outbidding politics, to the constitution of a participation market, to the action of those who take up this cause to defend, to procedural concessions stemming from specific mobilisations, and even to the diffusion of some normative theories from political research… Various groups have contributed, sometimes as an unintended aftermath of their action, to the emergence and development of new forms of democracy and new conceptions of the citizen in France. Before focusing on the specific contribution of social movements to the construction of “participatory democracy”, we must briefly describe what this French “participatory democracy” looks like.
Describing the available system of participatory techniques is far from easy. Indeed, there are many different ways of showing differences between various kind of participation. In many – if not in any description there is, more or less explicitly, an underlying representation of what participatory democracy should be. Thus, a commonly held view inspired by S. Arnstein (Arnstein, 1969) consists of situating these techniques on a scale measuring the degree of citizen participation they allow in the decisionmaking process. Another view linked to the previous one, consists in putting the emphasis on the distinction between participation initiated by citizens and participation initiated and controlled by the government. Behind such descriptions often lies the idea that the “real participatory democracy” should neither be initiated nor controlled by the political elites. Such works show that most of participatory procedures in France are granted and tightly controlled by political elites. Another point of view emphasises the policy sectors in which they develop : in France, it is mainly at the local level and on environmental issues that representative democracy has been enhanced by participatory techniques. I will now give a brief, chronological account of the main participatory democracy techniques existing in France.
4
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
During the last two decades, France has experimented and sometimes legalized very varied participatory techniques. Even if France is well known for its tradition of centralization, several waves of decentralization have occurred since the 19th century. An important step was the law passed in 1982, about the rights and freedoms of townships, departments and regions, which was then completed by many subsequent texts and the recognition in the Constitution of the « free administration of local authorities ». The oldest and the most widespread of these participatory techniques, even if it is not the most bestknown, is certainly public inquiry. For a very long time it was the only procedure except the ballot which enabled people to have their say. This very old procedure, created in the 19th century, used to be dedicated to the protection of the right of property. It has long been the only reference as far as participatory democracy was concerned, especially since 1983, when Huguette Bouchardeau, the then Environment Minister, gave her name to a famous law on the democratisation of public inquiries and protection of the environment. Its first article claimed that any work which is supposed to affect the environment must be preceded by a public inquiry. This inquiry must be organised before the implementation of a large range of plans that were set out in a decree signed in 1985. This decree enumerates various development plans (such as stone quarries, pigsties, town planning documents, aerodromes, roads, nuclear disposals…) Each year from 10 000 to 20 000 public inquiries are carried in France. Yet, this procedure is still one that is very much criticised, especially by environmental organisations and movement activists who call it a mere “sham democracy”, mainly because it is scheduled very late in the decision making process. But several other participatory techniques have emerged during the last decade in the environmental policy sector. The general idea is to make it possible for people to have their say before the public inquiry, that is to say, before the very end of the decision making process. Some consultation procedures have been instituted by several texts 1 . In 1992 a new law strengthened decentralization and established the municipal referendum, which was, actually, a mere consultation procedure whose result was not legally binding for the elective 2 . The purpose of this procedure is to enable the local population to express its opinion on local problems. Thereafter local referenda have become legal. An opening for popular initiative was added in 1995 for development plans which fall within the scope of municipalities 3 . Finally, in March 2003, a constitutional reform implemented a true, conclusive referendum at local level, on condition of certain minimum rates of participation. The Barnier law (2 nd February 1995) on the strengthening of the protection of the environment institutionalised a system first experimented with a circular (the Bianco circular) and created a Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP), partially inspired by the Quebecker Bureau d’Audiences Publiques sur l’Environnement (BAPE). CNDP is a lasting, independent structure that can be appealed to by the environmental associations that are recognized by public authorities and implanted nationally. CNDP is responsible for the observance of public participation in the decisionmaking process and must organise public debates on the most important development plans. At the end of these public debates, the 1
Law No 85729 of 18 th July 1985 on the definition and implementation of planning principles, Directive No 91 662 of 13th July 1991 (L.O.V.), Law of 13th July 1992 on Waste Disposal, Law of 8th January 1993 on Landscapes, StateEDF protocol dated 25th August 1992, or else the circular dated 14th January 1993 (works with high and very high Voltage). Bianco circular of 15th December 1992. 2 Law of 6th February 1992 on the territorial administration of the Republic. 3 Law No 95115 of 4th February 1995 on territorial planning and development.
5
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
president of the Commission has to draw up a schedule which is made public. Thus, whereas for a long time public inquiry had been the only step in the decision making process allowing public participation, now, this phase is preceded by a sequence of public consultation procedures, especially for major infrastructure plans. The law called “Démocratie de proximité” passed in February 2002 strengthens the power and means of the CNDP so that about twenty public debates can be organised each year. In 1999 a law about Planning and Sustainable Development called the “Voynet Law” 4 created “development councils” (conseils de développement). Last but not least, the law called “Démocratie de proximité” passed in February 2002 makes it compulsory for every town with 80 000 inhabitants or more to create neighbourhood councils. 49 towns and about 10 million people are concerned by this new obligation. Some other tools have developed recently, but have not been institutionalised yet, such as citizens conferences (“conférence de citoyens”) (inspired both by Danish Consensus Conference and by deliberative polls and citizen juries), and such as participatory budgets imported from Porto Alegre. Thus, a large range of institutions is now available in France, which is supposed to enable citizens to participate in the political process. What is very striking is the lack of synthetic work on the subject: The constraints of the empirical work make it very difficult to have a bird’s eye view on participatory democracy. Most of the existing works focus on only one of these procedures. Each of these tools has been scrutinized by scholars and we now have a solid basis of empirical evidence on these different participatory techniques (on public inquiries: Blatrix, 1996; on local referendum : Paoletti, 1997; Blatrix, 1997; neighbourhood councils : Blondiaux, 1999; Neveu, 1999; Rangeon, 1999, Gontcharoff, 1999; on CNDP : Lolive, 1999; Blatrix, 2000; Rui, 2001; Simard, Lepage and alii, 2006; on participatory budget : see Gret, Sintomer, 2002; on citizens juries, see Boy, Roqueplo, DonnetKamel, 2000; BurgosVigna, 2006). The analysis of the factors involved in the emergence of each of these techniques shows that they are linked to extremely varied processes. We are now going to focus on the contribution of social movements to these processes.
