CONSENSUS BUILDING

a contemporary and democratic instrument for formatting public policies[1]

 Tania Almeida[2]

 Rafael Alves de Almeida[3]

 Consensus building, as a feasible, participatory and inclusive method, articulates directly with democratic ideals[4], by enabling the creation of spaces for participatory deliberation within the decision-making processes. When this procedure is adopted, it becomes possible to perceive that consensual results are possible both for the management and decision-making and for the administration of conflicts, in the public and private spheres.

New forms of civil participation have been tested and even their achievement included in specific legislation. Involving citizens in the decision-making process that directly affect their lives has become a first-rate necessity in contemporary democracies. It is about thinking of new initiatives to promote voluntary and organized participation[5].

Citizen participation contributes not only to legitimizing deliberative decision-making processes, but also, and above all, the results obtained. When citizens participate in the decision-making process through consensus building, they assume responsibility and commitment for the implementation of the results achieved.

In this context, it is also crucial to revitalize citizens' feelings and aspirations so that they can increase their participation in defining the course of society. In support of this idea, prof. Joaquim Falcão[6] teaches:

The consolidation and expansion of democratic citizenship is too serious a matter to be left to governments alone. Or be limited only to the electoral moment. Expanding the participation of civil society in the decision-making process of their cities is the main task, today, of civil society itself.

Vera Schattan P. Coelho and Marcos Nobre[7] reflect that:

[…] mere participation without an enlightened understanding can be blind, threatening the very value of participation.

[…] The hypothesis that guides the different investigations is that the creation of new mechanisms for more direct and active participation and deliberation in the processes of policy definition could lead to more effective ways of responding to social needs and needs. Additionally, for some of these investigations, the result is not only greater effectiveness, but also a densification of the processes of political opinion and will formation that are qualitatively reflected in the institutional performance of the new actors.

Deliberative theory holds that the ability of democracy to produce moral truths (fair and correct decisions) depends on the active and thoughtful participation of citizens throughout the process of discussion and decision-making.

Understanding the consensus building methodology presupposes a previous exercise of acceptance of the diversity of positions and interests existing between the parties involved as an essential element to obtain satisfactory results[8].

It is about envisioning the hypothesis of deconstructing predominant or unconscious patterns, in which it is only up to managers to say how actions should be implemented, in order to adopt a legitimate attempt to achieve more satisfactory and sustainable results from the inclusion of perceptions (optical ) and alternatives – creative and innovative – offered as well, by those who will be affected by such results.

The consensus building methodology makes it possible to create new spaces for participation and deliberation, which not only challenge existing structures, but also allow, in parallel, the compensation of material and subjective inequalities between citizens in ordinary decision-making processes.

In their famous book Breaking Robert's Rules, Lawrence Susskind and Jeffrey Cruikshank[9]  indicate that: “Consensus is a way for a group or organization to reach a nearly successful building agreement, and then implement that agreement.”

Archon Fung[10] explains that:

[…] Injecting direct, mobilized, deliberative citizen participation into democratic governance can favor the voices of those at a disadvantage and thus provide a procedural antidote that enhances the equity of legislation and policy making.

Consensus building is also an especially useful instrument for dialogues involving multiple parties and interests that must be articulated in the proposal of norms, projects, agreements or actions that aim at mutual benefit and satisfaction, as well as the preservation of differences between involved.

It is a flexible procedure, in essence quite transparent and which retains unique authenticity, in the sense that each process is unique and does not have the primary objective of obtaining unanimity as a result.[11]. Its basic characteristic is the possibility of balancing inequalities in cognitive, financial and argumentative capacity among the participants in its dynamics. And, the final product, the consensus itself, is reached from the manifestations/deliberations produced by informed participants of the process to which they are submitted.

The fundamental principle of consensus building is the possibility of remaining in disagreement. Even if they disagree, participants must propose adjustments to what differs from their point of view, in order to be able to live with something or a way of thinking that differs from their own, expressed in the project or in the agreement presented by others.

During the consensus building process, each participant has the possibility to offer quite different ways of thinking, making sense of the existing context, and building narratives about how they perceive the world around them. Such differences or disagreements are welcome in the process and naturally arise from different forms of reasoning and perception that each one expresses or has about the reality in which they live.

Consensus building depends on the role of facilitators and mediators who help organize and develop its dynamics, so that all participants can bring to the table all the energy needed to focus on the issue at hand.

