Civil Society in Latin America. New Questions and Approaches
Civil Society in Latin America.
New Questions and Approaches
Civil Society in Latin America.
New Questions and Approaches
Report prepared for the project "Civil Society, International Cooperation, and New Dialogue between Latin America and the United States"
Credits
Project Coordinators
Sandra Borda • Universidad de los Andes
Felipe Botero • Universidad de los Andes
Ana Covarrubias • El Colegio de México
Guadalupe González González • El Colegio de México
Juan Negri • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Juan Cruz Olmeda • El Colegio de México
Juan Gabriel Tokatlian • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Carla Yumatle • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Document Coordinator
Juan Negri • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Document Authors
Matías Bianchi • Asuntos del Sur
Jorge Garzón • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Maria Hegglin • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
M. Belén Ortíz • Asuntos del Sur
Juan Negri • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Enrique Peruzzotti • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Sebastián Pilo • Independent consultant
Research Assistant
Juan Quaglia • Universidad de Buenos Aires
Document Assistant
Luna Zavalía Pángaro • Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
About this publication
This document is part of a two-year collaborative tripartite project on “Civil Society, International Cooperation, and New Dialogue between Latin America and the United States,” led by Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Buenos Aires), El Colegio de México (Mexico City), and Universidad de los Andes (Bogota) with the invaluable support of the Ford Foundation.
The ideas and opinions expressed in this project are the results of a series of workshops and seminars in which a large number of experts, scholars, representatives of international organizations, and members of civil society participated, therefore, they do not necessarily reflect the point of view of Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (BuenosAires), El Colegio de México (México), La Universidad de los Andes (Bogotá), or the Ford Foundation, nor do they compromise these organizations.
INTRODUCTION: SOME ELEMENTS FOR THE STUDY OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN LATIN AMERICA
Juan Negri
The central objective of this work is to reflect on the situation of civil society in the region as a step towards rethinking and strengthening dialogue and interaction in the Americas at multiple levels with the participation of different actors, both among governments, academic institutions, reflection groups, and civil society organizations. The intention is to promote a broad discussion to advance a common agenda among a diversity of actors, allowing for the incubation of a dialogue that leads to collective action. Throughout the document, specific topics are developed in three distinctcontributions that touch on different aspects concerning the issue of Latin American civil society.
The work is part of a participatory, transregional, plural, and nongovernmental process led by the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella in Argentina, in coordination with El Colegio de México and the Universidad de los Andes in Colombia. With the support of the Ford Foundation, academics, nongovernmental organizations, and members of civil society participated in this initiative.
This introduction serves as a general framework for the development of these topics. After a conceptual discussion on the topics that help understand the situation of civil society in the region, I describe how the contributions of this volume address these issues.
I. Civil Society in Latin America. A framework for analysis
An analysis of civil society for the Latin American context needs to be attentive to the following key elements.
First, it should take into account the multifaceted character of the term, and how it has been shaped by historical, political, and economic contexts. Indeed, various understandings of civil society exist, reflecting diverse political projects and societal contexts and the notion of civil society encompasses a wide range of actors and organizations, including NGOs, social movements, and indigenous
groups. Regarding historical contexts, it must be noted how its role was pivotal in resisting authoritarian regimes but remained significant even after the transition to democracy. At its turn, neoliberalism has redefined civil society, emphasizing market principles, privatization, and individual responsibility, marginalizing social movements, emphasizing NGOs and philanthropy as key actors.
Secondly, and probably in a more intense way than in other latitudes, civil society's relationship with the state is crucial in shaping democracy and political dynamics. The relationship between civil society and the state is complex and varies across different Latin American countries.
Finally, the future of civil society in Latin America hinges on its relationship with the state and the legitimacy of conflict and public participation. As an example, participatory democracy initiatives have emerged as a response to the limitations of representative democracy, aiming to deepen citizen involvement in decision-making processes. However, region-specific challenges such as inequality and poverty put a significant weight on the possibility of civil society growth.
II. The meaning of civil society
As integral parts of a democratic society, citizens engage in a wide set of activities in the public realm. Some of these activities engage directly with the State, even in a contentious way (Tarrow 1998), while others reflect the autonomous role that citizens possess in a democratic society. As such, all democratic societies presuppose this independent and institutionalized sphere of social interaction which includes associations, social movements and public communications defined as civil society (Cohen and Arato 1992, ix).
The development of a civil society in Latin America has its own specific dynamics, related to the particular regional characteristics. Any attempt to understand the standing of civil society in the region needs to take into account some basic questions and dilemmas.
First, there is a question on the idea of civil society. This is not a monolithic idea but rather a mosaic of diverse understandings, each reflecting distinct political agendas and aspirations. These interpretations are deeply entwined with the region's complex history, social dynamics and political struggles.
At the heart of these diverse understandings lies the fundamental question of what role civil society should play in shaping society and politics. For some, civil society represents a realm of autonomous social action, where individuals and grassroots organizations mobilize to challenge oppressive regimes and advocate for human rights and social justice (Cohen and Arato 1992). This perspective views civil society as a counterbalance to state power, often emphasizing the importance of civic engagement, activism, and solidarity among marginalized communities (Putnam 1993, Rosenblum 1998, Walzer 1995).
Other conceptions of civil society take a more instrumental approach, viewing it as a means to achieve specific political or economic goals. In this view, civil society may be seen asa partner of thestate or market, working to implement policies or address social issues within existing institutional frameworks (Dagnino 2011, p. 128). This perspective often emphasizes the role of NGOs, philanthropic organizations, and business associations in providing services, promoting development, or fostering social cohesion.
These differing interpretations of civil society are not merely academic debates but are deeply intertwined with broader political projects and ideologies. They reflect competing visions of society, governance, and the distribution of power, and are shaped by historical experiences, cultural contexts, and socioeconomic realities. As such, discussions about civil society in Latin America are not only about defining abstract concepts but also about shaping concrete strategies for social change and political transformation.
Moreover, the contested nature of civil society reflects the region's ongoing struggles for democracy, social inclusion, and human rights. In Latin America, whereauthoritarianism, inequality,and socialexclusion havelongbeen persistent challenges, the role of civil society in promoting democratic governance and social justice is a matter of urgent concern. As a result, debates about civil society are not confined to academic circles but are actively contested in the public sphere, mobilizing activists, intellectuals, policymakers, and ordinary citizens alike. I will attempt to illustrate some of these dynamics in the following section.
III. Civil society and the State in Latin American political development
In Latin America, the idea of civil society has had a less prominent role compared to the European experience during the independence movement of the nineteenth century, and during the twentieth century its role was affected by the flows and ebbs of political cycles in the region. As a start, Latin America´s basis on which it was founded, supposedly defined by feudal, oligarchic, authoritarian and elitist elements not only stands opposite to the Anglo-Saxon liberal tradition but also is less conducing to a vibrant civil society than the latter (Wiarda 1996). Following this account, in Europe and North America (with the exception of the American South) representative democratic governments is (was?) strong, including the classic liberal liberties of free speech, press, assembly, petition and religion. This results in a pluralistic political culture where civil society plays a significant role. On the contrary, Latin America is defined by a pre-modern political philosophy that resulted in authoritarian, top-bottom political cultures in which civil society play a subordinate role. In this account, Latin American political experience is defined more by absolute, hierarchical and organicist conceptions of “the people” than by a dynamic in which non-conformist groups present different views and opinions in the public sphere in an horizontal fashion as is the case in more liberal settings.
Also important in this conception is the structure of corporate, protected, group privilege that defines State-societal relations in Latin America (see Véliz 1980). Indeed, the region is characterized by the proliferation of guilds and corporate groups whose action is mainly defined by its access to State benefits.
The differing conceptions of civil society are particularly evident within the framework of regime construction. In Europe, the era of democratic revolutions ushered in a set of ideals encompassing liberty, political and social equality, solidarity, and justice, which provided fertile ground for the development of civil societies. This perspective perceives democracy and democratic society as outcomes of individual will, whereby democracy engenders a State devoid of intermediary entities akin to those prevalent in medieval corporatist societies. Accordingly, civil society assumes a central role in democratic theory, serving as the locus where individuals the driving force behind the emergence of
democratic society reside, thereby sustaining democracy even within contexts of representative governance (Bobbio, 1984).
This role is practically non-existent in Latin America. If anything, the role that civil society played in the region at a time of state building was exactly the opposite. Deep inequalities resulted in Latin American elites justifying the political exclusion of indigenous, black, and mixed-race populations, fearful as they were of the risk of bloody insurrections and rebellions (Oxhorn and Jouve Martin 2017). For Latin American white elites “civil society” represented only a threat.
Latin American populism, although it was the most significant regional experience of popular integration and expansion of civil rights (Collier and Collier 1991), did not result either in the consolidation of civil society as understood by European standards. Latin American populism has historically had a complex relationship with civil society. Populist leaders in the region have often portrayed themselves as champions of the people against entrenched elites, including those within civil society organizations. More specifically, the ways in which Latin American populism has conceived civil society has been detrimental to the creation of this sphere.
Indeed, populist leaders often seek to centralize power around themselves, presenting themselves as the embodiment of the will of the people. They may view civil society organizations as potential rivals for popular support and attempt to co-opt or marginalize them to consolidate their own power. Populist leaders in the region aimed at neutralizing the activation potential of trade unions; and in many cases they aimed at a corporatist structuration of civil society, in which the State had a predominant role. As a matter of fact, in this period the region witnessed leaders who instrumentalized civil society organizations to advance their political agendas, co-opting certain groups (especially labour unions) or directly creating new organizations loyal to the populist regime, while marginalizing or suppressing those that oppose them (Collier and Collier 1991). This was part of an organicist conception indebted to Mussolinian and Francoist visions prevalent in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s that many of the regional leaders (Getúlio Vargas, Lázaro Cárdenas, Juan Perón) implemented, which fitted nicely with the aforementioned traditional Latin American corporatist structure. In these political projects there was no need for political divisions in the traditional sense of bourgeois democracy. Instead, each sector of the community, mainly those of capital and labor, had to come together under state planning for the
national policies of independent development (Waldmann 1974). For this organicist conception, stronger in Argentina than in Mexico or Brazil, the party was nothing more than the electoral tool of the national movement, the sole legitimate representative of the historical tradition and popular sentiment of the community.
In addition, populist rhetoric in Latin America often portrays civil society organizations as part of the elite establishment, aligned with economic and political interests that are seen as opposed to the interests of the common people (Wiarda 1996). This antagonism led to attempts to discredit or undermine the legitimacy of civil society actors who were not aligned with the people's will.
Lastly, populist leaders in Latin America undermined democratic institutions and norms, including freedom of association and expression, which are essential for a vibrant civil society. This erosion of democratic norms weakened civil society organizations and limited their ability to hold governments accountable.
Paradoxically, then, while during the so-called populist period a significant number of Latin Americans became incorporated, both materially and symbolically, into collective arenas (such as public health, education, or became politically mobilized) the latter had some form of state regulation as substantive ingredients. Some authors describe this dynamic as the “State-centricframework” in which citizenship is regulated by state policies (Cavarozzi 1996, p. 96).
Authoritarian politics also played a significant role in weakening civil society. In the Southern Cone, themilitary´s policy of deindustrialization and state retrenchment generated marginalization, atomization and disintegration in all countries with the exception of Brazil (Garretón 1986, p. 121). More importantly, civil society was a natural target of state repression and marginalization, as civil society sectors (specifically popular sectors and their representatives) were catalyzers of the socialunrest that resulted in military authoritarian regimes in the first place (Collier 1979, O’ Donnell 1973, Torre 1989).
It must be noted that until the early eighties, studies only tangentially scrutinized the role of civil society in Latin American politics, and the latter referred only toa specific segmentof thewhole universe: thepolitical left, workers
(especially organized labour) and peasants. As a matter of fact, the term “civil society” was seldom used.
It was only after the struggles against militarydictatorships that civil society became a fashionable term in Latin America intellectual debate. During the transition phase, a “resurrection of civil society” took place and this helped advance the democratization processes (O’ Donnell and Schmitter 1986, p. 56). More precisely, in the context of the region’s democratization processes human rights organizations played a pivotal role, viewing these processes as opportunities to shed light on the widespread atrocities committed by authoritarian regimes (Crenzel 2011). Hence, civilian institutions occupied a newly achieved political centrality. The surge of these civil society organizations was motivated by the general discontent with the armed forces. As a result, a “democratic revolution” (Wiarda 1990) took place and groups previously suspended or suppressed or ones that had not even existed (such as human rights organizations) gained the scene. Among these were old and new political parties, labour unions, the Church, community organizations, NGOs and new social movements such as gender and indigenous groups, together with middle classes, such as urban professionals and state employees (Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens 1992, p. 185).
The period of market reform also significantly affected the region´s civil society. The retrenchment of the State resulted in reduced social cohesion and weakening of social networks, as suggested by the increase in the levels of poverty, inequality and violence in many countries. This process included increased spatial segregation between “winners” and “losers” (Svampa 2001, p. 46), eroding Latin America´s civil societies. During this period, the region witnessed a disaffection towards the public space and a detachment from public life, similar to what had happened in industrialized societies (Sennett 1977).
Finally, Latin America also witnessed the emergence of Left-leaning governments in several countries, which challenged the dominant neoliberal paradigm and sought to reassert the role of the state in addressing social inequalities and promoting development (Levitsky and Roberts 2011). These governments, often associated with movements advocating for social justice and redistributive policies, brought about a reevaluation of civil society's role, emphasizing the importance of participatory democracy and collective action (Goldfrank 2011). However, the relationship between civil society and Left-leaning
governments has been complex and sometimes contentious. While these governments often championed the principles of social inclusion and popular participation, they also faced criticism for co-opting or marginalizing certain sectors of civil society, particularly those advocating for more radical change or challenging the status quo
All these historical developments influenced the contours of civil society in the region. The meanings of civil society have evolved under these contrasting influences. Neoliberalism tended to narrow the conception of civil society to a realm of service provision and philanthropy, with a focus on efficiency, accountability, and market-based solutions. On the other hand, Left-leaning governments sought to broaden the understanding of civil society, emphasizing its role in grassroots mobilization, social movements, and participatory governance. Overall, the evolving meanings of civil society in Latin America reflect the complex interplay between political ideologies, economic forces, and social movements. The region's experience highlights the importance of critically examining the role of civil society in both service provision and participatory democracy, taking into account the diverse interests and power dynamics that shape its activities and impact on society.
In addition, despite these political swings, the region has yet not solved structural issues such as crime rates, poverty levels, economic insecurity and social inequality. This affects the type of civil society the region experiences (defined by the disaffected and with a contestation bias) and the capabilities of influencing the political process.
IV. The contributions in this volume
The three contributions in this volume touch on the issues raised in this general introduction. Enrique Peruzzotti comprehensively explores the role ofcivil society in the Latin American democratization process. He begins by shifting the focus from political elites to civil society actors. By doing so he suggests that the civil society paradigm is an alternative approach to understanding democratization after the “transitology” explosion of the early eighties that focused on “hardlines” and “softliners” (O’ Donnel and Schmitter 1986). Peruzzotti highlights how the civil society paradigm gained influence in Latin America, challenging mainstream elitist approaches to democratization. The text highlights the importance of a politically relevant civil society in avoiding democratic decay.
Regarding the future evolution of civil society in the region, Peruzzotti’s work discusses various innovations in democratization processes, including changes in societal associations, emergence of new claims and collective actions, and stronger connections between civil and political society. It also examines how civil society responds to new challenges such as authoritarian continuities and democratic reversals, populist movements, uncivil groups, and the commodification of society and digitalization and its pernicious effects (including issues like the individualization of authorship, fake news, and fragmentation of public discourse).
Regarding this last topic, the second contribution by Matías Bianchi and Belén Ortiz explores concrete experiences of actors who sought alternative forms of power exercise through the use of digital technologies. Throughout the analysis, the contexts, technologies (and their techno-political orientations), and dynamics of digital era movements have been shown to transform in response to changes in the political landscape, the business model of digital platforms, and the protagonists' own learning about their actions.
As theauthors suggest, the context was initially marked by a technoutopian moment where both protagonists and observers believed that digital technologies were the main allies to transform the quality of democracies in the region. There was evidence of a growing plurality of collectives, greater openness to new voices in public debate, the emergence of new actors from the margins, and the construction of horizontal articulation of political spaces. However, over the last decade, this optimism has waned due to changes in technologies themselves, the advance of authoritarian and/or antidemocratic movements, hostile and coercive use by de facto powers, and the limitations of political and social movements.
Despite these transformations and changes in the digital era landscape, indigenous, feminist, student, environmentalist, and other movements have developed a critical awareness of digital tools and a necessary capacity for adaptation and resilience to think about strategies and tactics of emerging activism. They have successfully connected with other processes, sometimes pouring into traditional political expressions and other times into the arts, media, and specialized organizations.
Bianchi and Ortiz suggest a cautious perspective on these processes and their achievements. Understanding the changes allows for the redefinition of strategies and tactics to empower new voices and actions essential for the muchneeded recovery of democratic initiative in Latin America and the rest of the West.
Finally, Jorge Garzón and María Hegglin introduce the topic of civil society's role in regional governance, highlighting its importance in shaping regional agendas, policies, and institutions. It identifies four clusters of research questions: top-down approaches (examining why and how Regional Organizations engage civil society in regional governance structures), regionalism-civil society relations (understanding the various patterns of interaction between civil society and regionalism), bottom-up approaches (where they explore the independent processes of regionalization of civil society activism, separate from those initiated by governments or ROs), and the transformative potential of civil society (where they delve on the potential of civil society activism to transform regional governance by introducing new norms, ideas, and agendas). Through case studies and theoretical analysis, it highlights the complex dynamics of civil society engagement with regional organizations and regionalism. The contribution underscores the importance of comparative analysis in advancing knowledge in this field and calls for further research to address existing gaps and challenges.