1. Participatory Democracy as the result of social entrepreneurship : a Social Movements Industry The boundaries of the Social movement Industry (McCarthy, Zald, 1977) that aims at developing participatory democracy are not easy to define. It includes Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) whose stated goals can be very broad, and not always specifically linked to participatory democracy. Nevertheless we can identify those which have directly contributed to the emergence of new concerns and new means. We will distinguish groups whose purpose is explicitly to develop participatory democracy, and groups which contributed to the emergence of new tools as an unintended consequence of their action.
4
Dominique Voynet (Green Party), Minister of the Environment at that time in the government led by Lionel Jospin (Parti Socialiste).
6
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
Fighting for participatory democracy Analysing what participatory democracy refers to, implies the identifying of its proponents. Who are participatory democracy’s defenders ? This is all the more difficult as this notion is very vague, differing according to the actors concerned, and rather normative. Participatory democracy is twofaced : on the one hand is has a virtuous face, and on the other hand it has an efficiency face. The social success of participatory democracy probably partly originates from this duality. Thus, the participatory discourse is both technical, and normative. From a technical point of view, those who defend participatory democracy insist on the necessity to improve the efficiency of public action (in this sense it is very close to the idea of governance), and see in participatory democracy a way of reaching this greater efficiency by the taking into account of both the agents and the governed’s concerns. From the normative side, participation is seen as a purpose in itself as long as it allows a democratisation of decisions and makes people more aware of public interests. These two aspects are often present simultaneously in participatory discourse, more or less according to the issues at stake and the actors considered. In France there is not one single SMO that can be considered as the unique defender of participatory democracy. The defenders of participatory democracy constitute a nebulous set of small groups, which fight either for participatory democracy in general, either in favour of specific practices they consider to be central to participatory democracy. In the late sixties, after the May 68 events, critical descriptions of the functioning of modern bureaucracies, of the phenomenon of political professionalisation, led to the diagnosis of a crisis in representative democracy, which was to find an echo through the actions of two major movements which then allowed the development of the idea of participatory democracy possible. As we will see, the idea of Participatory democracy first emerged from the action of two main movements: the ecologist movement and the selfmanagement movement. These two movements today are part of a larger SMI they have contributed to building, by promoting the idea of the necessity of citizen participation in order to regenerate representative democracy. Since the 80s, participatory discourse is not only more strongly defended by protesters and activists: the very idea of participatory democracy is more and more considered as being politically (and electorally) efficient, and is defended, to a certain extent, by elected representatives themselves. Selfmanagement movement (mouvement autogestionnaire) The Municipal Action Groups (Groupes d’Action Municipale, GAM) originate in the urban movements of the sixties in a context of housing shortage (Caumont, Tessier, 1971; Hatzfeld, 2005). Some inhabitants associations were created and residents’ councils were experimented in a few cities. This movement is urban and intellectual. The GAM elaborated a critique of the political system and delegation of power. The leaders of these groups were top civil servants, engineers close to Michel Rocard Parti Socialiste Unifié (PSU), teachers, tradeunionists close to CFDT, the Club Jean Moulin and members of the christian left. According to their 1970 charter, representative democracy remains formal and misleading. It deprives ordinary citizens of their rights to express themselves and to control publics decisions. So they recommended a “democracy of participation” which would give everybody and continuously the will and the opportunity to act on his/her environment. The ballot is no more sufficient to warrant a democratic exercise of power. The GAM movement is attached to some very concrete problems so far neglected by traditional parties, such as day nurseries, open spaces, neighbourhoods, etc. In several cities
7
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
such as Sarcelles, Hérouville, Grenoble, Rennessont some experiments were tried in order to associate people to the urban management. Then Robert de Caumont and Hubert Dubedout (GAM de Grenoble PS), created a national structure. They were much concerned with the idea that the movement had to be organized in a democratic, not hierarchical manner. Quite quickly this movement born from urban fights, was to become a political movement whose purpose was to participate to local elections. The movement developed drastically with 1977 local elections (de Caumont, Tessier, 1971). The ecologist movement The second early defender of participatory democracy which can be identified is the ecologist movement, through several important mobilisations at the end of the 60’s. Ecologist organisations undoubteldy played an important role in May 68, and defended conceptions of democracy very similar with the GAM movement. In France, the structuration of the associations through the constitution of a green party occurred in the early eighties, even if some ecologists had already taken part to elections before. Participatory democracy had been a very old theme of the ecologists since the antinuclear protest in the sixties and one can think that their development as a fullyfledged political party in full part in the eighties has probably contributed to the dissemination of the idea of participatory democracy. As in other countries, having a democratic internal organisation is very important for the French green party, which implemented several methods and rules in order to promote an alternative way of The Green Party reject the idea of the professionalization of politics; this conception of politics is partly a inheritance of May 68, and is central for many ecologists activists (Pronier, Jacques Le Seigneur, 1992) . 5 . Even if the real functioning seems quite far from these normative goals, what we would like to stress here is the fact that the participatory discourse is not devalued at all, but succeeds in remaining central for the Les démentis apportés par la pratique à ces objectifs « vertueux » nous importent moins que le fait que le discours participatif n’en est pas le moins du monde discrédité et continue à être central chez les Verts. (on the difficulties to escape Michels’ iron law of oligarchy in the French Green Party in spite of the various tools implemented to attain these goals, see Prendiville 1995; Boy, Jacques le Seigneur, Roche, 1995; Wable, 1998). . Today we can find these two former defenders of participatory democracy in what is called the “active citizenry movements” (mouvements de citoyenneté active). These movements are both political and intellectual and bring together former selfmanagement activists (socalled “GAMists”) as well as ecologists. These movements have succeeded in spreading into wider sectors of society and include associations, elected officials, professionals (especially in the field of urbanism, environment and local development) and even researchers. Thus, we can consider that there is a large, informal and heterogeneous social movement in favour of participatory democracy, with generalist components and more specialized ones. It is this Social Movement Industry that we are going to present now. From specialized organisation to generalist in participatory democracy