In the construction of consensus, the facilitation of dialogues has an inclusive character, an essential characteristic of collaborative processes aimed at the prevention and resolution of multiparty conflicts. Similar to the mediation institute, dialogue facilitation uses its tools and is essentially focused on situations in which several parties need to negotiate differences and build mutually beneficial solutions.

Dialogue facilitation can be explained beforehand as a technique that aims at understanding and allows a disinterested, independent and impartial third party (or a team of third parties) to assist in your organization in order to enable joint, participatory and flexible decisions based on consensus.

It is important to realize that many people in new or adverse situations have a propensity to make, consciously or not, value judgments based on the most diverse experiences and values, of a cultural, religious, political, economic nature, among others. Such pre-judgments, based or not on the retrograde experiences of each one, positive or not, generally make the attempts to negotiate their different perceptions and points of view when in a group more complex for each individual. Without realizing this, people withdraw, inhibit their spontaneity and even dissuade (intimidate) others to think, opine or even say differently than they think about what is being discussed. Efforts to explore complexities are discouraged in favor of superficial judgments.

Facilitating dialogues facilitates the exchange of information, the exposition of positions and the presentation of interests and values, in addition to, fundamentally, enabling everyone to hear and legitimize what others have to say. The qualitative expansion of communication is given to everyone and the learning caused by the experience can be transferred to other contexts and situations.

Dialogue fundamentally implies expressing one's own ideas clearly, listening to the other and admitting that a perception different from one's own may exist and be legitimate. To hear you only need a working hearing aid. In order to listen, however, it is imperative to pay attention to what is said and, more than that, to consider what is said as a possibility, even if it differs from what is thought or proposed. Much information is lost and, consequently, numerous possibilities for understanding are lost when people involved in a conversation listen without listening in an inclusive way.

Participating in a process of facilitating dialogue makes it possible to acquire awareness of the circumstances (core and contours) of the situation that motivates it, of qualified listening and inclusive decision-making. The participants in this process, moved by their new perceptions and/or insights on a given subject or issue, start to propose actions of mutual benefit. The participation and agreement of all in the construction of proposals arising from this quality of participation generate in each one (and in all) a sense of responsibility for their implementation.

The participatory process allows any group or even organization to realize the vast intellectual capital of its members and provide greater organization and performance in the decision-making process. With the facilitation of dialogues in participatory processes, it is sought that the parties involved become the architects of their own future, especially with regard to their own decisions and the resulting consequences.

Similar to inter-party mediation, the facilitator must be a neutral person regarding the content being examined (content neutrality). It must not, at any time, express an opinion or take sides on any of the issues brought/raised by the parties, or even show interest in the result to be obtained. The facilitator is required to always remain focused on the idea of ​​contributing so that all participants have at their disposal the necessary tools to design (build) their own solutions to their questions. It is also its duty to identify, as the case may be, the need to refer the parties to the consultation of technical opinions on certain topics, in order to ensure qualified, that is, well-informed decisions. 

It is understood that in facilitating dialogues between groups, the facilitator must advocate for inclusive and open forms of conduct, capable of balancing the participation of all, in order to increase the productivity of the meetings and the efficiency of the results, in a psychologically safe environment. in which all members of the different groups represented can actively participate and feel heard.

The dialogue facilitator helps groups and organizations work more effectively and collaboratively to achieve synergies. It encourages the full and open participation of the parties involved, promotes mutual understanding (understanding the perspective of others), promotes inclusive solutions and cultivates the division of responsibilities. Such aspects are considered essential values ​​in a participatory decision-making process in groups. The facilitator works as a true “dialogue guide”, assisting the parties in the process of perceiving and reflecting on their positions, interests and values.

There are several techniques available to facilitators to honor the diversity of perspectives and points of view that exist within groups.

The best solution to a dispute is the one that originates from a successful integration between divergent points of view in which all those involved were able to participate in its constitution, after having manifested, through reflection, their justified agreement with the result obtained.

Build consensus through participatory and inclusive dialogue[12], listening and formulating proposals is, therefore, identified as an important principle of this practice. All those involved in the matter must always be heard and see their interests and values ​​contemplated in the text of the agreement, in the constructed project, in the norms considered or in the actions to be implemented.

The opportunity for equal participation in the consensus building process is in line with the aspirations of a democratic society[13]. Participation is free and inclusive, welcomes representatives from different groups and is conducted through procedures known, negotiated and accepted by all in advance (ground rules).