In all, the contributions in this volume re-examine classic questions with new lenses, and explore the new issues that influence the standing of civil society in the region. In doing so they provide a deep and thorough analysis of the role of civil society in democratization processes, covering various dimensions such as historicalcontext, theoretical frameworks, empirical examples, and contemporary challenges; a comprehensive understanding of the changes in digital platforms and their impact on collective action in Latin America, highlighting both the opportunities and challenges that activists face in the contemporary digital environment and a deeper understanding of civil society's impact on regional governance processes and outcomes.
V. References
Bobbio, Norberto. 1984. The Future of Democracy: A Defence of the Rules of the Game. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Collier, David. 1979. The new authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Collier, David y Collier, Ruth Berins. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Cavarozzi, Marcelo. 1996. Autoritarismo y democracia. Buenos Aires: Ariel.
Cohen, Jean L., and Arato, Andrew. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Crenzel, Emilio. 2011. “Between the voices of the State and the Human Rights Movement: Never Again and the Memories of the Disappeared in Argentina”, Journal of Social History, Volume 44 (4): pp. 1063-1076
Dagnino, Evelina. 2011. "Civil Society in Latin America" in Edwards, Michael. Oxford Handbook of Civil Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garretón, Manuel Antonio. 1986. “The Failure of Dictatorships in the Southern Cone”, Telos Vol. 1986 (68): 71-78.
Goldfrank, Benjamin. 2011. "The Left and Participatory Democracy: Brazil, Uruguay, and Venezuela” in Steven Levitsky and Kenneth Roberts (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Levitsky, Steven y Roberts, Kenneth M. 2011. The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1973. "Modernization and BureaucraticAuthoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics." Berkeley Journal of Sociology 18: 84-114.
O’Donnell, Guillermo y Schmitter, Philippe C. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Oxhorn, Philip y Jouve Martin, José. 2017. "The Politics of Inequality in Latin America: State, Society, and the Quest for Inclusive Development." Latin American Politics and Society 59 (3): 1-18.
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 1998. Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses of Pluralism in America. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Stephens, Evelyne Huber y Stephens, John D. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sennett, Richard. 1977. The Fall of Public Man. New York: Knopf.
Svampa, Maristella. 2001. Los que ganaron. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Torre, Juan Carlos. 1983. Los sindicatos en el gobierno, 1973-1976. Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de America Latina.
Véliz, Claudio. 1980. The Centralist Tradition of Latin America. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Waldmann, Peter. 1974. El peronismo. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.
Walzer, Michael. 1995. Toward a Global Civil Society. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Wiarda, Howard J. 1990. "The democratic revolution in Latin America: history, politics, and U.S. policy". Holmes & Meier.
Wiarda, Howard J. 1996. The soul of Latin America The Cultural and Political Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
CIVIL SOCIETY, THE PUBLIC SPHERE, AND DEMOCRATIZATION: REVISITING THE LATIN AMERICAN DEBATE
Enrique Peruzzotti
In Latin America, during the process of authoritarian liberalization and democratization, there were lively debates among intellectuals on achieving democratic rule in the region. The concept of civil society emerged as a significant element of democracy. Though civil society was not a new concept, its regional use was rooted in a neo-Marxist framework based on Antonio Gramsci's work. According to this perspective, civil society was a crucial terrain for unfolding revolutionary praxis that prioritized the associational terrain of existing civil societies and cultural institutions over party vanguards and violent action. The failure of revolutionary projects and the instauration of radical forms of military dictatorships shifted the focus of the debate on civil society from revolution to democracy. The democratic turn entailed leaving Marxian critical theory behind to reconstruct one based on democratic premises. Civil society, instead of class, would be the vantage point of the critique of existing societies. The goal of reconstructing and democratizing civil society was the foundation of a critical democratization theory to challenge the elitist approach of mainstream political science.
The paradigm of civil society gained importance in Latin America when a new generation of social scientists adopted the theories of Habermasian communication and Cohen and Arato's civil society framework to engage in a critical reflection on democratization processes in the region. However, there were also alternative uses of the civil society term in circulation. Besides the neoGramscian approach, the third-sector, voluntary, or nonprofit sector paradigm presented alternative concepts that differed from the Habermasian model (Salamon & Anheier, 1997; Thompson, 1995). Several projects aimed atmeasuring and evaluating the density and scope of third-sector organizations. They highlighted the relevance of an alternative not-for-profit approach to the market logic.[1] This approach tends to give more importance to reading civil society as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and philanthropic institutions
(Fernandez, 1994; Landim & Thompson, 1997; Roitter et al., 2000) rather than informal movements and publics.[2]
The brief focuses on Habermasian/Arato & Cohen´s perspective, as a new generation of scholars adopted it to analyze and evaluate Latin American political processes. Such a perspective gained prominence and produced an essential and influential body of literature.[3] Section 1 describes the central tenets of such theory, to analyze in Section II how such a framework was applied and reformulated in the region. Section III and the concluding section focus on a set of developments that are transforming the landscape of contemporary societies to inquire to what extent the proposed understanding of civil society and the public sphere still holds or needs revision.
I. The Initial Model: Civil Society as a Critical Theory of Democratization
The concept of civil society emerged during the third-wave transitionswhen democratizing actors called for the resurrection, reconstruction, or rebirth of civil society in Eastern Europe and Latin America during struggles against authoritarianism. The term became the cornerstone of a critical theory of democratization that challenged the then-dominant paradigm of democratic elitism. This paradigm reduced democracy to a method of elite selection, which emptied the concept of any reference to the citizenship principle. The civil society argument aimed to restore the citizenship principle as the core of democratic theory, emphasizing the importance of organized citizens in civil society in democratic will formation processes. The concept proposes a two-track understanding of democracy that presupposes a constant and lively exchange between bottom-up political will formation processes deriving from citizens' experiential worlds and state elites' decision-making activities.
Civil society refers to a plurality of associations, movements, and publics representing the organizational stratum of citizenship. Those associative networks mediate between individual and state, allowing citizens to openly deliberate about public affairs and act to advance their claims. The power generated by civil society is a communicative one: it springs from mobilized citizens who engage in informal processes of opinion formation in the public sphere. Through different forms of interventions, civil society actors engage in deliberative processes of opinion and will formation that aim to change the
attitudes and preferences of citizens and exert influence on political society´s agenda.[4] Its politics seeks to influence majority opinion within civil society and bring it to bear upon the legislative and policy process. It is through the politics of civil society that democratic legitimacy reproduces itself.
The term "civil society" refers to the concept of equalitarian voluntary associations. When combined with fundamental rights, these associations enable the emergence of bottom-up forms of politicization. Civil society only becomes institutionalized when a structure of fundamental rights is in place, which secures citizens' ability to interact with each other in both public and private spheres. The rights of association, assembly, and communication enable citizens to collectively debate issues, act in concert, assert new rights, and influence the political system. Fundamental rights are essential to the development of different forms of collective action and critical discourses. Through these efforts, organized citizens can transform the preferences and attitudes of fellow citizens andpolitical society. (Cohen & Arato, 1992).
It is in the public sphere where civil society actors exert communicatively generated influence. The former refers to networks communicating information and points of view that eventually coalesce in topically specified public opinions.[5] Along with the principles of voluntary association and fundamental rights, the public sphere is a core institution of civil society: it is the arena where ordinary citizens who are not professional lobbyists or politicians engage in political activity. Civil society´s associations, publics, and movements bring up issues and information and propose new interpretations and problem-solving discourses on questions of general interest in the public sphere[6]. Such initiatives target civil and political society, seeking to shift public opinion and alter the parameters of processes of organized will formation, keeping the political system open to the influence of civil society and promoting collective learning in society (Cohen & Arato, 1992, Habermas 1996, ch. 8).
Civic actors do not acquire political power, but they do gain influence through communicating their ideas. However, this influence must be transformed into political power through informal public discourse, which in turn must affect the formal decision-making sites of the political system such as parliaments, courts, and bureaucracies. The relationship between civil and political society is maintained and strengthened through civil society's politics of influence. For democracy tothrive, thereneeds tobe a constantand vibrantinteraction between
citizens and the political system. In this sense, democratic politics involves a twoway dynamic between civil society's politics of influence and the power politics of political society in government. In this division, civil society has a creative and transformative role in democratizing values, norms, and institutions, while political parties work to transmit and institutionalize civil society's achievements at the governmental level (Arato & Cohen, 2021, pp. 216-217).
The civil society model assumes a dualistic understanding of democracy. Acknowledging that the latter can only be partially institutionalized, it recognizes an insurmountable gap between the locus of legitimacy (civil society) and the organization of sovereignty (political society). Maintaining the tension between values and policies alive is civil society´s central democratizing contribution. The proposed model of civil society serves as a counterfactual standard for critiquing existing institutions and civil society initiatives. It serves as a (Peruzzotti & Plot, 2013:9).[7]
II. The Latin American reception of the civil society model
The described paradigm gained influence in Latin America as an alternative to mainstream elite approaches to democratization: shifting the lenses from political elites to civil society widened the understanding of democratic politics and existing diagnoses regarding the nature of democratizing processes. From this perspective, democratization is not just an interval between two regimes but an ongoing dimension of democracy: a vital and politically relevant civil society is crucial for avoiding democratic decay and the oligarchization of politics and encouraging collective learning.[8] Consequently, proponents of this paradigm look into existing societies to find movements or initiatives that, by bringing new issues and values into the public sphere, were contributing to the democratizing process.
There was a generalized agreementamong the advocates ofthecivil society paradigm that mainstream studies´ elitist approach resulted in a one-sided view that left out many of the genuinely innovative dynamics occurring in the region´s civil societies. As a result, the prenormative guidance for democratizing struggles. The starting point of such analysis is interpreting democratizing social movements' nature, projects, and stakes and subjecting them to immanent critique, that is, shed light on the relation between the normative intentions of democratizing projects and the principles that ensure the institutionalization of a
democraticcivil society (legality, pluralism, and publicity) to evaluate whether their actions and projects either consolidate or endanger democracy dominant diagnosis regarding democratic life was somewhat pessimistic, emphasizing the strength and continuity of authoritarian legacies (Hite & Cesarini, 2004; O´Donnell, 1994) over collective learning processes (Alvarez et al., 1998; Avritzer, 2002; Peruzzotti, 2001).
The perspective of civil society has brought to light many innovative approaches that differentiate ongoing democratization processes from previous ones. From this viewpoint, the third wave of democratization occurred against a backdrop that was culturally, socially, and politically distinct from the one thathad characterized the second wave. Populist forms of self-understanding and organization structured the political landscape of the latter, instituting incorporation processes of the popular sector through state corporatism and movimentismo (Collier & Collier, 1991; Oxhorn, 1995b; Touraine, 1989; Schmitter, 1971). Such a democratizing strategy is antinomic to a civil society model.[9] State corporatism is hostile to a defining civil society principle: independent citizens' self-constitution of voluntary associational forms. At the same time, movimentismo blurs the distinct logic that differentiates social movements from political parties that sustain the two-track dynamic the civil society model predicates (Peruzzotti, 2002).
Mainstream approaches overestimated authoritarian continuities with the past because they overlooked the loci of democratization dynamics: civil society. There, new identities, practices, and claims emerged to institute an autonomous civil society and a pluralistic public sphere. A society structured around more plural and democratic identities challenged the populist notion ofa homogeneous actor and single conflict (Avritzer, 2002, pp. 83-84; Laclau, 1985; Oxhorn, 1995b). Instead, plural and heterogeneous civil societies encompassing a variety of associational formats (voluntary associations, social movements, NGOs, unions), heterogeneous claims (functional, territorial, personal), and different forms of politicization emerged in the aftermath of the transitions from authoritarianism. Themobilization of those groups in the public sphere setthe termsfor the dispute over democracy´s nature (Dagnino, 2002, p. 47).
The literature on civil society identifies three types of innovations: changes in the way society's associations are structured, the emergence of new claims and a new way of collective action, and the creation of new connections between civil
and political society. There are various types of civil society initiatives, such as different association formats, types of politicization, and claims. Instead of listing all of theseinitiatives, thisanalysis will focus on howcivil society politics contribute to the democratization agenda.
The analysis will concentrate on the following:
A. The institutionalization of civil society,
B. The democratization of the state,
C. The democratization of lifeworld,
D. The establishment ofmorepublic and accountable linkages between civil society and the political system, and
E Addressing commodification pressures from the market.
A. Civil Society
There was agreement among analysts regarding the historical underdevelopmentof civilsociety in theregion. On the other hand, modernization led to the rapid mobilization of different social actors who were either contained through processes of controlled inclusion (Oxhorn, 1995) or promoted scenarios of mass praetorianism (Huntington, 1968; Portantiero, 1988; O´Donnell, 1979). So, a crucial concern was the transformation of corporatist societies into civil ones (Portantiero, 1988).
New forms of authoritarianism inadvertently contributed to the rise of an autonomous civil society. According to Philip Oxhorn, bureaucratic authoritarianism reflected the belief that controlled inclusion had gone too far and needed to be reversed. Authoritarian states adopted policies that were specifically designed to neutralize the political influence of popular sectors. Coerced marginalization replaced controlled inclusion, leading to self-defense efforts to resist subordination to the state and collective responses to the different forms of exclusions that the dictatorial regimes promoted (Oxhorn, 1995, p. 260). As a result, new actors emerged, renewing the repertoire of collective action and demanding other linkages with the state and political system
than those thathistorically prevailed. Amongmany developments in this field, one actor gained prominence: human rights movements.
The field of human rights politics plays a crucial role in the establishment and development of democratic civil societies in the region. Many scholars have contributed to this field, including Barahona de Brito (2000), Brysk (1994), Carmody (2018), Gonzalez et al. (1987), Jelín (1994), Keck & Sikkink (1998), Leis (1989), Oxhorn (2001), and Veiga (1988). Since rights and constitutionalism are integral to stabilizing civil society as an independent sphere, organizations focused on human rights have been instrumental in the growth of civil society politics in the region. Such groups aim to draw clear lines between the state and civil society and seek to constitutionalize both. Unlike previous corporatist and movementist politics, human rights organizations do not aim to control the state but rather to limit its power. In doing so, they hope to establish a constitutional framework that supports a democratic civil society (Peruzzotti, 1999).
B. State
The framing of social grievances and claims within a rights and rule of law discourse set out novel forms of politicization to strengthen and expand the constitutional order. The new frame enlarged the repertoire of collective action as movements and NGOs adopted a more vigilant role toward governmental authorities. New opportunities opened within the judicial system to assert rights, pursue reforms, and address grievances (Ruibal, 2023). Many of those novelties were the focus of the social accountability framework (Peruzzotti & Smulovitz, 2006; Smulovitz & Peruzzotti, 2000). Social accountability politics refer to a second generation of civic and journalist initiatives that expanded the initial rights framework by exposing various forms of governmental wrongdoing, from police violence to governmental acts of corruption. They resorted to legal mobilization, media exposure, or protests to address their grievances. The politics of social accountability involve a public outcry for justice over concrete acts of governmental wrongdoing (as well as from the impunity that usually surrounds those acts). Those initiatives deepened the constitutionalizing concern introduced by human rights politics, targeting state agencies involved in governmental wrongdoing and renewing the initial efforts at strengthening civic rights (Bonner, 2009a, 2009b, 2014; Denissen, 2008; Fox, 2007; Peruzzotti & Smulovitz, 2006; Smulovitz & Peruzzotti, 2000; Ulrich, 2011).
C. Political system
a. Electoral monitoring
Another crucial area of civil society politics was the electoral arena, particularly in those countries where authoritarian regimes jeopardized the celebration of free and competitive elections. Domestic electoral monitoring has spread rapidly in the region since the 1990s and has grown steadily. A network of specialized NGOs emerged that actively engaged in electoral monitoring during election day and beyond, including voter registration (Transparencia in Peru & Etica y Transparencia in Nicaragua), media bias during the campaign (Alianza Civica in Mexico, Transparencia in Peru), campaign financing (Poder Ciudadano in Argentina), the composition of electoral authorities (Alianza Civica in Mexico, Ojo Electoral in Venezuela), and electoral reform (Brazilian campaign for direct elections). [10]
b. New Movement-rooted Parties
Social movements have played a crucial role in expanding political participation by creating new political parties that represent groups previously excluded from decision-making processes. The PT in Brazil, the Frente Amplio in Uruguay, and MAS in Bolivia are examples of political parties that emerged from social movements. These parties have been successful in shifting power relations within their respective countries and empowering marginalized groups (Anria, 2019, p. 216).
The emergence of powerful indigenous rights movements in Latin America, demanding recognition as distinct peoples, was a significant example of democratic innovation and deepening. Bolivia and Ecuador witnessed the successfulformation of movement-based parties thatentered the electoralarena, leading to more inclusive and plural party systems and citizenship regimes. The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) actively participated in the Constituent Assembly, winning 10% of the seats. They were able to include a constitutionalchapter on collective rights for indigenouspeoples. However, their involvement in the coup that toppled then-president Jamil Mahuad damaged their reputation.
The most successful movement-based party is that of MAS in Bolivia. Since its emergence and thanks to its electoral success, the MAS hashelped traditionally excluded groups gain political influence and decision-making responsibilities to the extent that it contributed to redrawing the constitutional contours of Bolivian democracy. President Morales's decisions as president were not insulated from the bottom-up influence of the party´s organized grassroots constituencies, making indigenous rights the cornerstone of his administration in Bolivia to the extent that the country has become a global leader on the subject (Anria, 2006, p. 210; Rice, 2023).
c. Participatory Policy-Making
Developing multiple participatory institutions is crucial for inducing civil society organizations to participate in policy-making processes. This will establish more public and participatory linkages between society and the political system, ultimately improving citizens' access to public goods. There are different types of participatory designs, such as forums or councils that facilitate direct inputs of civil society organizations into the policy-making process, like participatory budgeting. In other instances, civil society actors directly engage with the policymaking process, as seen in the Brazilian Movimiento Sanitario (Heller, 2022).