5
The Green have inherited a democratic culture built during the events : the cult of general assemblies, of flexible coordination, the critic of any leaders’ power ; the principle of rotation of responsabilities ; the reject of political porfessionalization…
8
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
There is a large array of small or larger groups which fight for specific forms of participatory democracy, from local referendum to neighbourhoods or children councils, etc. Thus, local referendum used to be promoted by organizations such as the Legislative Comity on Ecological Information, (COLINE, Comité Législatif d’Information Ecologique). The idea of a popular initiative has been defended by an organization called RNA.IP Rassemblement National d’Associations pour le Référendum d’Initiative Populaire (National Crossroads for Popular Initiative Referendum). Similarly, Children and Youth Councils are promoted by the National Association of Children and Youth Councils (ANACEJ Association Nationale des Conseils d’Enfants et de Jeunes) 6 . The National Carrefour for inhabitants associations and neighbourhood councils, Carrefour national des associations d’habitants et de comités de quartiers CARNACQ 7 . All these groups know each other and are more or less linked through the activity of network building undertaken by more generalist organisations. The Association for Democracy, Local and Social Education (Association pour la Démocratie, l’Education Locale et Sociale, ADELS 8 ) is probably the most obvious organisation fighting for participatory democracy. This association is closely linked to former GAM, and to professionals in the urban sector. It has strong ties with many of the other organisations. ADELS publishes a quite wellknown review and organizes national meetings on questions linked to local democracy. In october 2006 were organized in Dijon, the 10h Conference of Local Democracy; the call for this meeting asked: “Are the citizens able to act and to contribute in an autonomous way to the making of public policies? Which are the places and means available in order to take part in the decisionmaking process? How can the existing means evolve, especially those concerning intercommunality? What are the indispensable changes? How, starting from the local level, to build a fairer, more integrated society? Based on balance sheets and exchanges of experiences, the 10 th Local Democracy Conference will express the right of civil society to have a say in public action”. One can also mention the Ailes Foundation (Foundation for selfmanagement, local initiative and social economy) which undertakes the compilation and capitalisation of proposals coming from the various components of the advocacy coalition framework which « form a relatively coherent body in their standpoint in favour of both a more representative and a more participatory citizenship, all of which could apply at any level, from the planet to the neighbourhood and the village, and this in every dimension : political, as well as social, economic, and cultural ».
A tangle of incentives and sanctions These movements produce a tangle of incentives toward the elected to act in a participatory manner, and these incentives come with diffuse sanctions towards those who try to maintain a strict, representative conception of democracy. Through conferences, reviews, essays, they show those who excel in promoting participatory democracy, the democratic avantgarde and stigmatize the reactionary elective who refuse to let people have their say between two elections. Local elections always constitute opportunities to defend such views, and are used to force candidates to take a stand in favour of participatory democracy and to
6
www.anacej.asso.fr; According to ANACEJ the number of children and youth councils have spread very quickly since the 90’s and 1600 youth councils can be identified in France today. 7 www.confederationciq.com/ 8 www.adels.org
9
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
announce if they intend to set participatory instances (such as neighbourhoods councils, children councils….) or practices (mandate report, local referendum…). This tangle of incentives and sanctions can seem quite marginal, given the small audience of these groups. Yet, they are all the more effective as the members of these groups are both in the intellectual and the political sphere. The Association pour la Démocratie et l’Education Locale et Sociale played an important role in the legalization on neighbourhoods councils in 2002. During the municipal elections in 1995, ADELS published various proposals in order to nurture debates about local democracy. About one hundred of local groups used this document as a tool for various uses. After the elections, some of these groups got members elected, either in the majority, or in minority. Other groups stayed without elected people. But all of them continued to observe and criticize local power, preparing the next elections. In order to nurture this collective reflection, ADELS created the “Observatoire des Initiatives Locales de Citoyenneté”. Neighborhood councils were the instance chosen by the new structure which realized a thorough report about 50 cities whose councils were analyzed and described in a detailed fiche. These fiches were published in a special issue of the review edited by ADELS 9 . In 1996 a national day of exchanges was organized, with people from 30 different cities. The work went on and in 2001 a new special issue of the review was edited 10 , focusing on 15 local initiatives, in order to nurture the discussion during the elaboration of the Law on Démocratie de Proximité. The analysis of parliamentary debates confirms the important role played by ADELS in the preparation of this text, and especially in the institutionnalisation of the neignhbourhood councils. The result is that it is more and more difficult to stand publicly against the idea of a greater intervention of citizens in the decisionmaking process. Whereas at the beginning of the sixties there were political essays speaking highly of the citizen silently making up his mind between two elections, and showing what some called a “civic patience”, today such conceptions are quite rare and seem much more difficult to defend. It seems no longer possible to criticise the citizen’s ignorance. What is nowadays valorised, is the active citizen who does not leave his fate in the hand of the authorities. The analysis of some parliamentary debates shows that when politicians object to the development of participatory procedures, they use arguments that are very different from those used in the 19 th century. The citizen is said to be not always well informed but competent and anxious to have his say. Citizen participation is now valorised. Of course, the elevation of the general education level has made this change possible. The defenders of the idea of participatory democracy have undoubtedly contributed to a major change in the ordinary citizen participation’s status. Thanks to these groups, the conceptions of the relationships between citizens and the elective have changed, and they sometimes have contributed to the set of new procedures, like local “referendum” that was legalised in 1992. But active citizenry movements, and more generally groups whose purpose is to promote participatory democracy, are not the only ones who have contributed to its development. Processes of Importation: Participatory Budget and Citizens’ Juries
9
Territoires, n°399bis, december 1996. Available at : www.adels.org Territoires, n°421, october 2001.