At this point, it is interesting to highlight some reflections by Prof. Sandra Jovchelovitch[14], resulting from his examination of the relationship between knowledge and context through a new analysis of the processes of representation:

Representation […] is at the base of all systems of knowledge and understanding its genesis, development and mode of concretization in social life, provides us with the key to understanding the relationship that ties knowledge to the person, to communities and worlds of life. It is through representation that we can understand both the diversity and the expressiveness of all knowledge systems.

[…] I then try to demonstrate that there is a relationship between the type of public sphere of a community and the form of knowledge it produces; the analysis of representational form (Self-Other-Object) is the basic conceptual key for understanding both knowledge and the public sphere of communities.

[…] Collective representations correspond well to the structure of traditional public spheres, but the conditions that characterize detraditionalized public spheres today demand new forms of social knowledge, better able to accommodate diversity in perspective and plurality in life horizons.

[…] The formation of representation is a public task, a context-dependent process linked to the social, political and historical conditions that shape certain contexts.

With this methodology, the autonomy of all participating individuals and groups is ensured (within the inter-party communication process), a fact that further contributes to reinforcing the commitment to achieving the results obtained. All are previously informed of the procedures and rules to be adopted and are treated equally, with the same opportunity to express themselves, debate, give opinions and decide on issues. Such aspects make it possible to reconcile and accommodate a multiplicity of interests, values ​​and objectives during the process.

Consensus building also privileges, in reinforcement of what was identified above in the quote by Prof. Sandra Jovchelovitch, the possibility of the coexistence of different perspectives, the plurality of solutions and the simultaneity of dialogues between representatives and between them and their representatives. The same author points out that “representation is an active construction of social actors”[15] and his work is multifaceted and moves incessantly from the individual to the social and vice versa.

Through participation, individuals and groups of citizens not only have the opportunity to glimpse their represented interests, but also to reveal what they really consider important, the interrelationships in which they are involved and the nature of the social worlds they inhabit.

The consensus built is translated into a summary text (Texto Único), which articulates everyone's ideas in a careful and inclusive way - without giving up any of them - so that the different actors recognize, in addition to their interests and values, contributions from other participants in the dialogue group, different from their point of view.

The consensus obtained requires, in turn, conciliation and a certain degree of reflexive empathy between the different interests and values ​​of the parties involved. It is (consensus) a final product with a high degree of collective identity among the participants and that links everyone for mutually acceptable reasons.[16]. In a way, consensus works as a criterion for validating and legitimizing human actions.[17].

There is in the specialized doctrine the identification of several steps related to the dynamics of consensus building, and among them, this study emphasizes the development of three important phases[18], which we identified as common to all presentations: (i) pre-negotiation, (ii) negotiation and (iii) implementation or post-negotiation.

The first stage or pre-negotiation it is the moment when the process comes to life. It is necessary that one of the actors or someone external to the issue suggests the use of the instrument and the search for a disinterested third party to coordinate it. In general, governed by cultural prejudices, people refuse the role of being the one who proposes dialogue in adverse situations, for fear of showing some type of weakness. In these cases, someone not directly involved in the issue comes forward to perform this task, which is of great value.

From then on, the third facilitator begins the mapping of the situation, including the identification of all the actors involved, the individual and group understanding of the issue and the approach attempts made until that moment.

Interviewed, one by one, these actors help to identify others and to discriminate the interests and values ​​that need to be met in the negotiation. Important at this stage is to be able to bring the right people to the table with their interests clarified and the correct expectations regarding the dialogue process. For this, it is sometimes necessary to carry out a pre-assessment and clarification of the interests of the parties that are likely to be affected by the decision to be taken, and a pedagogical stage that provides information on the inclusive, participatory and consensual nature of the dialogue process.

As an example, based on the experience of those who have used the instrument in public policies, it has been noticed that, in these cases, it is better to have a large number of identified actors in the beginning than a reduced number. However, throughout the process, a certain reduction in the number of participants is allowed, either for their own reasons or due to the identification of similarity of interests already represented.

In addition to the tasks already identified above, the facilitator (or team of facilitators) also helps with the task of electing representatives for each interviewed group, as well as identifying that some interests are common to different groups and can be represented by others.

The selected representatives can change throughout the process, according to their availability, skills and specific knowledge to contribute at a given moment of negotiation. It is worth remembering that a pedagogical contribution related to the principles and posture required by the consensus building may be necessary.