In Brazil, there is a well-developed participatory citizenship architecture that serves as a mediator between organized civil society and the state's public administration. Thisarchitectureinvolves thecreation of councils, public hearings, conferences, and negotiation panels at the local level to engage civil society actors in social policy-making. Different social councils, participatory budgeting programs, and national public policy conferences are some of the participatory institutions at the municipal level. The goal of this participatory structure is to replace clientelism, contentious, and corporatist channels with more participatory and transparent channels that allow citizens to deliberate in public fora, vote on public policies, and monitor governmental officials. Infra-constitutional legislation in the areas of health, social assistance, and the Statue of the City enacted this structure. With Lula's election in 2003, the participatory system expanded from the local to the national level by creating 115 national conferences involving the city, state, and national levels to deliberate and make recommendations to the government. (Avritzer, 2009; Goldfrank, 2011; Seele & Peruzzotti, 2009; Tatagiba, 2002; Wampler, 2015).[11]
D. Lifeworld democratization
Democratization politics aimed to challenge social authoritarianism in various aspects of society. Movements emerged to fight against different forms of discrimination and demand recognition for historically oppressed groups such as gender, race, and LGTBIQ+. Women's movements played a crucial role in the public sphere of several democracies and achieved numerous successes, such as creating various offices, programs, and ministries to represent women's interests, and gaining rights recognition. Some of their achievements include establishing divorce laws, introducing gender quotas for political offices, passing legislation against gender-based violence, and ensuring reproductive rights (Ewig & Friedman, 2023).
Gay and lesbian activism has pursued anti-discrimination legislation, socioeconomic benefits, and formal recognition of same-sex marriage. Similarly, transgender activism has been active in several countries by forming active organizations (Diez, 2023; Fontana, 2023). Democratization also resulted in a notorious increase in the mobilization of black and indigenous civil society organizations and movements, creating a vast regional network (like the Network of Afro-Latin American and Caribbean Women, Strategic Alliance of Afro-Black Organizations, or the Black Organization of Central America) (Lao-Montes, 2017, p.210). Those networks and organizations focused on social discrimination in the economy, politics, housing, education, health care, policing, and prisons. They demanded affirmative action to remedy the effects of racial prejudice, preserving their culture, collective land rights, and multicultural constitutional recognition in countries like Colombia, Brazil, Peru, and the Dominican Republic (Dixon & Caldwell, 2023). Indigenous and Black movements campaign to declare Latin American states multiethnic, multicultural, and plurinational, resulting in constitutional changes in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela (Lao-Montes, 2017, p. 209).
E. Resisting Commodification
During the shift from the state-led import substitution model of industrialization (ISI) to a more liberalized market-led economy, a new moral economy of protest emerged. This was due to the novel linkages with the global economy, which resulted in the construction of a new social question. The state corporatist model of inclusion was decomposed, and recommodification
dynamics were introduced, which brought about changes in different areas of social life. The market integration model weakened labour organizations, as there was a reduction in the labour market. As a result, market disincorporation processes produced a segmented structure of territorially anchored subsistence organizations. These organizations dealt with the new social question, which was focused on the victims of market-oriented reforms. In Argentina, these organizations coalesced around a nationwide movement that sought to rearticulate those sectors with the state into a structure of interest intermediation. This structure adopted a territorial logic and helped to strengthen the associational field of popular sector organizations.
The rise of international commodity prices, including those of lithium, oil, gas, and soy, led to a shift towards an extractivist model. This shift resulted in the emergence of numerous environmental conflicts. To combat the ecological costs of thisnew model, variousmovements and organizations were established. These groups aimed to draw attention to issues such as open-pit mining, the protection of virgin lands in local communities, the diffusion of genetically modified crops, and the depletion of natural resources such as water and forests. In some Andean countries, including Bolivia and Ecuador, the constitutional text included claims about an alternative developmental model rooted in indigenous cosmovisions of El Buen Vivir (Rice, 2023, p. 362).
III. Revisiting the debate, a quarter of a century later: the diagnosis of fragmentation and polarization of the public sphere and civil society
Thecurrent political scenarioisnot the sameas when thethird wave began. Several changes have taken place that question whether the original assumptions of the civil society model still hold true or need to be revisited. There are two structural trends thataretransformingthedynamics of contemporary politics and may challenge civil society's role in the democratic process. The first trend is the digitalization of the public sphere, which is causing a structural transformation. The second trend is the changes within civil society, such as the emergence ofnew forms of digitally induced contention and a more individualized political format of public intervention. In the concluding section, more circumstantial trends are discussed, such as the exhaustion of the expansive stage of third-wave democratization and the commencement of a new stage of democratic reversal
or stagnation (Huntington, 1991). This necessitates a recalibration of the political role of civil society to face the challenges that arise during any period of democratic reversal and to sustain a democratizing agenda.
A. The transformation of the public sphere
How is digitalization changing the quality of public debate and the way citizens perceive politically relevant news? Jurgen Habermas has highlighted three trends that are promoting a structural transformation of the traditional concept of the public sphere. In his opinion, the replacement of mass media with digital media has altered communication flows in three significant ways:
a. Individualization of Authorship and Communicative Abundance.
Interactive digital platforms have revolutionized communication opportunities across the globe by potentially turning all users into independent authors. This has resulted in a situation of communicative abundance, as noted by Habermas (2022, p. 158). By providing a space where every social media user can assume the role of an author, these platforms have significantly expanded public spheres, leading to the blurring of boundaries between individual, group, and mass communication.
b. Unregulated Communication and Fake News.
The emergence of new media has led to a change in the way communication occurs. Unlike traditional media, new media companies do not act asgatekeepers or assumeresponsibility for the contentthat isbeing circulated on their platforms. They merely serve as intermediaries that do not curate the messages being exchanged. As a result, the screening role that news agencies, media, and publishing houses had previously played in ensuring the quality of their communication products has been eliminated. This has led to an increase in unregulated and unchecked communication flows within the public sphere (Habermas, 2022, p. 162).
c. Fragmentation and polarization of the Public Sphere.
The growth of online communication platforms has led to the formation of segregated echo chambers, hindering the possibility of meaningful exchange of ideas due to selective exposure to like-minded opinions (Habermas, 2022, p. 160).
The changing trends in society have brought about new challenges for civil society's political influence. The central arena of its political interventions no longer provides the prospects of wide-ranging critical public communicative dialogue among citizens committed to the public good. Instead, the public is divided into hostile or disconnected groups that avoid engaging in communicative exchanges with one another. Furthermore, the credibility of journalism as the source of validation of news isbeing questioned, which has led to the proliferation of fake news in the public sphere without any verification.[12]
In such a post-truth political climate, the communicative forms of public discourse that strengthen civil society interventions lose the power initially attributed to the public sphere model. As Staab and Thiel argue, “... increasingly, a notion of democracy is being articulated in which the reading of singularized preferences, rather than the civic expression of opinion through active participation, is being interpreted as the democratic principle… the identification of preferences comes to occupy the place once occupied by political contestation” (Staab & Thiel, 2022, p. 140)
Digital technologies are a powerful engine for the singularization of the social. In contemporary societies, what is singular is valorized and stirs emotions. While trends toward individualizing society have been present since Ulrich Beck coined the term, the logic of singularization expresses a radicalization of such a trend. Social media encourages the formation of increasingly singularized subjects and collective communities characterized by `affective actualism’ and, consequently, structural instability (Reckwitz, 2020).
B. The transformation of civil society
a. Connective action and digital contention
The internet has given rise to new forms of public action that don't require traditional civil society organizations. This has led to the growth of a type of civic activism that is different from the outcome of the organizational skills of civic associations. The internet allows anonymous action at a distance, creating novel political participation and mobilization patterns. This digitally enabled connective action creates new forms of membership and interaction that are different from the ones previously considered by civil society literature. Through digital communication and social media, alternative and more flexible forms of
mobilization and coordination of collective action emerge (Gold & Peña, 2019; 2021).
There is a growing body of literature discussing new forms of digital engagement. Bennett and Segerberg introduced the term "connective action" to differentiate digitally networked initiatives from traditional forms of collective action that are centered around organizations and brokers (Bennett & Segerberg, 2013). With horizontal digital communication, participants can bypass traditional organizers and conveners of mobilizations, such as old social movements, unions, and opposition parties. They promote engagement of individuals in the protests through a chain of virtual messaging, such as tweets and retweets. These transformations raise questions about the centrality of the concept of social movements in the original formulation of civil society. Contemporary movements or mobilizations do not seem to fit the classical definition of social movements. Fuentes Nieves and Feroci argue, referring to the new forms of connective action, that these changes require further study.
“...most definitions of social movements seem to be too narrow or obsolete to adequately describe what is currently happening in LAC, as in other regions of the globe. In most of the countries of the region it would be more accurate to talk about social eruptions of connected networks, which disappear and reappear rapidly to protest against specific issues. ICTs and social media play a key role in this continuous social work in progress, allowing active citizens to stay permanently interconnected and mobilise when a critical mass is built around a specific call for mobilisation. These ‘movements’ can have an impressive convening power. However, in most cases, their political and economic impact is still unclear, even if some implications can already be identified in sociocultural terms and with regard to emerging players (Fuentes Nieves & Feroci, 2017).
In Argentina, a series of mobilizations occurred between September 2012 and August 2013. These mobilizations were initiated by a group of cyber-activists who were not affiliated with any opposition parties or civic organizations. The first mobilization was promoted on September 13th, 2012, followed by two more on May 31st and June 6th. Around twenty cyber-activists consolidated and organized the largest protest in September, which drew between 80,000 and 200,000 people to the streets of Buenos Aires. The protesters had a diverse range of demands, including economic concerns, corruption, the erosion of institutions, and poor
public services. Overall, the mobilization was considered very successful. (Gold & Peña, 2021, pp. 331-332).
In 2013, a protest took place in Brazil against an increase in bus fares in Sao Paulo. The police responded violently, and the government and mainstream media tried to undermine the protest of an already existing social movement called Movimento Passe Livre. This led to a public outcry that led to a series of large demonstrations in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, and Belo Horizonte that lasted for three weeks. During these demonstrations, conservative cyber-activists like ROL and Nas Ruas gained visibility and strength on social networks. The Facebook profile Movimento Brasil Livre played a vital role in changing public opinion on corruption, thePT, and in demanding political reforms (Gold & Peña, 2023, p. 103). (Avritzer, 2019, p. 255).
In September 2014, 43 students in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero, were forcefully disappeared in Mexico, which led to massive protests. These demonstrations were primarily organized through social media using the hashtag #YaMeCansé, political parties and social movements playing a marginal role in organizing these protests. Likewise, in Guatemala, social media played a significant role in organizing the #RenunciaYa movement, which called for the president and vicepresident to step down and face corruption charges. (Fuentes et al., 2017).
IV. Concluding Remarks: The exhaustion of the third wave of democratization
The civil society paradigm is an important conceptual tool for analyzing and evaluating democratization processes. During the transitions from authoritarianism in the third wave of democratization, there was much optimism about the potential of liberal democratic rule. This led to a tacit liberal democratic consensus that shaped the analysis of democratic consolidation processes as well as efforts at improving the quality of the noveldemocracies. However, things have changed since then. The end of the liberal consensus and the growth of civic disenchantment with existing democratic regimes indicates that the third wave has reached its moment of stagnation or even reversal.[13]
According to the wave metaphor, democratization does not move forward in a straight line, but in cycles of expansion and reversal. The current stage is part of the usual ebb and flow of democratization dynamics, and it forces us to adjust
the original civil society conceptual framework to the realities of the recessive face that usually follows any significant expansion of democratic rule. The question is whether the original presuppositions of the civil society model, elaborated for the democracy expansion stage, still hold or need to be readjusted according to the challenges that the reverse stage poses, as per Huntington's theory.
The current situation requires us to broaden the original framework to encompass other dimensions and challenges that, during the peak of the democratization process, were not as significant as they are today. The model's assertive role in promoting democracy through civil society is still valid, despite the existence of trends that seek to undo previous democratizing gains. Civil society actors will continue to push for democratization, bringing new claims and agendas to light. However, this period may require a balance between aggressive efforts to promote democracy and defensive efforts to preserve the already achieved gains.
Today’s stage of political reversal is different from previous ones, as it involves a pattern of democratic backsliding or hybridization instead of regime breakdown (Bermeo, 2016; Peruzzotti, 2022). In this context, the role of democratic civil society becomes especially important. Since these processes are happening within democratic regimes, it is crucial for civil society to be able to block, slow down, or reverse them. The democratic capacities developed during the previous democratization stage are crucial in preventing or constraining existing autocratization efforts. The hostile political environment of the reverse face tests the strength of the rights protection infrastructure that civil societies developed during more propitious times and forces them to rethink and renew strategies to hold governments accountable. This reversal stage is an opportunity to test the strength of the democratic system.
During the reversal period, the importance of civic groups that were previously sidelined becomes more apparent. Initially, the focus was on collective learning and political innovation. However, during the current period, the efforts of conservative societytoundo previous achievements made in democratizing the country became more prominent. Consequently, it became necessary to reevaluate the role of democratic civic sectors, which are no longer combating a dictatorship but rather organized groups of fellow citizens who are engaging in counter-claim making..[14] Another issue is that of uncivil groups, such as
organized crime, civilian militias, gangs, or vigilante groups, that, by engaging in illegal activities, openly erode democratic and rule of law institutions.
Modern democratic societies are encountering unforeseen challenges that can potentially harm essential aspects of democratic life. Civic actors must take defensive measures to protect the liberal democratic order. At the same time, the foundations of such order are being defied by significant structural changes as argued in the previous section. The defensive efforts at protecting the liberal democratic order are commendable, but cannot replace the crucial role assigned to civil society by the reviewed theory. Finding new alternatives to the current situation and responses to ongoing structural transformations is the most important democratic imperative at present.
V. References
Alvarez, Sonia, Evelina Dagnino, & Arturo Escobar, Eds. (1998) Cultures of Politics, Politics of Culture. Re-envisioning Latin American Social Movements, Boulder, Co., Westview
Anria, Santiago (2019). When Movements Become Parties. The Bolivian MAS in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Arato, Andrew & Jean L. Cohen (2022) Populism and Civil Society. The Challenge to Constitutional Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Arico, José (1988) La Cola del Diablo. Itinerario de Gramsci en América Latina, Buenos aires, Puntosur.
Avrtizer, Leonardo (2002). Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America, Princeton, Princeton University Press (2009) Participatory Institutions in Democratic Brazil, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press (2017) The Two Faces of Institutional Innovation: Promises and Limits of Democratic Participation in Latin America, Advances in Critical Policy Studies Series, Edward Elgar Publishing
(2019) “The Double Crisis of Representation and Participation in Brazil” Representation. Journal of Representative Democracy, 55.3, pp. 252-263
Barros, Robert (1986). “The Left and Democracy. Recent Debates in Latin America” Telos 20, 49-70.
Biroli, Flavia (2019) “Direitos em disputa: género em foco, democracia em xeque” in L. Avritzer et. al. Eds. Pensando a Democracia, a Republica e o Estado de Direito no Brasil, Belo Horizonte, UFMg, pp.61-68
Biroli, Flavia & Marian Caminotti (2021). “The Conservative Backlash against Gender in Latin America” Politics & Gender, 16, pp. 1-38.
Bonner, Michelle D. (2009a). “State Discourses, Police Violence, and Democratization in Argentina” Bulletin of Latin American Research, 28:2
(2009b) “Media as Social Accountability: The case of Police Violence in Argentina,” International Journal of Press and Politics, 14:3
(2014) Policing Protest in Argentina and Chile, Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner Publishers
Brinks, Daniel M. (2007). The Judicial Response to Police Killings in Latin America: Inequality and the Rule of Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caminotti, Mariana & Constanza Tabbusch (2021) “El Embate neoconservador a las Políticas de Igualdad de Género tras el fin del `Giro a la Izquierda´en América Latina” Población y Sociedad, 28:2, pp. 29-50.
Carmody, Michelle Frances (2018). Human Rights, Transitional Justice, and the Reconstruction of Political Order in Latin America
Cohen, Jean L. (1982). Class and Civil Society. The Limits of Marxian Critical Theory, Amherst, The University of Massachusetts Press.
Cohen, Jean L. & Andrew Arato (1995). Civil Society and Political Theory, Cambridge: The MIT Press
Brysk, Alison (1994). The Politics of Human Rights in Argentina: Protest, Change, and Democratization, Palo Alto, CA. Stanford University Press
Dagnino. Evelina, Alberto J. Olvera & Aldo Panfichi (coordinadores), La Disputa por la Construcción Democrática en América Latina, México, CIESAS y Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Denissen, Marieke (2008) Winning Small Battles, Losing the War: Police Violence, the Movimiento del Dolor, and Democracy in Post-Authoritarian Argentina, Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
Diez, Jordi (2023) “Lesbian and Gay Social Movements in Latin America” in F. Rossi Ed. The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Social Movements, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp.406-421.
Dixon, Kwame & Kia Lilly Caldwell (2023) “Afro-Social Movements and the Struggle for Racial Equality in Latin America” in F. Rossi, Ed. The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Social Movements, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 371-388.
Ewig, Christina & Elizabeth Friedman (2023) “Women´s Movements in Latin America” in F. Rossi, Ed. The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Social Movements, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 336-354
Fernandez, Rubén César (1994) Private But Public : The Third Sector In Latin America, Rio de Janeiro, Civicus.
Fontana, Lorenza : (2023) “Identity in Latin American Movements” in F. Rossi, Ed. The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Social Movements, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 590-603
Fox, Jonathan (2007) Accountability Politics: Power and Voice in Rural Mexico, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Fuentes-Nieva, Ricardo & Gianandrea Nelli Feroci (2017) The Evolving Role and Influence and Growing Strength of Social Movements in Latin America and the Caribbean, International Development Policy, vol. 9, pp. 323-338 https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.2378
Goldfrank, Benjamin (2011) Deepening Local Democracy in Latin America. Participation, Decentralization, and the Left, State College, PA. Penn State Press
Gonzalez Bombal, Inés y María Sondereguer, “Derechos Humanos y Democracia” en Elizabeth Jelin, comp. Movimientos Sociales y Democracia Emergente 1, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina, pp. 85-112.
Habermas, Jurgen (2022) “Reflections and Hypotheses on a Further Transformation of the Public Sphere” Theory, Culture & Society, 39:4, pp. 145-171.