10
10
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
The matter of a Participatory Budget is typical of another kind of process which raises specific questions. At present this technique is not enshrined in law in France, but it is practised by several municipalities. Of the 11 municipalities surveyed, 8 are governed by PCF, 2 PS (+ the PoitouCharentes region), and a third by Gauche Alternative. It is clearly the Brazilian model which has been implemented. Whereas orçamentos exist in many Brazilian cities (170 in 2004; see Avritzer 2006) (and tend to spread in other countries in Latin America, such as Argentina), it is the flagship case of Porto Alegre which has occupied public and media attention 11 , especially via the UNO Habitat II Summit (Istanbul, 1996), and through the first World Social Forums. The Urbal Programme contributed to spread this experiment: launched by the European Commission during the mid90s, this program comprises 13 themes, among which a participatory budget appears as n°9 in 2000. The purpose of this programme, which is piloted by the city of Porto Alegre, is to spread the experience of this city both in Latin America and in Europe, through partnerships between cities. In this process of dissemination, some organisations of decentralized cooperation must be mentioned : the most important one in France is Cités Unies. This organisation is involved in a transnational organisation called Cités et Gouvernements Locaux Unis. Last but not least, we must not neglect the role played by international institutions which have contributed to the success of some ways of working through the Good governance, social capital discourses (PNUD, World Bank, FMI…). In Brazil, the Association Solidariedade, specialising in participation, was created during the World Social Forum in 2001 and has become a regular partner of DRD and AITEC. In France, the main organizations that have played an important role in this process are probably AITEC and DRD (Radically Democratizing Democracy, Démocratiser Radicalement la Démocratie), which presents itself as a network, and which organized in Bobigny in 2003 and 2004 international forums to debate the issue. The International Association of Technicians and Researchers (Association Internationale de Techniciens Et Chercheurs, AITEC) was created in the 80s by urban planners, economists, company executives and lawyers, who wished to link their professional expertise with a political commitment to international solidarity and access to housing rights 12 . In 1998 leaders of DRD publish a translation of the reference book of Tarso Genro and Ubiratan de Souza about the experience of Porto Alegre. In the postface, they write : “As urbanplanning professionnals, both French and Brazilians, nothing predisposed us to translate this book. We had been thinking for several years with elected representatives and inhabitants about the conditions of participation in France, experimenting here or there with new practices, some of them transferred from Brazil. It was in this context that we went to Istanbul in 1996 (…). On this occasion, people from Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Senegal, France, etc., sharing their experience, had discovered how similar their demands were: for recognition, for listening, for respect, for compulsory transparency, for housing rights… It was after having had some experience of this true fellowship, which overcame our differences,that we went with a delegation of inhabitants and elected representatives to Fortaleza, in Brazil. There, we were able to ascertain (…)that the North had many things to learn from the South, particularly concerning self organisation of the inhabitants and the intervention methods of professionals relying extensively on people’s initiative and, thus, reinforcing it. (…) In our country, how can those elected to represent the people realize that it is urgent to give their say to all citizens, to invent new mechanisms which will enable our 11 12
On the Mundial Bank website, this is Porto Alegre which is cited as example. http://aitec.reseauipam.org/
11
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
old representative democracy to be revitalised, thanks to an integration with new democratic forms which favour the emergence of citizen consciousness and power? (…) We translated this short book in order to fuel the debate” (Genro, de Souza, 1998, p. 75s). Another book on the participatory budget in Porto Alegre was published in 2003, based on interviews with members of Solidarierade (Granet and others, 2003). The Citizens Networks in SaintEtienne, quite closely linked to DRD, were very active too. ADELS played an important role too and helped in the setting up of an experiment of this kind in the PoitouCharentes region, directed by Ségolène Royal. Diana BurgosVigna (2006) stresses the fact there are some particularly favourable means for effecting this process of transfer: books, political parties, internet websites, institutions like Watchdogs, Observatories, Resource Centers (such as the Parisian Observatory for Local Democracy set up in Paris by Bertrand Delanoë). FSE are important moments for these transfer processes. Some of these forums focus on participatory democracy (Barcelona 2006); Forums of Local Authorities, such as the forum of Local Authorities of the periphery concerning participatory democracy and citizenship created by the municipality of Nanterre in 2006. We could mention too the fact that some reviews such as Le Monde Diplomatique give publicity to these experiments. Some PCF municipalities in the Parisian department 93 of SeineSaintDenis, such as Bobigny (Bernard Birsinger) and SaintDenis (Patrick Braouzec) are especially committed to these experiments. The role of advocacy networks is primordial. They combine preexisting national components which tend to recycle in new movements, with organisations designed specifically to defend this idea. These processes of dissemination and importation raises a range of questions; from a methodological point of view, how can we identify the dominant logic, the prevailing actor in this process, and hierarchize the roles of the various institutional and noninstitutional actors involved? Why is there in France such a concentration on a single reference point (Porto Alegre) which is far from being the only one in Brazil, where Porto Alegre does not seem to have the same importance as it has abroad? We should pay attention to the process of translation that comes along with this transfer: the mechanisms, the fields in which a participatory budget is experimented with in France, seem very far removed from the original model. Last but not least, we should try to identify the specific role that may have been played by social science research, particularly through international programmes which sometimes involve both associations and laboratories. It could probably be demonstrated that the same kind of importation logic has contributed, to some extent, to the enhancement of public debate through the model of the BAPE (Québec), but as we will see, this would not have been possible without the opening of a window through the conflict against a TGV plan. But this process of importation is still more evident when we look at citizens juries; Three main experiences have been conducted at a national level, and citizens juries are spreading at a regional level (NordPas de Calais, Ilede France…) mainly through the implication (if elected) – when it is represented locally – of the Green Party. The implication of social sciences scholars here seems particularly important evident. A kind of guide written by Daniel Boy and Dominique Bourg has been published by the same editor that had published Tarso Genro and Ubiratan de Souza (Charles Leopold Meyer). In France, these tools come from a recent, emerging movement about the idea of dialogic democracy, that is to say the questioning not only of the delegation to political
12
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