Still at this stage, three other activities will be coordinated by the third facilitator: (i) building a work agenda, (ii) designing the protocols that will guide the negotiation and (iii) identifying the need for the participation of specialists in the process:

  • build the agenda of work - it is an activity following the interviews carried out. The agenda will be assembled in groups of subjects to be addressed, titled according to the themes or interests and values ​​identified in the contact with each group. Each group must recognize in the agenda that its interests and needs will be the subject of the negotiating table. The agenda should not be so short that it does not discriminate between different topics, nor so long that it causes discouragement;
  • design the protocols - it consists of rules that will guide the conduction and participation in the work dynamics – this initial task can be reviewed at each stage of the dialogue. The protocols, or ground rules, must be written so that they serve as a reference in the conduct of the process and in the participation of all. They need to answer different questions: where will the meetings take place; how often and for how long; how the floor will be given to each participant; how actors should act in situations of disagreement and agreement; how to deal with would-be observers and the press; how each representative will handle what was built in the meetings with the group he represents. Suggested by the third facilitator, these rules must be validated and expanded, or even streamlined, by the participants;
  • identify the need for the participation of experts – is due to the fact that some topics, especially those related to public policies, require, with great frequency, technical opinions, as well as the fact that the parties have, in most cases, unbalanced knowledge about the issues to be addressed. The key question is: What do we know and what do we not know about the themes, context and experiences relating to this issue/dispute? Technical opinions must be administered with transparency. Everyone must have access to the technical information contributed to the process.

 

In this second phase, or negotiation, the third facilitator will encourage all actors, through dialogue between representatives and between them and their representatives, to build options for mutual gain and benefit. He will coordinate the dialogue between the representatives and, if necessary, between them and their representatives.

Trust in the process is essential, as it allows one to commit to the proposal in the sense of having the necessary courage to seek solutions and not “getting up from the table”. Without trust, there is no reason to continue talking to the other parties. Such trust is achieved by maintaining a balance in the participation of the parties involved, avoiding the establishment of a monopoly of the word.

The expected usefulness of each intervention (especially based on questions) made by the facilitator lies not only in the ability to help reformulate each participant's view of their beliefs - knowledge and contexts - but also in the possibility of helping in their clear expression. and listening of an inclusive nature, in order to expand availability to legitimize differences and build mutually beneficial solutions.

As the communication process develops between the parties, it is possible to start designing a way to organize the possibilities of cooperation towards a consensual solution.

It is worth remembering here some fundamental protocols for the operationalization and optimization of this work:

  • Single Texts must include contributions (interests and values) of all participants in the dialogue;
  • for this to occur, it is worth bearing in mind that they will also contemplate different opinions from those of each person or group represented in the dialogue. As a result, all participants should read them, seeking to find their ideas, interests and values, as well as passages, words or expressions that represent their opinions and those of others, especially those who strongly disagree with their own. In that case, use the ground rules consequent;
  • In the event that the text includes opinions, words or expressions that they strongly disagree with or that they would not like to be included in the final abstract text, any participant can offer suggestions for exchange and specific adaptation, keeping in mind that all ideas contributed must be contemplated. . Thus, offers should always seek to meet everyone's interests. The objective is to translate the diversity of the dialogue group into a text with which each one can live together, even disagreeing. When questioning, it is necessary to offer constructive alternatives that serve everyone;
  • in disagreement, objective questions can be asked with the intention of understanding the other's point of view (and not contesting it); it is recommended to always assess the need for long comments and questions in order to avoid them, if possible, in this type of dialogue;
  • when the dialogue takes place between representatives of categories or groups, it must be borne in mind that each one will be the spokesperson for the idea of ​​their group, not their own;
  • during this phase, the proposed agenda must be followed, objectively, in order to optimize everyone's time and the work that will be built by many hands;
  • ideas or opinions within the spectrum can be accepted: “I fully agree”, “it is a good idea”, “it is a bearable opinion”; and offer a constructive alternative if they are ideas (conceptions) with which one has reservations, serious concerns or, even, one considers that they should not be part of the final text.

 

It is up to the facilitator to write the initial text that will condense all the interests and values ​​identified in the interviews with each group, and the other texts arising from the negotiations between the representatives and between them and their representatives. Sometimes topics are condensed into thematic packages and presented to representatives to take to their groups.

With the collection of texts after approval by the different groups, the facilitator will proceed with the new writing (as many as necessary), maintaining in parallel the coordination of the dialogue between all, according to the ground rules. With this, the facilitator aims to maintain everyone's commitment and co-responsibility with what is proposed in the final consolidated text.