(1996) Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, Ma. The MIT Press
Heller, Patrick (2022) Democracy in the Global South, Annual Review of Sociology, 46, pp. 463-84
Hite, Katherine Hite & Paola Cesarini (2004) Authoritarian Legacies and Democracy in Latin America and Southern Europe, South Bend, In., Kellogg Institute Series on Democracy and Development
Howard, Philip N. (2020) Lie Machines. How to Save Democracy from Troll Armies, Deceitful Robots, Junk News Operations, and Political Operatives, New Hampshire, Yale University Press
Isunza Vera, Ernesto & Alberto J. Olvera, Coords. (2006) Democratización, Rendición de Cuentas y Sociedad Civil. Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, Mexico DF: Miguel Ángel Porrúa
Jelin, Elizabeth (2019) Constructing Democracy: Human Rights, Citizenship, and Society in Latin America, New York, Routledge.
Landim, Leilah & Andrés Thompson (1997) “Non-governmental organisations and philanthropy in Latin America: an overview” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 337350
Lao-Montes, Agustín (2017) “ Mapping the field of Afro-Latin American Politics” in Sonia Alvarez et al., Eds. Beyond Civil Society. Activism, Participation, and Protest in Latin America, Duke University Press, pp. 103-121.
Lapegan, Pablo (2016) Soybeans and Power. Genetically Modified Crops, Environmental Policy, and Social Movements in Argentina, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Lechner, Norbert (1986) “De la Revolución a la Democracia” La Ciudad Futura, 2, 33-26.
Leis, Héctor Ricardo (1989) El Movimiento por los Derechos Humanos y la Política Argentina I, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina.
Lean, Sharon F. (2012) Civil Society and Electoral Accountability in Latin America, New York, N.Y., Palgrave Macmillan.
O´Donnell, Guillermo & P. Schmitter (1986) Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press
Olvera, Alberto J. (coordinador) (2003) Sociedad Civil, Esfera Pública y Democratización en Amèrica Latina, México, Universidad Veracruzana & Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Oxhorn, Philip D. (1995a) Organizing Civil Society. The Popular Sectors and the Struggle for Democracy in Chile, State College, Pa., Penn State Press.
(1995b) “From Controlled Inclusion to Coerced Marginalization: The Struggle for Civil Society in Latin America” in John H. Hall, Ed. Civil Society. Theory, History, Comparisons, Cambridge, Polity Press, pp. 250-277
Paparcharissi, Zizi (2015) Affective Publics. Sentiment, Technology, and Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Peruzzotti, Enrique (2022) “Contrasting Classical and Contemporary Populist Regimes. From Democratization to Democratic Hybridization,” Populism, 5(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-bja10038
(2002) “Towards a New Politics: Citizenship and Rights in Contemporary Argentina,” Citizenship Studies, 6:1, pp. 77-93
(2001) “La democratización de la democracia : cultura política, esfera pública y aprendizaje colectivo en la Argentina posdictatorial” in Isidoro Cheresky,
Ed, Política e instituciones en las nuevas democracias latinoamericanas, Buenos Aires, Paidós, pp. 289-308.
Peruzzotti, Enrique (1999) “Constitucionalismo, populismo y sociedad civil. Lecciones del caso argentino” Revista Mexicana de Sociología, Vol. 61, No. 4. (Oct.Dec., 1999), pp. 149-172.
Peruzzotti, Enrique & Martín Plot (2013) Critical Theory and Democracy. Civil Society, Dictatorship, and Constitutionalism in Andrew Arato´s Democratic Theory” New York and London, Routledge.
Peruzzotti, Enrique & Catalina Smulovitz, Eds. (2006), Enforcing the Rule of Law. Social Accountability in Latin America, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh University Press
Portantiero, Juan Carlos (1988) La Producción de un Orden. Buenos Aires, Nueva Visión.
(1983) Los Usos de Gramsci. Buenos Aires, Folios Ediciones.
Raventós, Ciska (editor) (2006) Democratic Innovation in the South. Participation, Representation in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Buenos Aires, CLACSO.
Reckwitz, Andreas (2020) The Society of Singularities, London, Polity Press.
Rice, Roberta (2023) “Indigenous Movements in Latin America” in F. Rossi, Ed. The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Social Movements, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 354-388
Roitter, Mario, Regina Rippetoe y Lester M. Salamon “Descubriendo el sector sin fines de lucro en Argentina: su estructura y su importancia económica” Buenos Aires, Documentos de Trabajo CEDES 12.
Rossi, Federico M. (2023) “Social Movements and Capitalist Models of Development in Latin America” in F. Rossi, Ed. The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Social Movements, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 229 - 248
Ruibal, Alba (2023) “Legal Mobilization. Social Movements and the Judicial System across Latin America”inF.Rossi,Ed. The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Social Movements, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 746-760
Schmitter, Philippe (1971) Interest Conflict and Political Change in Brazil, Palo Alto, Standford University Press
Seele, Andrew & EnriquePeruzzotti, Eds., (2009) Participatory Innovation and Representative Democracy, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press
Seman, Pablo & Maria Pilar García Bossio (2021) “Evangelicals and Politicians in Argentina and Brazil: transformations and conservative choices” Cultural Studies, 35:6, pp. 1049-1066.
Smulovitz, Catalina & Enrique Peruzzotti (2000) “Societal Accountability in Latin America” Journal of Democracy, 11:4, 147-158
Smulovitz, Catalina & Enrique Peruzzotti (2003) “Societal and Horizontal Controls. Two cases about a fruitful relationship” in Scott Mainwaring and C. Welna (eds.) Democratic Accountability in Latin America, Oxford University Press, pp. 309-332.
Staab, Philipp & Thorsten Thiel (2022) “Social Media and the Digital Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” Theory, Culture & Society, 39:4, pp. 129-143
Stanley, Ruth (2005) “Controlling the Police in Buenos Aires. A Study of Horizontal and Social Accountability” Bulletin of Latin American Research, 24:1, pp. 71-91
Tatagiba, Luciana (2002) “Los Consejos Gestores y la Democratización de las Políticas Públicas en Brasil” in E. Dagnino, Ed Sociedad Civil, Esfera Pública y Democratización en América Latina: Brasil, Mexico, Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 305-368
Thompson, Andrés (1995) Público y privado: las organizaciones sin fines de lucro en la Argentina, Buenos Aires; Losada
Ulrich, Katryn (2011) Social Accountability in Guatemala. Towards an End to Impunity? Saarbrucken, VDM Verlag.
Veiga, Raúl (1985) Las Organizaciones de Derechos Humanos, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina.
Wampler, Brian (2015) Activating Democracy in Brazil. Popular Participation, Social Justice, and Interlocking Institutions, Notre Dame, Indiana, Notre Dame University Press.
Wells, Chris (2015) The Civic Organization and the Digital Citizen. Communicating Engagement in a Networked Age, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
VI. Notes
[1] The V. W. Kellogg Foundation, Civicus, and the International Society for Third-Sector Research provided funding for different initiatives in the region aimed at measuring the scope of the third sector in different countries, professionalizing NGOs, promoting corporate social responsibility, and strengthening and renewing philanthropic organizations.
[2] Authors working on the critical tradition saw an elective affinity between that approach and the market-oriented policies that many new democracies were promoting. The transference of social responsibilities from the state to “efficient” civil society organizations complied with the tenets of the paradigm shift neoliberal reformers sought to implement. From this perspective, civil society fundamentally referred to a narrow subset of civic organizations: professionalized, apolitical NGOs, not social movements or contentious initiatives (Dagnino et al., 2006).
[3] The Ford Foundation contributed to such diffusion by funding several important regional projects on civil society and democratization that congregated a large and prestigious number of scholars who were aligned with the critical perspective. See Dagnino, Olvera & Panfichi, 2006, Olvera, 2003; Panfichi 2002; Dagnino, 2002; Smulovitz & Peruzzotti, 2000; Peruzzotti & Smulovitz, 2006.
[4] Civil society is simultaneously the target and the terrain of collective action. Through a politics of identity that mainly unfolds in civil society, movements seek to redefine cultural norms and individual and collective identities. At the same time, to secure its gains in civil society, initiatives are hoped
to open up the political system to the new articulated identities (Cohen & Arato, 1992, p. 326)
[5] The public sphere and civil society are intimately intertwined since they are crucial for institutionalizing democratic processes of bottom-up communication and political will formation. The civil society argument refers to organized actors that emerge from the public (social movements, civic associations) instead of those that appear before the public (like interest groups and political parties). Journalism and the mass media are a third actor that, thanks to the gatekeeping role played in a mass-media-dominated public sphere, develop a specific power distinct from the discursively generated one of civil society and that of money and administration of interest groups and political parties.
[6] Through the politics of rights in civil society, citizens seek to overcome the tension between social. facticity and the normative principles that validate democratic institutions (Habermas, 1996, p. 384).
[7] It is against the normative potential of the proposed concept of a democratic civil society that existing movements and societies will be evaluated. Such exercise would led to distinguishing between different sorts of `really existing civilsocieties’: more or less institutionalized, more or less mobilized, more or less democratic (Cohen & Arato, 1992, p. 17) as well as from different types of associational initiatives on whether they are civil society and democracy enforcing or not.
[8] While the democratization paradigm granted a role to civil society, it was confined to the moment of authoritarian liberalization. In such a perspective, civil society seems to exist only in a mobilized form and in tension with institutionalization. O´Donnell and Schmitter value social mobilization or popular upsurges given the role they might play at destabilizing authoritarianism but they view them as problematic in the stage of institutionalization; thus, their turn to political society and their call for the demobilization of civil society. (O´Donnell & Schmitter, 1996; Peruzzotti, 1999).
[9] Populist movement politics differs from the civil society framework in three aspects:
a) it claims to represent the whole rather than a sector of society, deploying a friend-enemy logic that is inimical to the idea of civil society as the arena where a plurality of legitimate views, opinions, and interests are formed and transformed,
b) it rejects the framework of political self-limitation that dualistic politics implies, usually turning the catch-all movement into a catch-all movement party that refuses to abandon its polarizing logic in government, for it conceives itself as the only legitimate spokesman to the people,
d) and, most importantly, conceiving themselves as the embodiment of the people, populism erases the tension between constitutional norms and reality that feeds civil society politics of contestation and accountability.
[10] Among the most relevant experiences of civic domestic election monitoring was that of Alianza Cívica in Mexico. Alianza Cívica was a nonpartisan civic network that engaged in massive citizen monitoring efforts since Mexico’s 1994 presidential elections, monitoring dozens of state and local elections (Lean, 2012, Olvera ). Its electoral accountability efforts reformed the Federal Election Institute by inserting a societal decision-making logic into the organization (the socalled process of IFE´s ciudadanición). Unfortunately, such improvements were subsequently undermined as the Institute became mired in partisan divisions. Venezuela provides another example of the rise of organizations like Qeremos Elegir, Sumate, and Ojo Electoral to monitor domestic elections (Lean, 2012, pp. 92-109).
[11] For an analysis of the crisis of such system see Avrtizer, 2019
[12] A whole industry of computational propaganda has emerged to produce, distribute, and market fake news to the right audience by manipulating data and algorithms to serve a political agenda . That industry has three components: political actors producing the lies, social media doing the distribution, and political consultants doing the marketing. They are responsible for major disinformation campaigns, misleading their targeted public and producing distrust on the institutions of democracy (Howard, 2020).
[13] The global ascendancy of populism has opened a definitional conflict over the meaning of democracy that crosses and divides contemporary civil
societies. Right and left populist movements are now an established feature of the public life of most democracies, providing an alternative democratizing path to the one postulated by the civil society paradigm. Specfically, contemporary populism presents a challenge to the politics of civil society in two dimensions. As a movement, it expresses a form of bottom-up politics that, through the intervention of skillful political entrepreneurs, turns the mobilization of disparate and unaggregated grievances into broad and dramatic identity struggles between people and elites (Aslanidis, 2017, pp. 319-320). In some cases, such form of antisystem catch-all discourse might promote a politics of pure negativity towards established institutions and fill the public sphere with an outburst of accusations and denunciations, undermining civil society´s judgment and accountability role (Arato & Cohen, 2022, p. 130).
[14] The politicization wave that brought about the lifeworld´s democratization, notably on gender and LGBT+ issues, for instance, has precipitated a backlash from traditional sectors that target, in emotionally polarizing cultural wars, the rights and legislation in the realm of sexuality and reproduction (Biroli & Caminotti, 2020; Caminotti & Tabbusch, 2021; Seman & Garcia Bossio, 2021). The ascendancy of religious groups in Brazil, Colombia, or Peru questioning the legitimacy of LGBT and sexual and reproductive rights, or the recent campaigns to challenge the implementation of sexual education in schools, such as “Con mis hijos no te metas” in Colombia and Peru or the “Escola sem Partido” in Brazil (Biroli, 2019) provide notable examples of the sorts of challenges that contemporary rights politics faces.
NOTES ON THE USE OF DIGITAL TOOLS AS AN INSTRUMENT
OF POLITICAL MOBILIZATION
Matías Bianchi and M. Belén Ortíz
Two-thirds of humanity are connected to the internet, mostly through mobile phones, and their main use is social networks (Statista 2023). The development of the Internet and, in particular, the massive expansion of social networks has had a significant impact on the configuration of political and social action in our societies.
This work reflects on the characteristics and influence of digital technologies, specifically social networks, on political processes over the last decade in Latin America. Of particular interest is the articulation process of emerging political movements or organizations that have been generating new public spaces and developing alternative modalities of exercising power since the beginning of the 21st century. Many of them managed to incorporate digital technologies and social networks as allies to promote agendas, visualize actors, and build political collectives, which has allowed them to establish new forms of relationship both among themselves and with political power. There was a general consensus that political movements linked to digital technologies would improve the quality of democracies in the region.
However, a decade later, the situation is quite different. The quality of democracy and levels of trust in institutions are at historic lows in Latin America. Increasingly, citizens in the region see an authoritarian alternative as viable to solve their problems (Latinobarómetro 2023). Likewise, according to the same measurement, globally only 8% of countries inhabit full democracies, translating to only three countries for Latin America, with 60% losing their democratic status in the region. What has happened along the way?
This work analyzes, as a relevant factor, the relationship between the deterioration of democracy and the increase in hostility in public debate over the last decade, particularly exacerbated by digital technologies and the creation of new spaces for public discussion. New mechanisms of democratic erosion have developed, such as digital manipulation, algorithm-mediated polarization, and tribal fragmentation in digital spaces. Social networks, as the main channels of
communication, have been plagued by bots, trolls, and fake news, contributing to the erosion of trust in institutions, the political process, and democracy in general. Social and political polarization has increased considerably, making it difficult to seek consensus and the ability to engage in political dialogue among different groups. Furthermore, de facto powers have exploited digital tools to promote their agendas, while emerging movements have adopted more tribalistic and selfreferential positions.
This work is based on a review of specialized literature and in-depth interviews with activists and movements in Latin America linked to environmental activism (#FridayForFuture), feminism (#NiUnaMenos), and the student movement (#YoSoy132), among others. It does not aim to conduct a comprehensive and comparative analysis of these movements, nor to provide definitive explanations, but rather to contribute elements of analysis to the broader debate on the role of digital technologies in the protest mechanisms of social and political movements in a context of distrust in democratic institutions in Latin America.
I. From #OCCUPY to #NIUNAMENOS
With the expansion of the so-called "triple revolution," movements of collective action emerged that were born in the digital age and proposed new agendas, as well as a different political approach from that offered by traditional politics (Bianchi 2014). In this line, Latin America gave birth to its own experiences and was no exception. Initially, various forms of autonomous participation emerged that operated outside of public policies and traditional institutions. These social and political movements effectively channeled the imaginaries and political action of new generations, mostly digital natives and democratic natives, using emerging protest mechanisms.
In 2016, Asuntos del Sur conducted a survey of over 1200 activists in Latin America, where focus groups were also conducted in Honduras, Brazil, and Ecuador, with the aim of understanding ideas, tools used, and forms of exercising power by emerging movements (Bianchi et al 2017). Some of the results obtained (Table 1) highlight a marked contrast in political perceptions between members of traditional political parties and emerging social movements, related to significant differences such as the preference for a participatory perspective of democracy rather than a representative one; the adoption of network structures
versus traditional militant groups; the promotion of horizontal power relations versus hierarchical ones; and a greater propensity for experimentation rather than clinging to established procedures. At this time, the low cost of access to social networks, algorithmic laxity, ease of use, and the ubiquity of mobile phones allowed them to become tools for political experimentation.
Table 1. Comparative preferences and perceptions about politics: Political Groups - Emerging Social Movements
Political Groups Social Movements
Political representation Participation
Hierarchy Horizontalism
Beliefs
Feelings
Building of the future Transformation of the present
Belonging group Network
Institutionalization/organic Experimentation
Macro Revolutions Micro Revolutions
Source: Bianchi et al 2017: 56
Despite living in times of sustained economic growth, these generations faced persistent challenges in political and social spheres, such as structural inequality, racism, and gender equality. In this context, issues of gender equality and diversity, the environment, and combating corruption needed to be integrated into the public agenda. Internationally, we observe how movements like Occupy Wall Street, organizations that emerged in the so-called "Arab Spring," the Spanish #15M, or the Greek protests were manifestations of a new type of articulated politics, largely driven by digital technologies.
Meanwhile, in Latin America, cases such as the Chilean students, the #YoSoy132 movement in Mexico, the Yasunidos in Ecuador, the PasseLivre movement in Brazil, among others, were acting with a common focus: dissatisfaction with the functioning of politics. The empowering capacity of digital technologies was considered an important and promising element in the
transformation and innovation of the political space in terms of involvement, democratization of debates and decision-making, formation of political collectives, among other aspects. For the leaders of these new generations, the interest was in citizen participation, but differentiating themselves from traditional configurations such as participation through political parties lacking legitimacy or disconnected from the citizenship they claimed to represent (FeixaPàmpols and Ospina, 2014).
These emerging movements had their roots in student, urban, and countercultural movements of the 20th century, incorporating the digital space as a new space for public debate and activism. This allowed the emergence of new protest mechanisms that spread connectively through social networks and cyberspace.