representative, but the delegation to experts and scientific of important choices (Callon, Lascoumes, Barthe, 2001). The development of initiatives, which extend the social basis for deliberation and decisionmaking in scientifictechnological fields, has its roots in various arenas and bodies which belong to different spheres and are not always linked together. Several new organisations have been created in France at the beginning of the 2000’s that defend and experiment new forms of public debates about controversial questions such as biometry, nanotechnologies, GMO, etc. Sciences Citoyennes 13 , Vivagora 14 , Science et démocratie 15 , Sapience 16 … Environmental organisations often initiate such experiments (cf, similarly, the case of the Nanojury in England, initiated in part by Greenpeace). Some programmes link these experiments in a network at the European level. At the Lisbon Summit, the European Union set as its strategic goal 'to become, by 2010, the most competitive and dynamic knowledgebased economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion'. Improving public perceptions of science and technology has, therefore, become a major objective since the Lisbon Summit. Research activities need to be grounded in broad acceptance within society, and need to take citizens' concerns into account. Hence, a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue, and a better involvement of civil society on major scientific and technological issues have been highlighted as two major principles of good governance by the White Paper on European governance (July 2001): 'the quality, relevance and effectiveness of EU policies depend on ensuring wide participation throughout the policy chain from conception to implementation'. In its Communication Towards a European Research Area ( http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/pdf/com20006en.pdf), the Commission highlights the need to 'tackle the questions of science and society in their European dimension', and to 'establish a platform for exchange, to create points of synthesis and to align methodologies. The second priority of the Science and Society Action Plan (June 2001) to bring science policies closer to citizens and especially the actions aiming at involving civil society: "science activities need to centre around the needs and aspirations of Europe's citizens to a greater extent than at present. Citizens must also be given the opportunity to express their views in the appropriate bodies". The text refers to some member States that have a "long tradition of organising participatory procedures" through their parliamentary technology assessment offices, and relying on that experience it concludes: "participatory experiences need to be widened and deepened to systematically include other sectors of civil society at all stages'. liable to foster citizen's expression, like science museums and science shops. The promotion of participatory procedures, as it is planned by Citizen Participation in Science and Technology (CIPAST) platform, is a direct answer to this text. The CIPAST consortium includes representatives of the different families of actors. For emphasizing the importance of the procedures to be implemented in the processes of decisionmaking at different levels the CIPAST project’s purpose is to identify, assess and improve these procedures, so that the European political cultures can be practically enriched. “Bringing these actors together, pooling their various capacities, and integrating their various contextual perspectives through 13
http://sciencescitoyennes.org www.vivagora.org 15 www.sciencesetdemocratie.net/ 16 www.sapience.fr 14
13
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
a common platform, will provide an opportunity to disseminate useful practices more efficiently. It will boost innovation and foster the emergence of a European culture of participatory democracy in scientific and technological issues” 17 . Various groups, especially in the environmental field, have contributed to promote participatory, first in order to defend their cause. Used as a mean to defend environment, participatory democracy then tend to be defended as an end in itself.
2. Participatory democracy as a set of procedural concessions Some of the existing participatory procedures have been set after a conflict, especially as a consequence of an environmental conflict. This is the case for the antinuclear movement in the seventies, as well as, more recently, for the protests against major infrastructure plans like TGV Méditerranée. The antinuclear movement The development of a strong ecologist movement with strong participatory claims, and without any point of access to the decision, has ended in important mobilisations during the first half of the seventies. This context is very important to understand the creation of a set of laws and procedures showing a recognition of the necessity of taking into account environmental protection, and public concerns in the decisionmaking process. These new arrangements can be analysed as procedural concessions. Scholars from several movements focus on the interaction of social movements and institutionalised politics through the notion of political opportunity structure (Eisinger 1973; Pickvance 1983; Tarrow 1995; Neveu 1996; Fillieule, Péchu, 1993; Juhem 1997). Yet, thus far it has been especially paid attention to the importance of the broader political system in structuring the opportunities for collective action. But a few scholars have insisted on the effects of mobilisations, on the political opportunity structure itself. Drawing on William Gamson’s work, Herbert P. Kitschelt distinguishes three kinds of impacts (Gamson, 1975; Kitschelt, 1986). The procedural impacts mean that actors have been able to gain greater access to formal political decisionmaking through the setting of new arenas. The substantive impacts refer to the changes that occur concerning the policy as a result of the protest; the structural impacts mean a change in the political opportunity itself as a result of the activity of the movement.It is generally assumed, that the French antinuclear movement has had almost no impact (Prendiville, 1993; Touraine, 1980, p. 49). According to H.P. Kitschelt, the French parties have been reluctant to represent antinuclear demands; the movement met with indifference and worse from various state authorities (even after 1981, when the new socialist government quickly decided to continue the nuclear policy of its predecessor). Whereas in the United States, Sweden and West Germany, antinuclear activists could impose economic penalties on nuclear builders, by slowing the construction of plants and increasing the risk of future investment, in France they were unable to do this. “In France, a political regime intransigent to nuclear activists was able to achieve such plans and overbuild nuclear capacity to an extent that it precipitated a financial crisis of the nationalized Electricité de France” (Kitschelt, 1986, p. 79). Antinuclear claims have not been taken into account by traditional parties. Nothing was made in order to have these groups represented in 17
www.cipast.org
14
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