Ratification of the final single text is a delicate task. The step-by-step protocol will help to take care of the steps prior to writing the text, facilitating this outcome. If the final text concerns an agreement, some contingencies may be foreseen for the agreement to be reviewed, as well as some conditions may be decisive for its fulfillment.

In the implementation phase, or post-trade, the third facilitator must perform three important tasks: (i) make it possible for informal agreements to become formal decisions, (ii) suggest and enable monitoring of what was agreed and (iii) create a favorable context for possible renegotiations.

Formalizing informal agreements will require access to competent bodies and the transit required by the topic or proposition. Monitoring the implementation may require the design of a new process and the formation of a follow-up team, as it implies a coordinated series of actions. Creating a context for renegotiation is governed by the commitment previously made: what can we do in the event that something, or some contingency, does not allow the agreement to be fully fulfilled? Opening a renegotiation with this forecast is easier than starting the consensus building process all over again.

With the clarification of the concept of consensus building from the established references, it becomes possible to envision the use of this methodology as an important category to be considered in the process of formatting public policies, which are considered to be the ideal environment for the practical application of this through the facilitation of dialogues.

It can be seen that in the current scenario, in which political power and legal norms have an emphasis, and where experience has already shown that vertical solutions are often not fulfilled or implemented, for the simple fact that the interests of and values ​​of all those involved, the horizontality observed in the construction of consensus would allow the management of these impasses through the effective and organized coordination of the differences between the actors.

The content of public policies, at any time and place, would crucially depend on the relative weight of the considerations and interventions of each participant within the consensus building process. And as plausible examples of the applicability of consensus building in the formatting of public policies, we highlight the management of multi-party conflicts, the elaboration of projects and the design of actions, as well as the elaboration of regulations negotiated in the public sphere.

Maria Paula DallariBucci[19] clarifies that:

To think about public policy is to seek coordination, whether in the performance of the Public, Executive, Legislative and Judiciary Powers, whether between federative levels, whether within the Government, between the various portfolios, and also considering the interaction between civil society and the state. For this reason, the importance of consensual instruments such as agreements and consortia has grown in public management.

Cristiane Derani[20], in turn, points out that:

A more democratic, more conscious society, with instruments for greater participation, is a society in which public policy will more faithfully contain the decision-making force of society. A society may contain field and competence for carrying out public policies, but this does not mean that it will be a democratic public policy.

In addition to meeting the interests and values ​​of all those involved in the issue under debate, the consensus building methodology makes it possible to preserve the future social relationship of the participating actors, a key issue in determining public policy agendas and in choosing the design (design ) institutional.

Within this context, it is imperative to think about the development of communication processes in which the different actors (social subjects) can also be situated. Participation in deliberations is regulated by norms of equality and symmetry. All participants have the same opportunities to initiate speech acts, question, be heard, interrogate and open debates. Through this participation, greater civic engagement and incitement of all to participate and deliberate occurs. The results obtained are thus validated by all, which in fact legitimizes the deliberative decision-making process.

This creates the basis for the emergence of a more harmonious and legitimate relationship between civil society and the State, the result of society's rational adherence to a set of concrete measures, policies, or programs that it helped to formulate, decide and often run[21].

Legitimacy is ensured by the participants' acceptance of the procedures through which the construction of consensus acquires responsiveness to their considerations and interventions generated in the dynamics of the process itself.

Brazil, following this trend, has in the law that regulates the National Policy on Water Resources (9433/97), an example of a proposal for conflict resolution and composition of interests, based on the demand for consensus building. There is the following mention in its text, in Fundament VI, of Chapter I: “the management of water resources must be decentralized and count on the participation of the Government, users and communities.” In addition, Resolution No. 5, of April 10, 2000, which deals with the Hydrographic Basin Committees, in the first paragraph of its article 1, provided the following: "The Hydrographic Basin Committees are collegiate bodies with normative, deliberative attributions and advisory services to be exercised in the watershed of its jurisdiction.”

It is worth bringing up a Brazilian experience that has shown excellent results[22], it is the Participatory Budget, in full swing in some municipalities in the southern region.

This type of budget (or its structuring/planning) takes place through the establishment of a previous stage in the definition of the municipal budget, which is, first, the responsibility of the Executive Power and, later, of the local Legislative Power.

This stage consists of a preliminary and broad discussion with the community, through its organizations, about the political priorities and the projects to be financed. It seeks to identify the best and most efficient ways to spend your city's money.

With this consensus building methodology, an attempt is made to create a space for constructive dialogue between the various representatives of the democratic dynamics – individual, people, entities, the Executive and the Legislative.