In this context, digital technologies assumed an important rolein thesenew social movements that had different perceptions about political action. This generated a techno-utopian enthusiasm that led to the belief that these technologies could become fundamental elements for transforming democracies and forms of political participation, at least asthese movements expressed. It was thoughtthattechno-political orientations(Gerbaudo, 2018), which determinehow a certain technology is conceived and used, could be allies of protests, promote greater horizontal decision-making, broaden public debate, and give visibility to new agendas and emerging leaderships.
These expressions show a techno-utopian view - optimistic and idealizedof the link between technology and the new politics that seems to contrast with the nature of traditional political action. Political emergence showed territorial social processes (bottom-up), more horizontal, diverse, and with open practices, promising a horizon of transformation of democracies, at least in Latin America.
II. The political context matters
In the first 15 years of the 21st century, social movements in Latin America operated in a context of "political possibility." During this period, the region experienced the rise to power of progressive governments that promoted the expansion of civil and social rights in various countries. This phenomenon, conceptualized by various authors as the "pink tide," seemed to offer - with
notable exceptions - a terrain of tolerance for dissent and active participation of civil society in shaping and influencing public policies.
During these years of relative political openness, movements emerged that pushed agendas, for example, against endemic corruption ("Las Antorchas" in Central America or #VemPraRua in Brazil). At the same time, other emerging movements criticized the limitations of the "pink tide" for addressing feminist (#NiUnaMenos in Argentina) or environmentalist agendas (#Yasunidos in Ecuador or Tipnis in Bolivia), among others, in a superficial and unfocused manner. The need for a more inclusive and sustainable vision of development in a context of commodity price booms partly supported the redistributive policies of progressive governments. As sociologist Ariel Goldstein mentions, there were major social protests that arose during times of economic expansion, moments of greater development.
However, starting in 2011, the region experienced a drop in commodity prices, which affected the rest of the economic activity in the countries. From that year on, a "new lost decade" began with economic growth of less than 2% (ECLAC, 2023). This decrease in economic activity put pressure on governments that found themselves with less fiscal muscle to finance social programs and invest in expanding rights. Therefore, the economic boom in the region began to fade.
Globally, there was the emergence of authoritarian political references and, in some cases, openly antidemocratic ones, such as the election of Donald Trump in the United States and Brexit - along with the presence of leaders like Boris Johnson - in the United Kingdom. These events strengthened concerns about the health of democracy in the West and had an impact on the perception of the viability of democratic systems around the world.
In Latin America, the decline in economic activity and the fiscal capacity of governments, along with international references to extreme alternatives, set the stage for the gradual closure of civic space. At the regional level, since 2016, there has been a continuous and deep deterioration of democracy. Currently, 60% of countries have lost their democratic status, and only Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Chile maintain their rating as full democracies; followed by incomplete democracies that mostly show signs of stagnation such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Panama, and the Dominican Republic. In addition, the study identifies eight countries with hybrid democracies (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, and Bolivia) and four where a directly authoritarian regime prevails (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2022).
At the same time, violence levels escalated in the region. In recent years, alarming numbers of political leaders and activists have been murdered in the region, such as the emblematic cases of Marielle Franco in Brazil and Berta Cáceres in Honduras. This highlights political violence and its significant impact on the security of human rights defenders, as well as the ability of social movements to operate in a safe environment. In 2022 alone, 401 murders of land defenders, environmentalists, indigenous peoples, women, and the LGBTIQ community were recorded, and Latin America continues to be the region with the highest number of deaths for these reasons (Frontline Defenders, 2022). Direct violence has intensified in Latin America and the Caribbean, with over 340 social leaders murderedfrom 2016 to 2018 (45% in 2018), over 200 attacks on journalists so far this year, and over 500 deaths in Nicaragua since April 2018. This is compounded by increased budgets for militarization and cybersecurity, as well as new legislation to criminalize protests in Mexico, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Peru, and several attempts in other countries. Therefore, the context of "political possibility" that characterized the early years gave way to a closure of civic space.
According to a survey conducted by Asuntos del Sur of activists in 2019, 56% of the surveyed activistshad experienced violence themselves, and 75% were considering leaving their political activism (Asuntos del Sur, 2020).
Furthermore, there is a growing dissatisfaction with democracy expressed by citizens. Despite a continuous demand for democracy and trust in it, there are also doubts about whether democracy can really produce significant and effective results. These doubts have led to a resurgence of authoritarianism and challenges associated with a new neo-extractivist period, which is related to problems such as inequality and concentration of wealth, corruption, and climate change (Open Society Foundations, 2023). It is particularly worrying to see how dissatisfaction deepens among youth. 35% of young people believe that a 'strong leader' not democratically elected or consulting Parliament could effectively govern a country (Latinobarómetro, 2023).
Thepandemicexacerbated socialunrest. Theeconomicimpact, lossof jobs, mental health costs, combined with the inadequacy of governments' capabilities to address them, intensified social unrest. In this context, authoritarian views gained popularity, such as those of Bukele in El Salvador or some practices of Lopez Obrador, strengthening openly antidemocratic options.
As Pedro Kumamoto, interviewed by #YoSoy132/leader of Wikipolítica and the Future Party - Mexico, argues:
"The issue of 'We have no home, we have no work, economic systempolitical system - hope' was raised again. And so, you can get to Milei in Argentina. (...) The right managed to connect the new with very deep things, it says how life is lived and who is to blame."
In this context of political, social, and economic transformation, the use of digital technologies becomes crucial in mobilization dynamics. Initially, digital technologies played a facilitating and articulating role for movements that contributed to the formation of globalized agendas, political expression, and citizen organization. However, later these technologies contributed to the deterioration of democracy, fostering an atmosphere of skepticism and the closure of civic space in the region. In part, this is due to the increase in repression and digital discipline with governments opting to limit freedom of expression and democratic narratives in all areas of public debate, including the digital sphere. Hostility resulting from algorithmic polarization intensified in digital spaces, becoming an echo chamber for the tension that permeated the region. This contributed to the fragmentation of the political and social fabric, as well as the construction of public perceptions and political narratives that undermined political and social mobilization and organization.
III. Changes in digital platforms
The decentralized structure of the internet and the creation of free and open digital platforms rapidly transformed into tactical-political devices for collective action for social movements around the world.
With the emergence of social networks, the way people interacted and communicated daily underwent a significant transformation. The connected community expanded, allowing people to establish contact, share information,
and relate to a diversity of individuals, groups, and spaces. This led to new grounds for organization and collective action. In this sense, platforms like Facebook and Twitter played a fundamental role by allowing people to share messages, organize events, participate, and connect with other activists and likeminded organizations at very low cost. Online affinity became accessible with just one click, creating spaces for discussion and debate where people shared experiences, ideas, and proposals, contributing to the construction of a virtual community that initially appeared horizontal, geographically decentralized, and with almost negligible structural and economic costs.
The growth and dissemination of "effervescence" social activism allowed power articulations on the margins and from the margins of traditional politics (Bianchi, 2014). Digital platforms served as a vehicle for resistance movements that sought to organize critical responses to established power structures and promoted a politics that challenged the hegemonic way of thinking about society and politics in general. Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and others allowed for the organization of groups that broke historically closed ranks of militancy to allow spontaneous, plural, and more horizontal gathering of expressions.
Pedro Kumamoto, interviewed by #YoSoy132/reference of Wikipolítica and the Future Party - Mexico, points out that the visibility of the process on social networks was fundamental for the emergence of #YoSoy132:
"The precise reaction of those who were booed and took a selfie (Selfie Campaign) was to show that we were many, facing forward. I am part of that, I am #YoSoy132. (...) There was already a spirit of the time, but there was no way for us to know each other. The encounter enabled us to become a social network of encounter. Before, I used social networks for other things, but there I realized that it had a political dimension."
The relationship between technology and collective action was dialectical. Social networks and digital media assumed a fundamental role in the activism of these movements due to their mutual adaptability in demands and needs. The need for an alternative model of participation, more horizontal, which allowed free expression and decentralization, was supported by new information and communication technologies as enablers for these purposes. The Internet and social networking platforms impacted the way political interest groups were
organized, allowing greater decentralized and self-organized coordination among flexible networks of people (Chadwick and Howard, 2008). Movements like #Antorchas in CentralAmerica managed toorganize demonstrations thatbrought together previously unarticulated groups, identified in the traditional political sphere, with often opposing sectors.
Therefore, digital technologies became increasingly important for the organization and mobilization of activists and citizens, with connective action gaining more significance. The rapid adoption of social networks and other online platforms by various activist collectives allowed efficient and effective outreach to national and international audiences at low cost; at the same time, the plurality in the social composition of themovements began tohavean impact on the diversity of political positions, approaches, and perspectives that constituted them.
In the words of Natalia Fontana, a reference for #NiUnaMenos Argentina, social networks allowed for openly convening assemblies, ensuring a diversity of positions, stances, and people that was fundamental. According to the reference, "... all the assemblies that were held in other times, perhaps more complex, tried to be convened by companions from organizations that were already the ones that always participated, it was not the same. There was a ceiling there regarding the discussions that could be had and the organizational balances that we could find in those assemblies. So at that time, it was super interesting how the networks accompanied what was happening..."
Digital platforms allowed for easier communication and organization in their early days to make a variety of voices and perspectives heard, sometimes prefiguring models of political alternatives. Thus, social networks, in their early days, as a tool have been used by activists and citizens to build a politics of calling and popular mobilization with the foundational plurality and horizontality of movements.
Social networks facilitated connection and collaboration among people with similar interests, both locally and nationally. As in the case of Javiera, a reference for #FridayForFuture Chile:
"At that time on Instagram, I followed many things related to the climate crisis and I found a video of Greta when she was not yet so well known, I started to follow her and see the things she had achieved, she was my same age and she
showed me that it was not necessary to be an adult to act and have some impact. When she made the first call for a global strike (...) I wanted us to do something in my city, I talked to some classmates and through Instagram, I saw that there were other people interested and we started to form a WhatsApp group and there we started organizing the march for March 15th. But besides establishing ourselves as a permanent movement, we saw on Instagram that in other cities in Chile they were also organizing, so we contacted them and we had a national WhatsApp group."
However, biases behind digital technologies and their transformations were increasingly crystallizing, adapting to the emerging economic model. These changes not only affected how people interacted online but also how information and opinions are presented and distributed in the digital public sphere. The business model of digital companies transformed, focusing on the appropriation of user data and theuse of algorithms for advertisements. Currently, the "bigtech" companies (Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, and Apple) control extensive collections of data that can be exploited to shape the opinions and behaviors of people. This is what Zuboff clearly conceptualized as "Surveillance Capitalism" (2016).
In this line, Rodrigo Serrano, interviewed reference for #YoSoy132 - Mexico, adds:
"(...) the internet is more a device for massive surveillance than a device for social influence. There is a risk in having opinions on the internet; they will end up in the files of the CIA and others no matter what. We are being monitored by data brokers; in Mexico, the military has just come out, which, in addition to hiring tools, also buys information from data brokers. It's no longer a free internet."
This model has also had a huge impact on collective action within and outside digital environments. The use of user information to sell it to those interested in manipulating political actions, biases to increase usage, limiting the reach of messages to create a need for payment, and the growing use of bots and trolls have turned social networks into a hostile space.
In addition to companies intensifying policies directed at their users, de facto powers that use social networking platforms for their growth and accumulation have also been observed. On some occasions, they employ tactics related to similar technologies, while in others, they learn from the tactics used by
protest movements in revolutions, uprisings, and strikes carried out in authoritarian countries, applying them to their own uprisings and objectives.
Rodrigo Serrano, adds in this regard:
"(Before) it was a very different internet; ithaschanged at the infrastructure level; the algorithm was less heavy; it was freer. Today the internet has changed brutally, today there are few companies that control; today it would be more difficult to organize a social movement.
IV. References
Interviews
Pedro Kumamoto, interviewed by #YoSoy132/representative of Wikipolítica and the Future Party – Mexico
Rodrigo Serrano, interviewed reference for #Yosoy132 - Mexico
Natalia Fontana, interviewed representative of #NiUnaMenos – Argentina
Ignacio Villarroya, interviewed by the #FridayForFuture movement, current representative of Youth for Climate – Argentina
Javiera, interviewed representative of #FridayForFuture - Chile
References
Alonso Muñoz, Laura. 2015. "Redes sociales y democracia. Una aproximación al debate sobre una relación compleja."
Annunziata, R. 2023. "Poner el cuerpo: La contingencia del vínculo entre formatos de involucramiento y efectos en las formas de participación de la era digital." Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 68, no. 245 (2023): 175198.
Aruguete, Natalia y Ernesto Calvo. 2018. “Time to #Protest: Selective Exposure, Cascading Activation, and Framing in Social Media.” Journal of Communication 68, no. 3: 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy007 .
Barberá, Pablo. 2020. «Internet y política: Consecuencias políticas y sociales de la revolución digital». Revista De Las Cortes Generales, n.º 108 (junio), 223-43. https://doi.org/10.33426/rcg/2020/108/1486.
Bedrosian, Alyssa. "Cómo #NiUnaMenos utilizó el discurso y los medios digitales para llegar a las masas en Argentina." Revista de investigaciones latinoamericanas (2022), 57, 100–116. [URL completa]. (Datos faltantes: URL completa)
Bianchi, M. 2014. “Democracia en los márgenes de la democracia: activismos en América Latina en la era digital.” Asuntos del sur. https://asuntosdelsur.org/publicacion/democracia-en-los-margenes-de-lademocracia-activismo-en-america-latina-en-la-era-digital/
Bianchi, M., Perini, A., León, C., y Barlassina, M. 2016. Liderazgos para el Siglo XXI. Una mirada a los programas de formación política en América Latina. Asuntos del Sur. Buenos Aires.
Bianchi, Matías, et al. 2016 "Transformaciones de la participación política en América Latina." Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Política, vol. 7, n. 2.
Bianchi, Matias. 2017 (Comp) "Recuperar la política.". Asuntos del Sur. http://www.recuperarlapolitica.org/
Briceño G., Rocío. "La Protesta en Redes Sociales como herramienta para los movimientos sociales." The Protest in Social Networks as a tool for social movements. Departamento de Antropología, Universidad de Chile.
Carbayo, Lucía. "¿Qué fue la Marea Rosa en América Latina?" Publicado el 18 de octubre de 2022. lisanews.org. https://www.lisanews.org/internacional/que-fue-la-marea-rosa-en-americalatina/
Chadwick, A., Howard, P.. 2008. “The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics.” Londres. Routledge. Agosto de 2008. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203962541
Conover MD, Ferrara E, Menczer F, Flammini A (2013) The Digital Evolution of Occupy Wall Street. PLoS ONE 8(5): e64679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064679
Conover, Michael D., et al. "The Digital Evolution of Occupy Wall Street" PLoS One. 2013; 8(5): e64679.
De Choudhury, Munmun, et al. "Participación en las redes sociales en un movimiento activista por la igualdad racial." Proc Int AAAI Conf Weblogs Soc Media. Mayo de 2016; 2016: 92-101.
Economist Intelligence Unit. 2023. Democracy Index 2022: Frontline democracy and the battle for Ukraine. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited.
Elgue-Martini, Cristina, et al. GLOBALIZACIÓN Y CONTRA-HEGEMONÍA: Estudio de casos en textos de la cultura de países de habla inglesa y de la Argentina. Colección "Lecturas del mundo." Córdoba, 2018.
Feixa-Pàmpols, Carles y Héctor Fabio Ospina. "Editorial" REVISTA LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES, NIÑEZ Y JUVENTUD, 2014. Editorial Zapata, Manizales.
Feldman, Hannah R. 2020. “A rhetorical perspective on youth environmental activism.” En Journal of Science Communication 19, no. 6: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19060307
Fuchs, C. y Mosco, V. (Eds.). 2015. Marx in the Age of Digital Capitalism. Leiden: Brill.
García-Estévez, Noelia. "ORIGEN, EVOLUCIÓN Y ESTADO ACTUAL DEL ACTIVISMO DIGITAL Y SU COMPROMISO SOCIAL. CIBERACTIVISMO, HACKTIVISMO AND SLACKTIVISM." Universidad de Sevilla.
Gerbaudo, Paolo. "From Cyber-Autonomism to Cyber-Populism: An Ideological Analysis of > the Evolution of Digital Activism". Triple-C Volumen 15. Publicado el 09 de julio de 2018. Última modificación el 12 de febrero de 2019. https://endefensadelsl.org/ciber_autonomismo.html
Guarna T., 2021. Es hora de preguntarnos cómo gobernar y habitar Internet. Cenital.
Jiménez González, A.; Rendueles Menéndez de Llano, C. (2020). Capitalismo digital: fragilidad social, explotación y solucionismo tecnológico. Teknokultura. Revista de Cultura Digital y Movimientos Sociales, 17(2), 95-101.
Lago Martínez, Silvia, María Cristina Alonso, Graciela Calvelo y Julieta Ojam. "Internet, cultura digital y contrahegemonía. Nuevas formas de intervención militante." Presentado en el XXVII Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología y las VIII Jornadas de Sociología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, organizado por la Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología en Buenos Aires, 2009. https://cdsa.aacademica.org/000-062/34
Lago Martínez, Silvia. "INTERNET, LAS REDES SOCIALES Y LA ACCIÓN COLECTIVA CONTEMPORÁNEA." Voces en el Fénix, N° 40 (11 de enero de 2014).
La Izquierda Diario. "Juventud. Seis años después del movimiento #YoSoy132." México. 2012: el año en que los jóvenes mexicanos tomaron las calles contra la antidemocracia y la represión. https://www.laizquierdadiario.com/Seis-anos-despues-del-movimientoYoSoy132
LATINOBARÓMETRO (2023). “Informe2023LA RECESIÓNDEMOCRÁTICADE AMÉRICA LATINA ”, Corporación Latinobarómetro.
Mallamaci, M & Gordon Daluz, P. 2022. "Tecno-utopías para más capitalismo." Revista Anfibia 14 (2022).
Nguyen, A. H., Kwon, M. P., & Lee, M. C. 2017. "The impact of social media on democracy: A systematic review." Social Science Computer Review 35, no. 5 (2017): 569-587.