the decision arenas. There has not been any public debate on the nuclear issue. Moreover, antinuclear demonstrations and act of civil disobedience have been strongly repressed and longlastingly discouraged. The closeness of the political structure has favored the development of the green party which adopted the nuclear issue as a major plank in its political program. According to Kitschelt, procedural impacts in France have been virtually nonexistent. In France the antinuclear movement has led neither to substantive change in the energetic policy, nor to new possibilities of action for the antinuclear movement. But the ecologists movements more generally have gained a greater recognition and new means of action. Yet it can be argued, that such analysts have missed broader impacts of the French antinuclear movement. Focusing on the (lack of) change in the energetic policy, they have not seen the real repercussions of the antinuclear movement. French authorities were not ready to any concessions concerning the Messmer program about nuclear capacities 18 . If it seems quite obvious that no substantive impact occurred, yet, procedural or formal grant or concession may have been made towards the ecologist movement. The word concession or grant, seems to me preferable to the word impact; Indeed, it betrays the detour that constitute such arrangements. The words “ gain ” or “ impact ” both evoke a simple, direct causal chain, whereas the word concession expresses the idea of the relativity of the measure, and the idea that it concerns a temporary situation of weakness in a “test of strength” (“ rapport de forces ”) which may change. Las but not least, it contains the idea that the one who concedes can act in his/her own interest. Such measures can often give the feeling that a problem has been solved, whereas the bargaining in which it originates may go on as part of these participatory procedures 19 . A procedural concession/grant occurs when there is a direct link between one arrangement and a mobilisation. But this link can be a “roundabout”, and the arrangement can intervene on some subjects that were not the purpose of the movement. Thus, it seems that the nuclear movement led to some procedural concessions, not in the nuclear field, but more broadly through the first law on environmental protection in 1976, which institutes the obligation of an environmental impact assessment, drawing on the American experience. This law constitutes a great recognition of environmental concerns. For the first time, the ecologists had got an opportunity to question plans or projects on legal grounds. We can think that this text has constituted an opening of the decisionmaking process, and contributed to turn people away from direct forms of action, and finally to the decline of the French antinuclear movement. The TGV Méditerranée conflict TGV Méditerranée is an exemplary case of protest against a major infrastructure plan 20 . It is interesting to see how this mobilisation has led to another procedural concession with the institution of a new participatory procedure, called the “ Bianco debates ”. Indeed, this project was to result to a protest whose major consequence was a governmental circular : a circular, enacted by the Transport Minister JeanLouis Bianco. The first studies of the plan (the continuation of the existing TGV SudEst ParisLyon) started simultaneoulsy to the decision, in 1989 to establish a High Speed Links Driving Scheme” (“ schéma directeur des liaisons à grande vitesse ”). As early as in 1990, the plan faced strong resistances among rural mayor and ecologists associations. They protested 18
See Brendan Prendiville, op. cit., p. 30. On this idea, see Pierre Lascoumes, 1995. 20 On this protest see Fourniau 1997 ; Perrier 1993 : Lolive 1999. 19
15
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
against the lack of concertation and information, and complained about the obscurity of the decisionmaking process. Several elements contributed to the crisis : In the second half of the eighties, after several conflict about major infrastructure plans several official reports had already pointed the necessity of a new decision making process, arguing that the public had lost confidence in the public inquiry system : the public felt that it provides window dressing for a decision that had already been taken. According to many associations, especially among environmental organizations, public inquiry was only a show, or even a parody of democracy. These reports set out proposals which would allow planning for major developments in a way that made it possible for the public to understand and accept them. In other words, this raised the fundamental issue of the legitimacy of the inquiry process. the inspectors’ strike during the summer 1992 contributed to delaying the public inquiry about TGV Méditerranée; the French “ commissaires enquêteurs ” 21 protested against their working conditions and took advantage of the media’s attention to the conflict to have their claims heard by the authorities and the opinion. Their action has undoubtedly contributed to the questioning of the decision process concerning this kind of plans. This conflict led for the first time the French green party to take a stand against the high speed lines planning scheme, in spite of their preferences for the railway. They started to elaborate the rhetorical argumentation which was later available for further mobilisations against TGV, characterised by a strong image of modernity technological achievement among French people. Soon a reform was engaged in the administration of transport, which would lead to the “ circulaire Bianco ”. First, an arrangement announcing what will be this circular is experimented for the TGV Méditerranée, with a public debate and the appointment of experts. In their conclusive report, the experts did not question the project itself 22 . Yet, for the first time, a high speed train plan was criticised and the very idea of high speed is questioned. It is the first time in France that the TGV is defined as a problem rather than as a wonderful technological product. The experts concluded on the necessity of a reorganisation of the decision process, including concertation before the public inquiry in order to separate discussions about the opportunity of the project, and discussions about its location when alignment exist. This report suggested that the decisionmaking process should be reformed in order to be marked by two main stages of public consultation: A general discussion on the scheme, its means and ends, should be held first, with a background of information on which all parties agree (or agree to differ publicly for specified reasons). The public debate’s terms should be as wide as possible and should allow the very necessity of the project to be questioned. Based on this experiment and these recommendations, the Bianco circular of 15 th , December 1992 instituted a public debate very early in the decisionmaking process, in order to discuss the main functions of the infrastructure. Later this arrangement was legalised through the Barnier law in 1995, with the creation of a permanent Commission Nationale du Débat Public taking charge of the organisation of such debates (Blatrix, 1997).
21
Very different from their british homologous. Collège des experts du TGV Méditerranée, Conclusions des travaux du collège des experts, 30 septembre 1992, 65 pages et annexes. 22
16
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
Drawn on the experiment of the TGV Méditerranée, the circular betrays the political view of a ministry biased in favour of the idea of participatory democracy. JeanLouis Bianco, a former member of the GAM movement, is close to associations and to some ecologists. Its personal trajectory, joined to the specificities of the political context, helped him to make participatory democracy get over a new step through the circular. JeanLouis Bianco, François Mitterrand’s Elysée chief of staff between 1982 and 1991, was appointed in 1992 after a government reshuffle consecutive to the good results of the ecologists in the regional elections, contrasting with the disappointing results of the Parti Socialiste, one year before the general elections 23 . This context can explain the appointment of a man considered as very openminded, and especially towards ecologist associations 24 . The circular was very timely, at a moment when Parti Socialiste was trying to make it up with Green Party, whereas PS and ecologists are still opposed on some issues (like Tunnel du Somport). Moreover, with a mere circular rather than a law, JeanLouis Bianco could achieve an important reform without being bound by this text. We can wonder whether the public debate, implemented via this circular, and later institutionnalized by the laws Barnier and Démocratie de proximité, can be used as a tool in order to legitimate plan and neutralise protestations (Kriesi, Wisler, 1996). Yet, it seems that its impacts on social movements are much more complex and contrasted. For challengers, the procedure of public debate is an unavoidable, yet non exclusive arena, which does not prevent them to use less conventional means of action. Even if the real influence of the opinions expressed during these debates on final decisions remains problematical, they allow people to make the idea of alternative schemes visible and more credible (Blatrix, 2002)