Injecting direct, mobilized, deliberative citizen participation into democratic governance favors the voices of those at a disadvantage and thus offers a procedural antidote that enhances the equity of legislation and policymaking.[23].

In the context of the prevention and resolution of conflicts inherent to the dynamics of public policies, the construction of consensus finds special applicability. In this context, conflicts articulate multiple factors: procedures, relationships and substance. The usual methods of resolution deal, in particular, with aspects related to substance and procedures, often leaving relationships aside. Therefore, those who could deal with these three aspects in a balanced way would be considered more appropriate, in order to favor, through their articulation, the fulfillment of the agreement.

It is necessary to use instruments that make it possible to balance technical knowledge and the power factor, with responsibility for the prevention and resolution of conflicts and for the sustainability of solutions, in order to equally meet the multiple interests of the network of actors, enabling shared actions , built in co-authorship. It is understood that such actions would not only provide the necessary sustainability for the elected solutions, but also the resistance to possible cyclical changes of power.

Conclusion

Awakening trust and interest, knowing how to listen, cooperate, respect and seek creative and innovative solutions are essential actions and requirements for the success of any collective, participatory and deliberative activity orchestrated by the consensus building method.

Consensus building is a methodology based on the contemporary need for self-composition of differences through dialogue. This need appears in the contexts of coexistence, from the simplest to the most complex, varying from situations existing in communities, organizations, networks of stakeholders, common markets as well as in international politics. Participatory and inclusive dialogue – one that does not exclude any actor or interest – is a prestigious instrument today and permeates the processes of coexistence and management.

It is a methodology that consolidates democracy when it creates spaces for deliberation and establishes stable and consolidated (institutionalized) rules of the game aimed at promoting consensual results for the most diverse situations. And those involved participate in the construction of the solution to the problem adjusted to the perspectives of a future harmonious coexistence.

One of the central challenges in examining the results obtained is to question whether their validity, in terms of the participation and deliberation of some, can be legitimately considered as the result of the participation and deliberation of all. How to guarantee the legitimacy of collective decisions reached in deliberative processes when it is known that, in concrete situations, the majority of those affected do not participate in these decisions?[24]

It is necessary to think about new institutional forms of social, political and economic pluralism. Thinking of democracy not as an end, but as a beginning, and on this path, if we can call it that, citizens are recommended to be granted access and the necessary means so that they can achieve the ideal of participating in public management as well.

If, on the one hand, civil society organizes itself, on the other hand, public administration opens itself up through numerous councils, public hearings, partnerships, technical consultations, etc.[25].

Making use of what Paulo Todescan Lessa Mattos[26] prescribes, evaluating decision-making conditions on the formulation of public policies can be a task carried out from the point of view of Law and not only of Political Science. It is necessary to work with an analysis model that takes into account the complexity of the social relations typical of the contemporary rule of law.

At the same time, it is important that this model is able to provide us with the necessary elements for the emergence of a proposal for an institutional design (possibly critical) that helps us in the search for new, effective and efficient modalities of popular and democratic participation.

We believe that it is possible for the consensus building methodology to be seen as a legitimate proposal for a new, more participatory management style, and, consequently, more efficient and satisfactory, and with ample capacity to be replicated in the various segments of public administration.

In this sense, due to the growing importance of the issue at hand, it is necessary to progressive theoretical and empirical investigation so that the consensus building methodology becomes effective as a feasible and effective alternative of institutional arrangement, in order to provide participatory legitimacy in the decision-making process. decision, specifically with regard to the formatting of public policies in a democratic state of law.


Bibliographic references

ABREVAYA, Sergio; BASZ, Victoria. Facilitation in Public Policies. An interhospital experience. Buenos Aires: Historical Bookstore, 2005.

BENHABIB, Seyla. Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy. In BENHABIB, Seyla (ed.). Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political🇧🇷 USA: Princeton, 1996, p. 67-94.

BUCCI, Maria Paula Dallari (org.). Public policy. Reflections on the Legal Concept. Sao Paulo: Saraiva, 2006.

COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (eds.). Participation and Fromrelease. Democratic Theory and Institutional Experiences in Contemporary Brazil. São Paulo: Publisher 34, 2004.

COHEN, Joshua. Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In: HAMLIN, Alan; PETTIT, Phillip. The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State🇧🇷 UK: Basil Blackwell, 1989, p. 17-34.

FALCON, Joaquin. Democracy, Change and the Third Sector🇧🇷 Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2004.