Poiré, Alejandro. "Polarización, redes sociales y democracia: la alerta del elitismo." Publicado el 23 de septiembre de 2022.
Statista. 2023. "Porcentaje de internautas usuarios mensuales de redes sociales en todo el mundo entre 2020 y 2025." Statista. https://es.statista.com/estadisticas/1038439/porcentaje-de-internautasusuarios-mensuales-de-facebook-en-el-mundo/
Svampa, Maristella. "«Consenso de los Commodities» y lenguajes de valoración en América Latina." NUSO, número 244, marzo-abril de 2013. https://nuso.org/articulo/consenso-de-los-commodities-y-lenguajes-devaloracion-en-america-latina/
Villanueva Mansilla, Eduardo. "Acción conectiva, acción colectiva y medios digitales: posibilidades para la comunicación política en los tiempos de Internet." Contratexto, núm. 24, julio-diciembre, 2015: 57-76. Universidad de Lima, Surco, Perú.
Zuboff, Shoshana. "Google as a Fortune Teller: The Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism." Faz.net (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), 5 de marzo de 2016.
CIVIL SOCIETY IN REGIONAL GOVERNANCE
Jorge Garzon and Maria Hegglin
I. Introduction
An overview of the literature on the relationship between civil society and regional governance permits us to identify two main assumptions or arguments running through different branches of research. First, the idea that regionalism and the expansion of regional governance structures create new opportunities for transnational collective action and social activism beyond the nation-state; and, second, that the engagement of civil society might compensate for the democratic or accountability deficit of governance arrangements at the international level, which of course lack the same strong mechanisms of representation and participation that we find within national political communities. These two assumptions, let us organize the literature around four different groups of research questions:
1. The new opportunities for transnational collective action and social activism that regionalism creates might take the form of the formal inclusion of civil society in the policy-making processes of Regional Organizations (ROs). We label this group of literature top-down approaches, as these initiatives are undertaken by ROs, generally with the aim of legitimizing the regional governance project that they represent.
2. A second body of literature that follows from the former is devoted to the conceptualization and evaluation of the different roles that civil society actors might play when they interact with ROs; whether the promise that they can help increase the effectiveness and the legitimacy of regional governance projects is verified or not. We call this literature regionalismcivil society relations.
3. A third group of literature delves into the question of whether the emergence of a regional economic or political agenda that usually comes hand in hand with the launching of a regional governance project (regionalism), or the increase of social and economic interactions across a regional scape (regionalization) open spaces or opportunities for the grassroots mobilization of civil society actors coordinated across national boundaries. We label this literature bottom-up approaches
4. Finally, a fourth type of literature takes regionalism and regional governance as the dependent variable and asks whether transborder civil society activism at the regional level has an impact upon regionalism, either in changing the regional discussion agenda, its policies, or its social purpose. We call this literature, the transformative potential of transnational civil society.
In what follows, we review in detail each of these literature bodies. In doing so, when establishing the theoretical underpinnings of each of them, we take the perspective of the sub-disciplinary fields of Global Governance and Comparative Regionalism since these arguments emerged from diverse scholarly efforts aimed at making sense of problems and empirical phenomena situated both at the global- and regional level of analysis. When assessing the State of the Art, however, we focus exclusively on the Latin American case in line with the project’s mandate. At the end of each section, we identify the main questions for future research that emerge from each group of literature.
II. Top-down approaches
Under the umbrella of what we call top-down approaches we refer to research that approaches civil society from the point of view of the legitimation strategies of ROs. Following, Payne & Gamble (1996: 2), we understand regionalism as a “state-led project designated to reorganize a particular regional space along defined political and economic lines”, and ROs as the institutional expression of this project, or the written norms and rules of the type of cooperation that is required from states to realize that project. These are usually codified in an official intergovernmental treaty. Top-down approaches focus on the reasons for promoting civic society involvement in ROs (the “why” question) and the concrete mechanisms that ROs implement to enable and/or promote the participation of organized civil society interests at the regional level (the “how” question). In what follows, we examine each of these two sets of questions.
A. The “why” question: Democratic deficit and civil society-centered legitimation strategies
There is a consensus in the literature that ROs suffer from a democratic deficit because policymaking at the regional level is generally limited to executive agents, and mechanisms of electoral representation are weak or non-existent (Follesdal & Hix, 2006). Unlike the government of political communities at the national level, the degree to which regional governance structures and processes, as well as the policy output that they produce, are regarded as legitimate by those directly affected by them cannot be expressed or measured by conventional democratic means such as elections. Peters & Pierre (2004), for instance, argue that the passage from “government” (or centralized authority at thenational level) to “governance” (or the decentralized coordination among multiple authorities that takes place at the international level) irremediably produces a degradation of the democratic principles of political equality and control. These weaknesses inevitably open a gap between government and the governed at the regional level and make ROs especially vulnerable to crisis of legitimacy (Ribeiro-Hoffman & van der Vleuten, 2007). For example, Gerard & Mickle (2021: 404) claim that Brexit was theresultof a legitimacycrisis caused by an increasinglyautonomous technocracy that “has grown in scope and distance from European citizens…”.
Ebrahim & Weisband (2007: 2-4) identify four main aspects ofaccountability that become problematic at the international level: (1) “transparency”, that is, how information about the processes of global governance is made available for public scrutiny; (2) “justification”, when accountability mechanisms compel decisionmakers to give clear reasons or justifications for their actions; (3) “compliance” or monitoring that each actor is behaving as required; and (4) “enforcement”, or sanctions in case that actors are not complying as promised. As Steffek & Ferretti (2009) point out, Regional Authorities often do not have to assume responsibility for taking “bad decisions”, as there are no proper vertical and horizontal accountability systems at the international level.
The central claim of this group of literature is that civil society actors may potentially play a significant role in compensating each of these limitations of international accountability. Precisely for this reason, civil society actors would deserve a special place in the design and implementation of alternative pathways
to political legitimacy (Liebert & Trenz, 2011; Serbin, 2012; Kohler-Koch & Quittkat, 2013; Gerard & Mickler, 2021).
Thus, under certain conditions, the participation of civil society in ROs may help expose to the public, structures and processes that have remained obscure or under the sway of a few bureaucrats, their activism may force decision-makers to give justification of their actions and of the intended purpose of regional governance policies, they also publish or disseminate information about when actors have failed to comply, or when effectiveness has disappointed, and finally, they exercise some degree of enforcement through rallies, boycotts, “naming and shaming” and other forms of popular action.
Another way to view the possible contribution of civil society to the legitimacy and efficiency of ROs is the distinction between input and output legitimacy (Scharf 2003). Output legitimacy refers to the capacity of a political system to produce efficient and effective public interest-centered policy, and input legitimacy refers to participation in the decision-making process. Thus, civic society organizations may contribute of the effectiveness of governance by helping to formulate polices “aligned with the common interest” (output legitimacy). For example, a common topic in this regard in the literature is the crucial role of expert knowledge and the closer or more intimate experience with a certain policy-area that civil society actors usually have, and the increasing dependence of governments and ROs on these inputs.
On the other hand, civil society actors may contribute to the legitimacy of ROs by participating in decision-making procedures (input legitimacy). This could be achieved through representative mechanisms such as parliaments, or through more corporativist and participatory arrangements based on the formal involvement of civil society such as official consultations, hearings, citizen’s assemblies and standing committees where organized civil society is represented (Mahoney, 2004; Fung, 2015).
B. The “how” question: Mechanisms of civil society participation in Regional Organizations
Another group of authors have examined the question of how ROs deploy institutional mechanisms of civil society participation. For instance, Reinalda (2007) argues that we should examine whether civil society has been formalized
as a watchdog of regional governance, perhaps through its participation in independent secretariats and supranational bodies with the capacity to review intergovernmental decisions, the ability to lodge complaints against the Regional Authority in dispute settlement bodies (tribunals, courts), or through ombudspersons and auditors (see also Tholen 2007).
Similarly, Greenwood (2007) warnsthat input legitimacy could benegatively affected if civil society is primarily represented in an elitist manner by Civil Society Organizations (interest groups) rather than individual citizens. This raises the question of the accountability of civil society organizations themselves and the idea that the involvement of civil society actors suffering from a democratic deficit as well may poorly contribute to closing the gap between the demos and the Regional Authority.
C. Civil society participation in the Organization of American States (OAS) and Mercosur
We will now examine this phenomenon empirically, namely, how civil society organizations have been incorporated in the decision-making process of two ROs in which Latin American states participate: the Organization of American States (OAS) and Mercosur.
Civil Society participation in OAS
Since the late 1990s, civil society has been recognized as a significant actor within OAS. In terms of principles, the Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001) states that “it isthe right andresponsibility ofall citizens to participate in decisions relating to their own development. This is also a necessary condition for the full and effective exercise of democracy. Promoting and fostering diverse forms of participation strengthensdemocracy”(art.6).Andarticle26declares that “theOAS will consult and cooperate on an ongoing basis with member states and take into account the contributions of civil society organizations working in those fields”.
Accordingly, civil society has been institutionalized as a significant actor in the decision-making process of OAS. This occurred when the Permanent Council adopted the “Guidelines for the Participation of Civil Society Organizations in OAS Activities” (Resolution 759 of 1999). According to this document, there are three ways in which Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) can participate in OAS meetings
(input legitimacy). First, they can register in the OAS in order to gain a number of benefits, such as the possibility to issue recommendations and assist in the implementation of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly; designate representatives to participate in public meetings of the Permanent Council, the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI), and their subsidiary bodies; access virtual consultations on issues and initiatives promoted by OAS; receive the calendar of OAS meetings and the agenda of themes to be discussed, and also contribute to the elaboration of the agenda of an annual meeting of the Permanent Council on matters of special interests to registered CSOs. Second, OAS accepts the attendance of not-registered CSOs to the General Assembly, the Permanent Council, the CIDI, and other specialized conferences. To be able to participate, not-registered CSOs should just make a request of attendance as a Special Guest. Finally, CSOs can sign cooperation agreements with the OAS General Secretariat for the development of joint programs.
Furthermore, CSOs and other social actors (indigenous peoples, youth, private sector, labour unions and others) play an essential role in all phases of the Summit of the Americas: 1) during the preparatory phase towards the Summit; 2) at the Summit itself; 3) and during the follow-up and implementation phase. The participation mechanisms consist of networking and discussion groups where initiatives are promoted; informative sessions and workshops; national/regional inquires and hemispheric forums; and dialogues with government representatives. In a pioneering contribution assessing civil society participation in regional governance, Grugel (2006) shows that these channels were used by civil society during the contentious negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) with very little success in terms of influencing the policy agenda. According to the author, the main reason of this failure was the design of hemispheric governance, which was characterized by a “rigid division into two separate negotiating strands, political and economic, [which] effectively isolated civil society actors from the discussions on trade and made it difficult for them to be seen as central to the ‘real business’ of integration.” This was reinforced by the “the absence of clear international norms supporting civil society inclusion in trade policy-making” (ibid., 226). In a different case study of Mercosur and SADC, Ramanzini Junior & Luciano (2021) arrive to a similar conclusion about the importance of institutional design for effective civil society participation.
In terms of output legitimacy, through the Special Multilateral Fund of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (FEMCIDI), the OAS finances projects created by local stakeholders, in collaboration with national public institutions, aimed at promoting the development of the human and institutional capacity of Member States in the following thematic areas: education, culture, science and technology and tourism. According to the FEMCIDI website, the projects submitted should incorporate in their formulation, implementation, and evaluation the participation of civil society. Moreover, Permanent Council Resolution 864 established the creation of a “Fund for Civil Society Participation”, to finance the participation of civil society organizations in OAS activities.
Finally, concerning control legitimacy, the participation of civil society is implicitly foreseen in one key autonomous body of the OAS: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), whose mission is to promote and protect human rights in the Americas. Citizens of theMember States are allowed to allege being victims of human rights violations before the IACHR and to request precautionary measures. The Commission is obliged to investigate the situation and make recommendations to the responsible State.
Civil Society participation in Mercosur
Mercosur’s institutional structure was defined by the Ouro Preto Protocol (1994), which established two distinct formal channels for civil society participation. On the one hand, there is the Economic and Social Advisory Forum (ESAF), the exclusive institutional space for the participation of the “economic and social sectors” (Ouro Preto Protocol, 1998, art. 28), which has the right to make recommendations to the Common Market Group (CMG), the executive body with the power of initiative and regional decision-making. Through the ESAF, the CMG has de capacity to invite representatives of the private sector to participate in its deliberations. On the other hand, the private sector can participate in the preparatory meetings of the Working Subgroups and their respective Commissions, which are dependent from the CMG, as well as in the Specialized Meetings, and the Ad Hoc Groups, although these bodies are not exclusively reserved for civil society participation.
Scholars point out that this “fist generation” of institutional channels for non-state actors’ participation in consultative arenas aimed above all at the inclusion of corporate actors in line with the project of open regionalism that
prioritized economic and commercial integration (Mace, 2021; Ramanzini Junior & Luciano, 2021). In fact, the term “civil society” did not appear in any official Mercosur document, not even in the Ouro Preto Protocol, until the 2004-2006 Mercosur Working Program (Ratton Sanchez, 2007). However, with the “pink tide” at the beginning of the 21st century, a strong “social agenda” emerged within Mercosur (Mace, 2021). In this new context, the Social Summits were institutionalized as part of a “second generation” of formal participatory mechanisms. The Social Summits take place twice a year and only registered CSOs and Social Movements are invited to participate. In essence, it consists of a channel for participative democracy or input legitimacy under governmental control (Mace, 2021).
In terms of funding for CSOs, and aligned with output legitimacy, financial aid is also limited to organizations or social movements that participate in the Social Summits or other Mercosur-related activities (Secretaría del Mercosur 2017). No funding policies were found for projects or initiatives outside the Regional Organization.
Finally, Parlasur, a unicameral body of direct citizen representation, can be understood as an institution that falls somewhere in-between control and input legitimacy. Its main task is to issue opinions on regulations and agreements forwarded by the Council of the Common Market (CCM) before their legislative approval in the Member States. In addition, it has the capacity to present normative proposals for consideration by the CCM. However, the decisions made by Parlasur are non-binding for Member States.
There seems to be an agreement in the literature on the potential of civil society for offsetting the democracy and accountability deficit of governance beyond the nation-state (the “why” question), however, there is still little clarity about “how” exactly should civic society actors be engaged to attain this goal? Or what institutional design or mechanisms can best leverage the potential of civic society actors to increase the efficiency and legitimacy of ROs? We see here opportunities to learn from best practices and potential for comparative research across ROs in different world regions. As concerns the Latin American region, we find a rich literature on individual case studies, but more systematic work could be done in evaluating how the mechanisms of civil society participation are being implemented performing in terms of enhancing input, output, and control legitimacy of ROs?
III. Regionalism-civil society relations
A second body of literature is closely related to the former but instead of asking questions about the institutional design and the performance of formal mechanisms of civil society participation, tries to conceptualize and empirically assess the different roles that civil society actors actually play when they interact with ROs. That is, the observational variable is the pattern of regionalism-civil society relations that obtain, irrespective of whether these patterns are positive or negative. This is a first necessary step to be able to assess the effectiveness of institutional mechanism of civil society participation, or the effect of any other “independent variable” leading to more virtuous civil society interactions with ROs. Paradigmatic of this kind of research interest is the work of Godsäter and Söderbaum (2011), Fioramonti (2014) and Söderbaum (2016), who usefully propose a typology or operationalization of four possible roles for the participation of civil society in regional governance structures: civil society as a partner, as a legitimator, as a counter-hegemonic force, and as manipulator.
A. Civil society as partner
Civil society actors are partners when they engage with ROs on a partnership basis. In these cases, civil society contributes to the effectiveness of governance and the formulation or implementation of policy, that is, output legitimacy. In some instances, they may even take a direct role in the provision of social and public services, such as capacity-building. An important indicator, whether civil society acts as “partner” and is not merely a manager of public funds is the possession of autonomous resources or capabilities, whether it is expertor field knowledge, networks, or independent political legitimacy, as for instance, in the case of organized confessions. A partnership relationship with ROs is thus more likely to develop when civil society actors are in a position to reach a bargain with governmental actors for the provision of these capabilities or resources.
B. Civil society as legitimator
According to Fioramonti (2014: 6), this occurs when “top-down controlled institutional mechanisms…afford some civil society groups voice and influence, in return for legitimation of otherwise technocratic policy-making processes”. In ideal cases, these civil society groups might fulfill either of the different functions of controlling, justification, transparency or enforcing, whileat the same time keep
a safe distance from states and ROs in performing these functions to avoid being coopted. However, there is also the possibility that governments and ROs end up “manufacturing” civil society groups of their liking with the express purpose of legitimizing their own state-led frameworks.
C. Civil society as a counter-hegemonic force
These are civil society actors that contest states-led governance projects in favor of a transformative agenda. As Fioramonti (2014: 6) points out, “a truly transformative agenda is…only possible when civil society provides a counterhegemonic challenge to the mainstream regional institutions, especially market driven regional integration processes”. These civil society actors are not partners or legitimate but explicitly confront ROs and dispute the economic and political lines of the regionalism project that the latter represent.
Again, this role of civil society is not straightforward. On the one hand, their activism may be a positive and necessary informal check-and-balances mechanism that forces states and their ROs to give public “justification” of their actions, to correct the course of a governance project, or incorporate the demands of civil society groups. On the other hand, however, there is evidence that at least part of these counter-hegemonic civil society groups is very much elite-led and dominated by a limited number of vocal activists. In somecases, such as the Africa People’s Solidarity Network (SAPSN), these activists are heavily funded by Western NGOs (Söderbaum 2016: 141). Their counter-hegemonic activities in the Global South thus end up being a mere proxy of ideological battles of Western-donor countries.
D. Civil society as manipulator
Civil society groups can act as “manipulators” when apparent civil society activities are performed with the aim of achieving narrow private economic and political gains. An indicator may be when NGOs are staffed by relatives or close associates of the ruling political elites, who then use civil society as a platform to exercise political influence or for rent-seeking goals. In the African context, Söderbaum (2016: 142) observes that these NGOs are nicknamed “MONGOs” (My own NGO) or also briefcase NGOs.