Conclusion : A “participationnist context” Through different processes, the action of various associations leads to what we can call a “participationnist context”, characterised by the valorisation of the idea of ordinary citizens’ participation and by the multiplication of participatory procedures. This context paves the way for a further, exponential development of participatory democracy for many reasons. These new scenes constitutes new opportunities for groups to try to question public decisions. Even if the real influence of the opinions expressed through these procedures on final decisions remains problematical, they allow people to make the idea of alternative schemes and to disseminate them (Dudley, Richardson, 1998). Institutional design can strongly shape political participation. According to this design, participatory techniques are more or less likely to foster participation by enrolling new categories of citizens, and more or less likely to have selftransformative effects on individuals (Rucht, Zittel, 2007). What we observe when we analyse the uses of the new participatory tools by social movements, is that they partly create what officially justified their creation, that is to say, new demands for more participation : Once they exist, these techniques are redefined, modified, transformed, by the organisations which use them. They often involve some “ ordinary citizens ” whose interests are affected, who learn to use these participatory techniques and who are prevailed to claim for more participation. Indeed, when ordinary citizens get involved in such procedures, they are soon urged to claim for a participatory democracy. This democratic demand is both an effect of the organisation of these procedures, and of the stigmatisation these participants have to face. In environmental 23
The ecologists obtain a global score of 14,7% : 7,1% for Génération Ecologie and 6,8% for the Green Party. “ L’itinéraire singulier de Jean-Louis Bianco ”, Le Monde, 10 mai 1991. At the moment Jean-Louis Bianco is the codirector of Ségolène Royal’s campaign. 24
17
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
conflicts especially, the democratic rhetorical can be used as a way to counter the Not In My BackYard stigmata (Goffman 1975), which can be very dissuading. For the activists in such protests, it is very important to elaborate a discourse that allow people to have a positive image of their action (Klanderman, Oegema, 1987; Gamson, Meyer, 1996). The participatory democratic is very useful here, to counter the Nimby label by asserting people’s will to have their say about public decisions and to behave as active, concerned and publicspirited citizens. They are all the more induced to use participatory rhetoric, as they feel how this kind of discourse is nowadays valorised. The result is that participatory democracy goes on developing, partly feeding on itself. Recently, in France, participatory techniques have concentrated much of public attention. Yet we must not forget that the impact of these techniques remains limited if we consider the people they effectively touch. Moreover, they do not occur in a social blank, and must articulate with representative structures, and to one another. Indeed, these procedures are often used simultaneously and for various purposes. It almost seems that what has been made through a participatory technique, can only be abrogated thanks to another participatory technique. For example, a spontaneous referendum will be organized by citizens in order to question the recommendation of an inspector at the end of a public inquiry. A mayor can use a petition in order to annul the result of a previous referendum, or he will have his neighbourhood councils take a stand against a state decision concerning his municipality, etc. This tends to suggest that the use of these techniques does succeed in giving an additional political weigh or legitimacy to claims or decisions. This leads to developing uses (and, sometimes, abuses) of participatory techniques, which go feeding on themselves.
18
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
References Arnstein, Sherry, 1969, “A ladder of citizen participation”, Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35, 4, 216 224. Avritzer, Leonardo, « Reforma Politica e Participaçao no Brasil », in Avritzer, Leonardo, Anastasia, Fatima, Reforma Politica no Brasil, Belo Horizonte, Ed. Universidade Federal do Minas Gerais, 2006, pp. 3543. Barber, Benjamin, Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984. Blatrix, “ Vers une ‘démocratie participative’ ? Le cas de l’enquête publique ”, in CURAPP, La gouvernabilité, Paris, PUF, 1996, p. 299313. Blatrix Cécile, La “ démocratie participative, de mai 68 aux mobilisations antiTGV. Processus de consolidation d’institutions sociales émergentes, Thèse de Doctorat en Science Politique, Université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, directed by Pr. Daniel Gaxie, january 2000, 611 pages. Blatrix Cécile, 2002, "Devoir débattre. Les effets de l'institutionnalisation de la participation sur les formes de l'action collective", Politix, Revue des sciences sociales du politique, vol. 15, n°57, 2002, pages 79 à 102. Blatrix, Cécile, “ La loi Barnier et le débat public : quelle place pour les associations ? ”, Ecologie et Politique, n°21, automnehiver 1997, p. 7792. Blondiaux, Loïc, Sintomer, Yves, 2002, « L’impératif délibératif », Politix, Revue des sciences sociales du politique, vol. 15, n°57. Blondiaux, Loïc, 1999, « Représenter, délibérer ou gouverner ? Les assises politiques fragiles de la démocratie participative de quartier », in CRAPS/CURAPP, La démocratie locale. Représentation, participation et espace public, PUF, p. 367404. BurgosVigna, Diana, 2006, Le budget participatif en France : un exemple de transfert politique entre l’Amérique Latine et l’Europe, Séminaire du Groupe de Recherche « Les mutations de la gouvernance démocratique en Amérique Latine », CERI, 30 novembre 2006. http://www.cerisciencespo.org Caumont, Robert de, Tessier, Michel, 1971, Les GAM, Paris, Editions Universitaires. Boy Daniel, Jacques le Seigneur, Vincent, Roche, Agnès, 1995, L’écologie au pouvoir, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po. Boy, Daniel, Roqueplo Philippe, DonnetKamel, Dominique, 2000, « Un exemple de démocratie participative : la « Conférence de citoyens » sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés », Revue française de Science Politique, vol 50, n°4-5, août-octobre, pp. 779-809. Callon, Michel, Lascoumes, Pierre, Barthe, Yannick, 2001, Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique, Paris, Seuil. Della Porta Donatella, Tarrow Sidney (eds), 2005, Transnational protest and global activism, Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield, Coll. « People, passions and power ». Della Porta, Donatella, Kriesi, Hanspeter, Rucht, Dieter (eds), 1999, Social Movements in a Globalizing World, New York, St Martin’s Press, Basingstoke, MacMillan. Dudley, Geoffrey, Richardson, Jeremy, “ Arenas without Rules and the Policy Change Process : Outsider Groups and the British Roads Policy ”, Political Studies, vol.46, n°4, 1998. Eisinger, Peter K., 1973, “ The Conditions of Protest Behavior in American Cities ”, American Political Science Review, 67, 1973, p. 1128..