GOMES, Luiz Roberto. Education and Consensus in Habermas. Campinas: Alinea, 2007.

JOVCHELOVITCH, Sandra. The Contexts of Knowledge. Representations, community and culture. Petrópolis: Voices, 2007.

KANER, Sam. Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision-Making🇧🇷 USA: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

MATTOS, Paulo Todescan Lessa. The New Regulatory State in Brazil. Efficiency and Legitimacy. Sao Paulo: Singular, 2006.

MIRANDA, Bridges. Democracy, Liberty and Equality. The three ways. São Paulo: Livraria José Olympio, 1945.

SUSSKIND, Lawrence; CRUIKSHANK, Jeffrey. breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Sl: Basic Books, 1987

SUSSKIND, Lawrence E., CRUIKSHANK, Jeffrey L. Breaking Robert's Rules: the new way to run your meeting build consensus, and get results. New York: Oxford, 2006.

SUSSKIND, Lawrence; MCKEARNAN, Sarah; THOMAS-LARMER, Jennifer. The Consensus Building Handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999.

___________

[1] ALMEIDA, Rafael Alves de; ALMEIDA, Tania. (2012). Consensus construction: democratic and contemporary instrument for shaping public policies. In. NETO, Adolfo Braga; SALES, Lilia Maia de Moraes. (orgs)Current aspects of mediation and other extra-judicial methods of conflict resolution🇧🇷 Rio de Janeiro: GZ Editora, 2012, p. 314-330.

[2] Master in Conflict Mediation. President of MEDIARE – Dialogues and Decision-Making Processes. Postgraduate in Neuropsychiatry, Psychoanalysis, Sociology and Business Management. Doctor.

[3] Doctor in Public Policies, Strategies and Development from the Institute of Economics at UFRJ. Master in Law at London School of Economics. Master in Regulation and Competition from UCAM. Graduated from the School of Magistracy of the State of Rio de Janeiro. Postgraduate Coordinator Postgraduate Course in Law from FGV DIREITO RIO. Member of the MEDIARE Board of Directors. Lawyer and Economist.

[4] UGART, Pedro Salazar. Which participation for which Democracy? In. COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (eds.). Participation and Deliberation. Democratic Theory and Institutional Experiences in Contemporary Brazil. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p. 95: “[…] democracy and participation are intertwined concepts”.

[5] FALCON, Joaquin. Democracy, Law and the Third Sector. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2004, p. 50 and 57: “[…] democracy is the process of creation, circulation and egalitarian distribution of social goods. Or rather, it is precisely the institutionalization of the equal participation of citizens in the decision-making process about their city, about their country. […] Breaking the monopoly of electoral representation is, above all, accepting that other forms of social representation are also legitimate. Are accepted by citizens and can solve problems. Be capable of consensus and efficiency. If the individual citizen is the main agent of representative democracy, in participatory democracy the main agent is the multiple organizations.”

[6] Id., p. 51.

[7] COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (eds.). Participation and Deliberation. Democratic Theory and Institutional Experiences in Contemporary Brazil. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p. 12, 14 and 15.

[8] SUSSKIND, Lawrence E., CRUIKSHANK, Jeffrey L. Breaking the Impasse. Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. USA: Basic Books, 1987, p. 10: Though our representative democracy – with its separate levels and branches of government – ​​is the foundation of our political system, we need to improve the ways in which we use it to resolve public disputes. We must achieve better results at lower cost. In particular, we need to find ways of dealing with differences that will restore public confidence in government, and improve relationship among the various segments of our society.”

[9] SUSSKIND, Lawrence E., CRUIKSHANK, Jeffrey L. Breaking Robert's Rules: the new way to run your meeting build consensus, and get results🇧🇷 New York: Oxford, 2006, p. 3.

[10] FUNG, Archon. Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Designs and their Consequences. In. COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (eds.). Participation and Deliberation. Democratic Theory and Institutional Experiences in Contemporary Brazil🇧🇷 São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p. 177.

[11] SUSSKIND, Lawrence E., CRUIKSHANK, Jeffrey L. op. cit., p. 19: “[…] build solidarity and agreement broadly, across your group's membership, and to get most members of the group to buy into a shared judgment by the end of the process. It`s about building consensus, one brick at a time. Collectively, you work toward a shared solution. You search for something that everybody, or almost everybody, can live with.”