A common strategy of governments and ROs is to establish research institutes, universities, think tanks and NGOs that operate in practice as extended arms of government but with a façade of independence.
There is also some evidence that a high dependency of NGOs upon foreign donor funds might encourage civil society groups to adopt a manipulator role. According to Hearn (2007: 1102), the significant inflow of donor money into civil society in the Global South has made it “the place to make money”. This has fomented a professionalization of NGOs, which are usually led by white-collar staff. This goes in parallel to a reduced social representation and input legitimation.
We find little irradiation of this type of literature to research on the Latin American region. Siman (2020) recently applied this typology to analyze civil society participation at two Mercosur’s consultation organs: the Foro Consultivo Económico-Social (FCES) and at the Foro Consultivo de Municipios, Federados, Provincias y Departamentos (FCCR). Combining the group of questions of our section 2, she finds that the institutional design of FCES favors a legitimator role for civil society organizations. And Ayres (2011) investigates the limitations of counter-hegemonic civil society movements in North American integration.
These efforts to conceptualize different civil society roles in their interactions with ROs lead to the obvious question of how to operationalize these roles in practice so that we could better evaluate whether regionalism-civil society relations are developing in the right direction. That is, how do we know that civil society groups are acting as partners? How and by which indicators can we distinguish “legitimator” civil society actors from “manufactured” ones? How and by which indicators can we identify “manipulator” civil society organizations? Which policies can prevent the development of negative types of relationships between civil society and ROs?
IV. Bottom-up Approaches
The literature we categorize as 'bottom-up approaches' focuses on the coordinated actions of civil society actors beyond the boundaries of individual nation-states. Studies within this category aim to explain “processes of regionalization” of civil society activism that are independent from those patronized by governments or ROs as in the case of “top-down approaches”.
Regionalization denotes “the (empirical) process (…) of change from relative heterogeneity and lack of cooperation towards increased cooperation, integration, convergence, complementarity and identity in a variety of fields (…) within a given geographical space (Schulz, Söderbaum and Öjendal, 2001, p. 10).
Transnational actors are the agents in these processes of regionalization. While the main driving forces in “top-down approaches” are states and Regional Authorities, from a bottom-up perspective, these actors can include firms and businesses networks, labour unions, faith groups, foundations, epistemic communities, NGOs and social movements, among others (ibid.; Scholte, 2014).
As pointed out by many scholars, globalization and regionalization are closely related, with the former often complementing or even encouraging the latter. In fact, the erosion of national borders resulting from globalization tendencies strengthens and incites transnational collective action (Batliwala, 2002; Routledge, 2003; Maiba, 2005). Once cross-border initiatives take root, civil society movements frequently adopt a regional framework for their claim making (Piper and Uhlin, 2004; Grugel, 2005).
We will now briefly examine a case study of grassroots mobilization of civil society actors coordinated across regional states in Latin America.
Neoliberalism and FTAA negotiations: the coordinated opposition of labour unions
As several studies have shown, the negotiation process of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) triggered an unprecedented level civil society mobilization at an hemispheric scale in favor of a more social and citizen-centered integration agenda (Korzeniewicz & Smith, 2004; Grugel, 2006). One of the main actors that mobilized and organized transnationally in this context were labour unions.
By this time, as Saguier (2010) notes, the forces of economic globalization had profoundly transformed labour movements in the region. On the one hand, the increased importance of China and India as destinations of labour-seeking FDI and the rise of “informality, flexibility, outsourcing, the deterioration of the quality of work, and legal and illegal migration” (p. 181) gradually undermined the capacity of labour unions to represent workers. On the other hand, the “forum shift” approach used by states in trade policy negotiations, involving shifts between different decision arenas in an increasingly complex trade governance
architecture since the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), had made labour strategies solely centered on the nation-state obsolete, signaling that in order to be effective action at the national level should be combined with some sort of transnational mobilization strategy. Consequently, to achieve their goals in a globalized era, national trade unions were forced to establish networks with their counterparts from other countries in order to articulate transnational strategies.
In Latin America in particular, the FTAA negotiations were paradigmatic of the “forum shift” tactics mentioned in the previous paragraph. As noted by Botto (2014), until that time, “collective action by trade union federations in the Southern Cone was characterized by participation at the national level, aimed at achieving better working conditions and oriented exclusively towards national governments, which were ultimately the parties that provided or settled solutions” (p. 61). This changed after the irruption of open regionalism and globalization, and the perception that worker’s jobs and labor rights were threatened under this new constellation.
In response to this evolving regional environment, labor movements in the hemisphere began to establish transnational networks for the first time. They not only engaged with their counterparts in other Latin American countries but also forged innovative alliances with other non-trade actors from civil society (Botto, 2014). These actions combined participation in formal spaces, such as the Summits of the Americas and other forums, with engagement in informal grassroots activities like social summits, demonstrations, and people's tribunals. The particular dynamics of transnational labor mobilization in the context of the FTAA negotiations are detailed by Saguier (2010) and Botto (2014).
Case studies such as these, if organized more systematically from a comparative perspective could shed light intosome important questions towards, we believe, future research should take aim, namely: what kind of civil society actors are more likely to engage in transnational grassroots mobilization? What are the driving issues behind their decision to go transnational and what objectives do they expect to attain by these means? What concrete strategies do they implement and how do they choose to organize themselves transnationally? How do they combine national and transnational strategies? And finally and most importantly, which factors enable or constrain the transnational coordination of civil society activism?
V. The transformative potential of transnational civil society
As discussed in the previous section, regionalization opens opportunities for new alliances among civil society actors and cross-border activism. This leads to the following question: what is the transformative potential of these actions for regionalism and regional governance? Can they alter a regional discussion agenda, its policies or even the ROs social purpose?
In International Relations, this topic is primarily addressed by reflectivist scholars who follow Gramsci’s understanding of civil society not only as individuals grouped together based on certain shared values, identity, and policy objectives, but also as an arena where the intersubjective understanding of reality can be transformed, giving rise to new norms and ideas (Cox, 1999). Thus, “civil society is both shaper and shaped, an agent of stabilization and reproduction, and a potential agent of transformation (…)” (ibid., p. 5).
Based on this understanding, a body of literature has emerged that explores the possibility of “alternative regionalisms” –also called society-centered regionalism o counter-hegemonic integration. We label this literature, the transformative potential of transnational civil society and, in essence, it argues that certain collective grassroots movements can lead to “meaningful contestations of existing regionalism paradigms and contribute to reshaping regions in line with ‘alternative’ agendas” (Fioramonti, 2014, p. 14).
In opposition to the new regionalism literature, ‘alternative regionalism’ “refers to regional cooperation and integration projects that are not only aimed at South-South cooperation and the realization of a degree of self-reliance in the economic sphere, but that also want to create a space for the promotion and spread of a societal and identity model that challenges that promoted by neoliberal globalism” (De Cordier, 2013, p.17).
As shown by Grugel (2005), civil society actors played a key role in introducing new ideas of transnational welfare and citizenship into the regional agenda of Mercosur. “Norm entrepreneurs” such as academics, public policy experts, and even financial institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank (IBD) formed a network aiming at convincing state actors of the need for a social institutional reform. While achieving only a modest degree of success in terms of
policy outcomes, the authors note that through advocacy, they did manage to bring this issue into the daily debate of the RO.
According to the literature, the odds of successful civil society-driven regional transformation rely on the combination of two factors. First, the existence of a certain degree of permeability of the RO (or regional governance project) to the influence of civil society, and second, the advocacy strategy of civil society organizations, which must adapt to contextual constraints, such as hyperpresidential governments or the lack of formal channels for participation.
As pointed out by Tshimpaka et al. (2021), the permeability of an RO could be understood as the existence of concrete spaces (formal or informal) in which civil society can raise their voice. In this line, Acharya (2003) proposes a causal mechanism for explaining the shift from a state-centered to a people-centered regionalism in Association of East Asian Nations (ASEAN). According to this mechanism, changes in the domestic political structures towards more democratic forms of governance after the Third Wave of Democracy resulted in a relaxation of the concept of state sovereigntyand of the norm of non-interference thatprevailed in thisworldregion, thereby increasingpermeability toliberal ideas. Civil society activism took advantage of the new permeability to demand in turn for more democratic and participatory forms of regionalism.
As respects the advocacy strategy, Scholte (2014) argues that, in order to succeed, civil society actors must combine: (a) A positive transformative intent toward regions; (b) An astute navigation of the polycentric institutional governance of regions; and (c) a reflexive resistance to prevailing governance structures.
To conclude this section, we will briefly outline the case of the Mercosur Residency Agreement as an example of the successful transformation of regional policies brought about by transnational civil society activism.
The Mercosur Residence Agreement
The Mercosur Residence Agreement can be considered a policy outcome that emerged from an “alternative” or “reforming” regionalism agenda, reflecting the intention to reorient the integration process towards a more social and citizen-central purpose (Margheritis, 2017). Although it was adopted through an intergovernmental procedure conducted by the Ministers of Interior in the
Specialized Migration Working Group, many authors recognize the crucial role that Argentine civil society played in de-securitizing the migration issue and placing the protection of migrants’ rights on the regional agenda.
Since the mids-1990s, Argentina began a process of revision of its own migration law through an intense debate between the executive, the Parliament, and human rights organizations. According to Braz (2015) “these participatory discussions under a more human and social rights perspective, influenced the discourse on migratory issues in general, and shaped the future migration policy, not only in Argentina but in Mercosur as well” (p. 314).
During the National Reorganization Process, the Argentine dictatorship established an extremely restrictive immigration law (also known as “the Videla law), aligned with the philosophy of the Doctrine of National Security. However, with the return of democracy in 1983, Civil Society Organizations began to advocate for normative changes in this subject. In this regard, Ceriani Cernadas (2015) points out that a diverse range of actors, including the Church, labor unions, human rights organizations, university professors, and migrant associations, engaged in a variety of actions and advocacy strategies within multiple arenas.
These tactics included legal actions, such as “recursos de amparo” and “habeas corpus”; efforts to declare the unconstitutionality of the Videla law; the dissemination of research on violations of migrants’ rights; the presentation of public policy proposals to government officials; protests and mass mobilization; and complaints to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, among others.
However, at a certain point, as Braz (2018) relates, the discussion spread regionally, and demands for reform extended to Mercosur. Through a process of regionalization, the concerns of Argentine civil society were disseminated across migration policy networks at the regional level (Margheritis, 2012). Similar to the “norm entrepreneurs” described previously by Grugel (2005), think-tanks, research institutions, and human rights organizations, such as the Latin American School of Social Sciences (FLACSO), the Latin American Migratory Studies Center from Argentina (CEMLA), and the Catholic Chilean Institute for Migration (INCAMI), succeeded in promoting the ideas of a pro-migrant reform in South America.
According to Margheritis (2012), policy elite socialization occurred through various forums facilitated by International Organizations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and Mercosur itself. This socialization took place between transnational advocacy groups and specialized domestic bureaucracies. As a result, a “regional consensus emerged around the idea that effective management of migration-related issues is a matter of multilateral cooperation and has prompted the negotiation of bilateral and regional agreements affecting human mobility” (Margheritis, 2012, p. 567).
In the end, the effective articulation of collective actions by Argentine civil society, the regionalization of its ideas through regional advocacy networks, and the presence of public servants receptive to the new regional consensus on migration, resulted in the signature of the Mercosur Residence Agreement in 2002, and the enactment of Argentina's national migration law in 2003.
The key research question that emerges from this body of research is: under which conditions can civil society activism influence the agenda of regionalism, change regional governance policies or even the social purpose of regionalism?
VI. Conclusions
Scholarly research on civil society and regional governance is extensive. This paper was an attempt to systematize the literature alongside four different groups or clusters of research questions that we identified when surveying the State of the Art. The clusters are not neatly demarcated in the bibliography and plenty of overlaps among them of course exist, but the outline we offer should serve as a map for scholars to gain awareness of where their own research is located, or which might be most interesting unexplored venues for future research. The first group of research questions, which we labeled top-down approaches, focuses on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ ofROs seeking the participation of civil society in regional governance structures. The second group of questions deals with the different types or patterns of regionalism-civil society relations that might obtain empirically, being thus possible to conceptualize and operationalize the development of both negative and positive roles of civil society in their relationships with regionalism. A third group of questions that we label bottom-up approaches seeks to explain “processes of regionalization” of civil society activism
that are independent from those patronized by governments or ROs. And lastly, a fourth group of literature delves into the question of the transformative potential of civil society for regional governance.
However diverse the literature, we observe that most scholarly efforts were made based on the analysis of individual case studies or focusing on a particular world region, and that, overall, research on civil society and regional governance is not necessarily organized into a coherent research programme. It is important to acknowledge that none of these research questions can be effectively answered without a more systematic comparative effort that draws cases from various ROs and different world regions in order to increase the number of observations. How could we know, for instance, which are the main conditions favoring the regionalization of civil society activism without enough cases of successful regionalization? Or which are the most effective institutional mechanisms of civil society participation in ROs without a comprehensive catalog of these mechanisms across several ROs? In line with this argument, we believe that the study of civil society and regional governance in Latin America should be a province of a wider research programme within the sub-field of Comparative Regionalism.
VII. References
Acharya, A. (2003). Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia, Third World Quarterly, 24 (2), pp. 375-390.
Ayres, J. (2011). The Limits of Power and Protest: Civil Society Mobilization Against North American Integration. In T. Olesen (Ed.), Power and Transnational Activism (pp. 75-90). London and New York, Routledge.
Batliwala, S. (2002). Grassroots Movements as Transnational Actors: Implications for Global Civil Society. Voluntas: International journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13 (4), pp. 393-410.
Botto, M. (2014). Civil Society, Labor Movements, and the Challenge to Capitalist Regional Integration in Latin America. In L. Fioramonti (Ed.), Civil Society and World Regions: How Citizens Are Reshaping Regional Governance in Times of Crisis? (pp. 49-62). New York, Lexington Books.
Braz, A. M. (2018). Migration Governance in South America: The bottom-up Diffusion of the Residence Agreement of Mercosur. RAP Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 5 (2), pp. 303-320.
Ceriani Cernadas, P. (2015). Improving Migrants’ Rights in Times of Crisis: Migration Policy in Argentina since 2003. In D. Acosta Arcarazo and Wiesbrock, A. (Eds.), Global Migration: Old Assumptions, New Dynamics (pp. 129-157). Santa Barbara, CA, Praeger.
Cox, R. W. (1999). Civil Society at the Turn of the Millenium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order. Review of International Studies, 25, pp. 3-28.
De Cordier, B. (2013). Identity as a Framework for Alternative Regionalism? An Examination of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Pan-Islamic Idea. Studia Diplomatica, 66 (4), pp. 17-36.
Ebrahim, A. & Weisband, E. (2007). Global Accountabilities: Globalism, Pluralism and Public Ethics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Fioramonti, L. (2014). The Role of Civil Society in (Re) Shaping World Regions. In L. Fioramonti (Ed.), Civil Society and World Regions: How Citizens Are Reshaping Regional Governance in Times of Crisis? (pp. 1-10). New York, Lexington Books.
Follesdal, A. & Hix, S. (2006). Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), pp. 533-562.
Fung, A. (2015). Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future. Public Administration Review, 75 (4), pp. 513522.
Gerard, K. & Mickler, D. (2021). Remaking the Regional: Legitimacy and Political Participation in Regional Integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59 (22), pp. 404-416.
Godsäter, A. & Söderbaum, F. (2011). Civil Society in Regional Governance in Eastern and Southern Africa. In Armstrong, D., V. Bello, J. Gilson, and D. Spini
(Eds.), Civil Society and International Governance. The Role of Non-State Actors in Global and Regional Regulatory Frameworks (pp. 148-165). London, Routledge.
Greenwood, J. (2007). Organized Civil Society and Democratic Legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science, 37 (2), pp. 333-357.\
Grugel, J. (2006). Regionalist Governance and Transnational Collective Action in Latin America. Economy and Society, 35 (2), pp. 209-231.
Grugel, J. (2005). Citizenship and Governance in Mercosur: Arguments for a Social Agenda. Third World Quarterly, 26 (7), pp. 1061-1076.
Hearn, J. (2007). African NGOs: the New Compradors? Development and Change, 38 (6), pp. 1095-1110.
Kohler-Koch, B. & Quittkat, C. (Eds.) (2013). De-Mystification of Participatory Democracy: EU-Governance and Civil Society. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. International Organization, 53 (2), pp. 379-408.
Korzeniewicz, R. & Smith, W. (2004). Redes Regionales y Movimientos Sociales Transnacionales en Patrones Emergentes de Colaboración y Conflicto en las Américas. América Latina Hoy, 36, pp. 101-139.
Lenz, T. & Söderbaum, F. (2023). The Origins of Legitimation Strategies in International Organizations: Agents, Audiences and Environments. International Affairs, 99 (3), pp. 899-920.
Liebert, U. & Trenz, H. J. (Eds.) (2011). The New Politics of European Civil Society. London, Routledge.
Mace, G. (2021). Input Legitimation Dynamics in Regional Organizations: Mercosur and Civil Society. International Politics, 58, pp. 704-722.
Mahoney, C. (2004). The Power of Institutions: State and Interest Group Activity in the European Union. European Union Politics, 3 (441), pp. 441-466.
Mahoney, C. & Beckstrand, M. J. (2011). Following the Money: European Union Funding of Civil Society Organizations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49 (6), pp. 1339-1361.
Maiba, H. (2005). Grassroots Transnational Social Movement Activism: The Case of Peoples’ Global Actions. Sociological Focus, 38 (1), pp. 41-63.
Margheritis, A. (2012). Piecemeal Regional Integration in the Post-neoliberal Era: Negotiating Migration Policies within Mercosur. Review of International Political Economy, 20 (3), pp. 541-575.
Margheritis, A. (2017). International Migration in South America. Emerging Forms of Governance. In P. Riggirozzi and Wylde, C. (Eds.), Handbook of South American Governance (pp. 415-427), London, Routledge.