19
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
Fourniau, JeanMichel, 1997, “ La portée des contestations du TGV Méditerranée ”, Ecologie et Politique, n°21, automnehiver 1997, p. 6175. Fraser, Nancy, 2005, Qu’estce que la justice sociale ? Reconnaissance et resdistribution, Paris, Editions La Découverte. Fillieule, Olivier, Péchu, Cécile, 1993, Lutter ensemble, Les théories de l’action collective, Paris, l’Harmattan, Coll. Logiques Politiques, p. 171190. Gamson, William A., 1975, The Strategy of Social Protest, Homewood, Dorsey Press. Gamson (William A.), Meyer (David S.), “ Framing political opportunity ”, in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 275290. Genro, Tarso, de Souza, Ubiratan, 1998, Quand les habitants gèrent vraiment leur ville. Le budget participatif : l’expérience de Porto Alègre au Brésil, Paris, Editions Charles Léopold Mayer. Goffman, Erving, Stigmate, Paris, Minuit, 1975, 175 pages. Gordon, Cynthia, Jasper, James M., “ Overcoming the 'NIMBY' label : rhetorical and organizational links for local protestors ”, Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change,1996, Vol.19, p. 159181. Granet, Estelle, Solidariedade, Windenberger Jacques, 2003, Porto Alegre, Les voix de la démocratie.Vivre le budget participatif, Paris, Syllepses. Gret, Marion, Sintomer, Yves, 2002, Porto Alegre: l’espoir d’une autre démocratie, Paris, Éditions La Découverte et Syros. Hatzfeld, Hélène, 2005, Faire de la politique autrement. Les expériences inachevées des années 1970, Presses Universitaires de Rennes/ADELS. Inglehart, Ronald, The Silent Revolution. Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Policies, Princeton, PUP, 1977, 482 pages. Juhem, Philippe, 1997, “ Mobilisations et structure des opportunités politiques : réflexions sur l’exemple suisse ”, Revue Française de Science Politique, vol. 47, n°5, octobre, p. 659665. Kaase, Max, “ Direct Political Participation in the EC Countries in the Late Eighties ”, in From voters to participants, Essays in honour of Ole Borre, in Peter Gundelach, Karen Suine (eds), Politica, 1992. Kitschelt, Herbert P., 1986, “ Political Opportunities Structures and Political Protest : AntiNuclear Movements in Four Democracies ”, British Journal of Political Science, 16, p. 5785. Klandermans, Bert, Oegema, Dirk, 1987, “ Potentials, Networks, Motivations and Barriers : Steps toward Participation in Social Movements ”, American Sociological Review, 52, p. 519531. Kriesi, Hanspieter, Wisler, Dominique, “ Social Movements and Direct Democracy in Switzerland ”, European Journal of Political Research, 30, juillet 1996, p. 1940. Lascoumes, Pierre, 1995, “ Les arbitrages publics des intérêts légitimes en matière d’environnement. L’exemple des lois Littoral et Montagne ”, Revue Française de Science Politique, vol. 45, n°3, p. 396419. Lolive, Jacques, 1999, Les contestations du TGV Méditerranée, Paris, L’Harmattan, 314 pages. Macpherson Crawford B., 1977, The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977. Mansbridge, Jane, 1980, Beyond Adversarial Democracy, New York, Basic Books, 1980.
20
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
McAdam Doug, McCarthy John, Zald Mayer N. (eds), 1996, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements. Political Opportunities Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing. Cambridge/New York, Cambridge University Press, McCarthy, John. D. , Zald, Mayer N., 1977, « Resource Mobilization and Social Movements : a Partial Theory », American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82, pp. 12121241. Neveu, Erik, 1996, Sociologie des mouvements sociaux, Paris, La Découverte. Pateman, Carole, 1970, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Paoletti, Marion, 1997, La démocratie locale et le référendum, Paris, L'Harmattan, 1997, 235 pages. Perrier, Gérard, “ TGV Méditerranée. Premières leçons d’un conflit ”, Ecologie Politique, n°6, printemps 1993, p. 2941. Pickvance, C.G., 1983, “What has become of urban movements? Towards a comparative analysis of a diverse reality”, Intervention au Comité 3 “Recherches communautaires” de l’Association Internationale de Sociologie, 1012 octobre 1983, Université Paris X Nanterre. Polletta, Francesca, 2002, Freedom is an endless Meeting. Democracy in American Social Movements. Chiocago, The University of Chicago Press. Prendiville, Brendan, 1993, L’écologie. La politique autrement ? Culture, sociologie et histoire des écologistes. Paris, L’Harmattan. Pronier, Raymond, Jacques le Seigneur, Vincent, 1992 Génération Verte. Les écologistes en politique, Paris, Presses de la Renaissance. Resnick Philip, 1984, Parliament versus People : An Essay on Democracy and the Canadian Political Culture, Vancouver, New Star Books. Rucht, Dieter, Zittel, Thomas, 2007, Participatory Democracy and Political Participation. Can participatory engineering bring citizens back in?, London and New York: Routledge. Rucht, Dieter, 1996, « The Impact of National Contexts on Social Movements Structure ». In McAdam Doug, McCarthy John, Zald Mayer N. (eds), Comparative Perspective on Social Movements. Political Opportunities Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing. Cambridge/New York, Cambridge University Press, 185204. Rui, Sandrine, 2004 La démocratie en débat. Les citoyens face à l’action publique, Paris, Armand Colin. Sabatier, Paul A., 1987, « Knowledge, PolicyOriented Learning and Policy Change. An Advocacy Coalition Framework », Knowledge, vol. 8, p. 649692. Simard, Louis, Lepage, Laurent, Fourniau, JeanMichel, Gariépy, Michel, Gauthier, Mario, 2006, Le débat public en apprentissage. Améngement et environnement : regards croisés sur les expériences française et québécoise, Paris, L’Harmattan. Siméant, Johanna, 2005, « Des mouvements nouveaux et globaux ? Sur les mouvements sociaux « transnationaux » dans quelques ouvrages récents », Communication au 8 ème Congrès de l’Association Française de Science Politique, Lyon, 1416 septembre. TapieGrime, Muriel, “ Le nimby, une ressource de démocratisation ”, Ecologie et Politique, n°21, automne hiver 1997, p. 1326. Tarrow, Sidney, 1989 Democracy and Disorder, Protest and Politics in Italy 19651975, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 400 pages. Tarrow, Sidney, 1995 “ States and Opportunities : The political structuring of social movements ”, in Doug McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, M.N. Zald, (eds), Opportunities, mobilizing structures and framing.
21
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops – Helsinki 2007 – Cécile Blatrix
Tarrow, Sidney, 2001, « La contestation transnationale », Culture et conflits, 3839, p. 187223. Touraine, Alain, 1980, La Prophétie antinucléaire, Paris, Seuil. Wable, Stéphane, 1998, « Les Verts ou la politique autrement », in CURAPP, La politique ailleurs, p. 99115.
22