Payne, A. & Gamble, A. (1996): Introduction: The Political Economy of Regionalism and World Order. In A. Gamble & Payne, A. (Eds.), Regionalism and World Order (pp. 1-19). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. (2004). Multi-level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain? In I. Bache and Flinders, M. (Eds.), Multi-level Governance (pp. 75–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piper, N. and Uhlin, A. (Eds). (2003). Transnational Activism, Strategies and Organizations. London: Routledge.
Ramanzini Junior, H. and Luciano, B. T. (2021). Regional (Dis)integration beyond Governments: A Comparison in Social and Civil Society Participation between Mercosur and SADC. International Area Studies Review, 24 (1), pp. 18-34.
Ratton Sanchez, M. (2007). Is There Any Room for Input and Control Legitimacy by Civil Society in Mercosur? In A. Ribeiro-Hoffman and van der Vleuten, A. (Eds.), Closing or Widening the Gap? Legitimation and Democracy in Regional Integration Organizations (pp. 117-137). Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Reinalda, B. (2007). The Question of Input, Control, and Output Legitimacy in Economic RIOs. In A. Ribeiro-Hoffman and van der Vleuten, A. (Eds.), Closing or Widening the Gap? Legitimation and Democracy in Regional Integration Organizations (pp. 49-81). Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Ribeiro-Hoffman, A. & van der Vleuten, A. (Eds.) (2007). Closing or Widening the Gap? Legitimation and Democracy in Regional Integration Organizations. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Routledge, P. (2003). Convergence Space: Process Geographies of Grassroots Globalization Networks. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (3), pp. 333-349.
Saguier, M. (2010). Transnational Labour Mobilization in the Americas. In D. Armstrong, V. Bello, J. Gilson and Spini, D. (Eds.), Civil Society and International Governance. The Role of Non-state Actors in Global and Regional Regulatory Frameworks (pp. 181-197). London, Routledge.
Scharf, F. W. (2003). Problem-solving Effectiveness and Democratic Accountability in the EU. MPIfG Working Paper, No. 03/1, Cologne, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
Scholte, J. A. (2014). Civil Society and the Reinvention of Regions. In L. Fioramonti (Ed.), Civil Society and World Regions: How Citizens Are Reshaping Regional Governance in Times of Crisis? (pp. 11-31). New York, Lexington Books.
Schulz, M., Söderbaum, F. and Öjendal, J. (2001). Introduction: A Framework for Understanding Regionalisation. In M. Schulz and Söderbaum, F. (Eds.), Regionalisation in a Globalising World. A Comparative Perspective on Actors, Forms and Processes (pp. 1-42). London, Zed Books.
Secretaría del Mercosur (2017). Reglamento para el Financiamiento de la Participación Social. Consejo Mercado Común, Decisión N° 30/17.\
Serbin, A. (2012). New Regionalism and Civil Society: Bridging the Democratic Gap? In P. Riggirozzi and Tussie, D. (Eds.), The Rise of Post-hegemonic Regionalism. The Case of Latin America (pp. 147-165). London, Springer.
Siman, T. (2020). O papel da governança das instituições consultivas: União Europeia e MERCOSUL. Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión, 8(16), 204-223.
Söderbaum, F. (2016). Rethinking Regionalism. Palgrave.
Steffek, J. and Ferretti, M. P. (2009). Accountability or ‘Good Decisions’? The Competing Goals of Civil Society Participation in International Governance. Global Society, 23 (1), pp. 37-57.
Tholen, B. (2007). RIOs, Legitimacy and Democracy. A Conceptual Clarification. In A. Ribeiro-Hoffman and van der Vleuten, A. (Eds.), Closing or Widening the Gap? Legitimation and Democracy in Regional Integration Organizations (pp. 17-31). Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Tshimpaka, L. M., Nshimbi, C. C. and Moyo, I. (2021). Regional Economic Communities and Integration in Southern Africa. Networks of Civil Society Organizations and Alternative Regionalism. Sinpagore, Palgrame Macmillan.
Wood, M. (2021). Europe’s New Technocracy: Boundaries of Public Participation in EU Institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59 (2), pp. 459473
Name of the institution
ANNEX: DATA BASE OF LATIN AMERICAN CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
Sebastián Pilo
Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ)
Argentina
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Corruption, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Economic empowerment and popular economy, Education, Right to health, Poverty/economic inequality, Tax system, Budgeting, Access to the justice system
Children and adolescents/Youth, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, Persons with disabilities, Elderly individuals, People living in poverty/People living in segregated urban areas/informal settlements
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new technologies, Technical assistance/ Professional support
2002
Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS)
Argentina
Ciudadanía Inteligente Brazil, Chile, Regional
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Criminal justice, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Right to health, Human mobility, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Urban violence/insecurity/weapons/gangs
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Corruption, Economic empowerment and popular economy
Children and adolescents/Youth, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, Persons with disabilities, Elderly individuals, People living in poverty/People living in segregated urban areas/informal settlements
General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1979
Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies 2009
Centro de Implementació
n de Políticas Públicas para la Equidad y el Crecimiento (CIPPEC) Argentina
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Education, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Right to health, Work and employment, Poverty/economic inequality
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, People living in segregated urban areas/informal settlements, Elderly individuals
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2001
DejusticiaCentro de Estudios Jurídicos y Sociales Colombia
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Criminal justice, Economic empowerment and popular economy, Education, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Right to health, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Poverty/economic inequality
Women, People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities, Indigenous peoples, LGBTIQ+ individuals, People living in rural areas
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2005
Artigo 19 Brazil, Mexico, Regional
Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights, Derechos Digitales, Access to informtion
General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
2007
Fundar - Centro
de Análisis e Investigación Mexico
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/
Institutional Quality, Corruption, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Fiscal justice
Women, Indigenous peoples, General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies
Prodesc Mexico
Fundación Construir Bolivia
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Human mobility, Work and employment, Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights
Women, Indigenous peoples, Refugees, migrants, displaced persons, and/or stateless individuals, People living in rural areas, People living in urban areas, Human rights defenders
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/
Institutional Quality, Corruption, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Criminal justice, Education, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Human trafficking
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Indigenous peoples, People living in rural areas, People living in urban areas, Human rights defenders
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Indigenous peoples, General public; organizaciones sociales, académicos y miembros del poder judicial
General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
1998
Data Uruguay Uruguay
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, General public
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/
Costa Rica
Integra Costa Rica
Paraguay
1998
Research/Knowledge generation, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2006
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies 2012
Institutional Quality, Corruption, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources General public Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2012
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua
Nossas Brazil
Economic empowerment and popular economy, Human mobility, Work and employment
General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Training and capacity building
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Refugees, migrants, displaced persons, and/or stateless individuals
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2002
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
1996
Women, Indigenous peoples, General public
Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies 2011
Institutional Quality, Criminal justice, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights, Access to public information
Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights, Access to information
Women, Individuals deprived of liberty, General public, Human rights defenders
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
2002
2007
Centro de Estudios Judiciales
Fundación por la Libertad de Expresión y Democracia
Centro de Estudios para la Equidad y Gobernanza en los Sistemas De Salud (CEGSS)
Centro Mexicano de Derecho
Ambiental (CEMDA)
Nicaragua Technology
Women, People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities, Periodistas, Human rights defenders, Editoras/es expertas/os (medios digitales)
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies
Guatemala
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Right to health
Indigenous peoples, Persons with disabilities, General public
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies 2009
Documenta
Corporación de Gestión y Derecho
Ambiental (Ecolex)
Mexico Criminal justice, Right to health
Indigenous peoples, General public, Defensoras/es ambientales
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1993
Ecuador
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources
Persons with disabilities, Individuals deprived of liberty
People living in rural areas, General public
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1998
Equis - Justicia para las Mujeres
Instituto de Defesa do Direito de Defesa (IDDD)
Mexico
Brazil
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Iniciativa de los Derechos de la Mujer (IDM)
Instituto
Latinoamerican o para Una Sociedad y Un Derecho Alternativos (ILSA)
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Right to protest
Brazil
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Women, People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities, Individuals deprived of liberty, Human rights defenders
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Indigenous peoples, People living in rural areas
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 2011
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2000
Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2011
Women, Indigenous peoples, People living in rural areas
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1983
Women
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies 1993
Coordinadora
Latinoamerican
a y del Caribe de Pequeños
Productores y Trabajadores de Comercio
Justo (CLAC) Regional
Oguasu Paraguay
Fundación
Futbol para el Desarrollo (FuDe) Argentina
Fundación Proyungas Argentina
Sociedad
Peruana de Derecho
Ambiental Peru
Economic empowerment and popular economy, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Work and employment
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Economic empowerment and popular economy, Education
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Education, Right to health, Work and employment, Projects fo community social transformation through sport
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources
Economic empowerment and popular economy, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Fiscal justice
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Infancias y adolescencias, Civil society development
General public, Human rights defenders
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2007
CEJIS Bolivia
Women, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, General public
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, People living in segregated urban areas/informal settlements, General public, Asociaciones Civiles
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city Indigenous peoples
Fundación Los Valles Colombia Education, Children and adolecents
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
Promotion of public policies, Training and capacity building 1992
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1978
Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1994
Centro de Archivo y Acceso a la Información
Pública (CAinfo)
Fundación para la Justicia
Uruguay
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico
Techo Regional
Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Right to health, Human mobility, Derecho a la información pública, Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights, Social participation
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Criminal justice, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Human mobility, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Poverty/economic inequality
Refugees, migrants, displaced persons, and/or stateless individuals, Persons with disabilities, General public, Periodistas
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2008
Agua para el Pueblo Honduras
Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Right to health, Poverty/economic inequality
Aldeas Infantiles Regional Children and adolecents
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2011
People living in rural areas, People living in segregated urban areas/informal settlements, People living in poverty Technical assistance/ Professional support, Direct assistance (food, materials, etc.) 2001
People living in rural areas, People living in segregated urban areas/informal settlements, People living in poverty
Children and adolescents/Youth
Promotion of new techonologies, Technical assistance/ Professional support, Direct assistance (food, materials, etc.)
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1949
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC)
ANDHESAbogadas y Abogados del NOA en Derechos
Humanos y Estudios
Sociales
Argentina
Argentina
Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights, Digital righta
General public
CEPPAS Argentina
Directorio Legislativo
Argentina
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Human mobility, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Businesses and human rights, Children and adolecents, Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Economic empowerment and popular economy, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Work and employment
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Corruption, Access to public information
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Indigenous peoples, Refugees, migrants, displaced persons, and/or stateless individuals
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1995
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 2001
ELA Argentina
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Indigenous peoples, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, General public, Acceso a la información Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 2002
General public
Women
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2000
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1985
FUNDEPS Argentina
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/
Institutional Quality, Economic empowerment and popular economy
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Right to health
General public
Poder Ciudadano Argentina
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/
Institutional Quality, Corruption, Access to information
Women, General public
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 2009
General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support
1989
Xumek Argentina
CEDLA Bolivia
Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Human mobility, Cildren and adolecents, Institutional violence, Disabilities
Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Work and employment
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Indigenous peoples, Refugees, migrants, displaced persons, and/or stateless individuals, Persons with disabilities
Indigenous peoples, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, People living in rural areas
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2007
Research/Knowledge generation 1985
Catolicas por el derecho a decidir Brazil
CEERT Brazil
CONECTAS Brazil, Regional
Fundación
Getulio Vargas Brazil
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Rights of black communities
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Work and employment, Institutional violence
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities, LGBTIQ+ individuals
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities
Indigenous peoples, People living in rural areas, General public
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Education General public
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising 1993
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1990
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2006
Research/Knowledge generation, Training and capacity building 1944
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Economic empowerment and popular economy, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Poverty/economic inequality
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Businesses and human rights, Institutional violence, Human Rights Defenders
Women, Indigenous peoples, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, People living in rural areas, People living in poverty
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
1981
Instituto Polis Brazil
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city
Indigenous peoples, General public, Human rights defenders
General public
2017
General public
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1999
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2001
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1987
Terra de dereitos Brazil
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Poverty/economic inequality
People living in poverty, General public
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2022
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Indigenous peoples, People living in rural areas
Women
Corporacion Humanas Colombia
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Women
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2012
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1982
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2004
Foro Colombia
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1982
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Promotion of new techonologies, Technical assistance/ Professional support
1963
Fundación Ideas para la Paz Colombia
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Businesses and human rights
Fundación Los Valles Colombia Education
ILEX Colombia
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Right to health, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Afro-descendent persons
Organizaciones de la sociedad civil y empresas
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth
Personas afrodescendientes
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1999
Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1994
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
INDEPAZ Colombia
Instituto de Ciencias Políticas Colombia
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Businesses and human rights
People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Indigenous peoples Indigenous peoples
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising
1987
2018
1982
1960
Red Feminista
Antimilitarista Colombia
Temblores Colombia
Education, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1996
Costa Rica
CDES Ecuador
Corporación
Participación
Ciudadana
Ecuador
Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Women, General public
Human rights defenders, Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Indigenous peoples, General public
Economic empowerment and popular economy, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Work and employment, Poverty/economic inequality, Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights
Women, Indigenous peoples, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, People living in rural areas, People living in poverty
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising
Research/Knowledge generation, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies 1992
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1990
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1997
General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 2002
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, Persons with disabilities, Elderly individuals
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support
2019
General public
FUNDE El Salvador
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Corruption, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Sustainable regional development, Sustainable public finances
Asociación de Mujeres de Guatemala Guatemala Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
General public
Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support, Direct assistance (food, materials, etc.)
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation
2015
ASJ Honduras
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Corruption, Education, Right to health
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Technical assistance/ Professional support
1992
1998
Centro de Derechos de las Mujeres
Artículo 19
Honduras Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Women
CDH Fray Bartolomé de las Casas
Mexico, Regional
Mexico
Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights, Derechos Digitales, Access to informtion
General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Promotion of new techonologies
1992
Cohesión comunitaria
Mexico
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Criminal justice, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Indigenous peoples, Human rights defenders
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising
2006
1989
Women, People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities, Indigenous peoples, General public
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Mexicanos contra la Corrupción y la Impunidad Mexico
Criminal justice, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
General public
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support 2007
Corruption
General public
Mexiro Mexico
Otros Mundos Mexico
Corruption, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources
Women, General public
Indigenous peoples, People living in rural areas, General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Promotion of new techonologies
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Direct assistance (food, materials, etc.)
PODER Mexico
TOJIL Mexico
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Corruption, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Businesses and human rights
Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights, protesta, Human rights defenders
ACD Panama Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources
Indigenous peoples, People living in rural areas, General public
General public
Research/Knowledge generation, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies
General public
General public
General public, Human rights defenders
General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Promotion of new techonologies 1993
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2009
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising 1999
Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Poverty/economic inequality Women, Formal workers and/or those in the informal economy, People living in poverty
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Training and capacity building
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
2002
Coordinadora
Nacional de Derechos Humanos Peru
Corruption, Criminal justice, Right to health, Human mobility, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Human rights defenders
Women, Indigenous peoples, Refugees, migrants, displaced persons, and/or stateless individuals, Persons with disabilities, People living with HIV/AIDS, People living in poverty, Human rights defenders
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Training and capacity building 2004
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising
CEJIL Regional
Civilis Venezuela
Criminal justice, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Human mobility, Pueblos indígenas, Human rights defenders
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Strategic Litigation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1991
Venezuela
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Education, Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Right to health, Work and employment, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice, Freedom of expression/freedom of association/civil rights
General public
Indigenous peoples, General public
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2010
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1988
Jóvenes por el Clima Argentina Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources
Federación
General public
General public, Organizaciones, movimientos territoriales
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Promotion of new techonologies
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
Children and adolescents/Youth, People living in segregated urban areas/informal settlements, General public Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
General public
Argentina LGBT (FALGBT) Argentina Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights LGBTIQ+ individuals
Confederación
Mapuche del Neuquén Argentina
El Barzon Mexico
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Indigenous peoples
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city People living in rural areas
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising
2014
2003
2004
2019
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2005
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1970
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1993
Movimento dos Trabalhadores
Rurais Sem Terra (MST)
Brazil
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Economic empowerment and popular economy, Work and employment
Associação Brasileira de Lésbicas, Gays, Bissexuais, Travestis, e Transexuais (ABGLT)
Articulação dos Povos
Indígenas do Brasil
Brazil
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
Children and adolescents/Youth
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Huelga
LGBTIQ+ individuals
Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support
1980
Brazil
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights
LGBTIQ+ individuals
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Indigenous peoples Indigenous peoples
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building
2019
2004
1995
2005
Congreso Nacional Indígena
Movimiento Nacional de Víctimas de Crímenes de Estado (MOVICE)
Mexico
Colombia
Land and territory/habitat and housing/right to the city, Indigenous peoples
Red Nacional de Refugios
Mexico
Citizenship/Democracy/Governance/ Institutional Quality, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Indigenous peoples
Ruta Pacífica de las mujeres
RenacientesProceso de comunidades negras de colombia
Colombia
Víctimas de Crímenes Estado
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights Women, Children and adolescents/Youth
Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights, Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice Women
Colombia Rights of black communities
People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising 1996
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Technical assistance/ Professional support, Direct assistance (food, materials, etc.)
2005
2004
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1996
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1993
Movimiento
Negro Unificado Brazil Rights of black communities
Environmental justice/climate justice/natural resources, Businesses and human rights
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, People belonging to racial/ethnic/religious minorities
General public
Women, Children and adolescents/Youth, People living in rural areas
Mesa por la Vida Colombia Gender justice/sexual diversity/reproductive rights Women
Asociación de familiares de detenidos desaparecidos (ASFADDES) Colombia
Peacebuilding/Memory, truth, and justice
Familias de víctimas de desapariciones forzadas
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 1978
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Training and capacity building 2018
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Public Communication/Awareness raising 2010
Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1998
Watchdog (public oversight): Access to information/Demand for accountability/Complaints, Research/Knowledge generation, Promotion of public policies, Public Communication/Awareness raising, Technical assistance/ Professional support 1983