[12] JOVCHELOVITCH, Sandra. The Contexts of Knowledge. Representations, community and culture. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2007, p. 23: “2) Different modalities of representation bring to light different ways of knowing. Knowledge is a plural and heterogeneous phenomenon that comprises multiple rationalities, whose logics are not defined by a transcendental norm, but are related to the pragmatics of contexts. The diversity of knowledge expresses the diversity of subjective, intersubjective and objective worlds represented in their different forms. 3) Understanding the heterogeneity of knowledge implies dismantling the traditional social representation that sees knowledge in terms of a progressive scale in which higher forms of knowledge replace lower forms. There is coexistence and non-displacement of knowledge; these respond to different needs and perform different functions in social life. The diversity of human knowledge is a heritage available to all human communities and the dialogue between different forms of knowledge constitutes the difficult, but indispensable, resource that can expand the borders of all types of knowledge.

[13] UGART, Pedro Salazar. Op. Cit., p. 98-99: […] As is well known, there are different versions and definitions of “deliberative democracy”, but they all share two fundamental elements: 1) the idea that collective decision-making must participate all the potential recipients thereof or, failing that, their representatives; 2) the idea that decision-making must be the result of an exchange of arguments among the participants who, during the discussion, must respect the criteria of impartiality and rationality. The first idea constitutes the democratic element of the theory, and the second represents its properly deliberative element. There are many representatives of this attractive and relatively recent theory, but, without a doubt, the most outstanding exponent is Jürgen Habermas. For him “the central element of the democratic process is the procedure of deliberative politics”. […] For deliberativists, […] citizens are inspired by a cooperative spirit, act reasonably […] and respect each other. […] the deliberative theory […] holds that the ability of democracy to produce moral truths (fair and correct decisions) depends on the active and thoughtful participation of citizens during the deliberative process and decision-making. Participation is the source of legitimacy and moral justification of democracy and, for this very reason, represents the highest degree of political value.” SUSSKIND, Lawrence E., CRUIKSHANK, Jeffrey L. op. cit., p. 158: “[…] Consensus building is a way of shaping democratic involvement and making it more efficient.”

[14] JOVCHELOVITCH, op. cit., p. 21, 25 and 36.

[15] JOVCHELOVITCH, op. cit., p. 70.

[16] ARAUJO, Cicero. Political Reason, Common Good and Democratic Decision. In. COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (eds.). Participation and Deliberation. Democratic Theory and Institutional Experiences in Contemporary Brazil. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p. 160: “Deliberation is not simply a prior discussion of the issues to be decided. Rather, it is a discussion that aims to justify collective decisions with “reasons”. However, not just any reasons, but those that would base the decision on a concept of “common good”. For by being willing to communicate with one another, citizens do not only aim to make public which interests they would like to see promoted: they also aim at a “mutual understanding” – a search supported by the conviction that the members of that political community share common goals.

[17] GOMES, Luiz Roberto. Education and Consensus in Habermas. Campinas: Alínea, 2007, p. 28.

[18] SUSSKIND, Lawrence E., CRUIKSHANK, Jeffrey L. op. cit. 2006, p. 4. These authors identify the process in five steps: “[…] Convening. This means agreeing to use the particular decision-making process (CBA), defining the problem, agreeing who needs to be at the table and how to get them there, and completing some of the other preliminaries for a productive dialogue. Assigning roles and responsibilities. This involves clarifying who will be in charge, specifying the ground rules, defining the role of the facilitator (ie, either an outside professional or someone from within the group), making sure someone is keeping track of what has been decided, and laying out the rules about how observers may participate. Facilitating group problem solving. This is about generating mutually advantageous proposals and confronting disagreements in a respectful way. Effective problem solving draws upon the best available information and ensures that a range of possible solutions, including some that no one may have thought of before, are considered in an effort to do everything possible to meet the concerns of all participants. reaching agreement. “Deciding” isn't as simple as “voting”. It`s about coming as close as possible to meeting the most important interests of everyone concerned, and documenting how and why an agreement was reached. Holding people to their commitments🇧🇷 This involves more than each person simply doing what they promised. It`s also about keeping the parties in touch with each other so that unexpected problems can be addressed together.”

[19] BUCCI, Maria Paula Dallari Bucci. The concept of public policy in Law. In. BUCCI, Maria Paula Dallari (org.). Public policy. Reflections on the Legal Concept🇧🇷 São Paulo: Saraiva, 2006, p. 44.

[20] DERANI, Christian. Public Policy and the Political Standard. In. BUCCI, Maria Paula Dallari (org.). Public policy. Reflections on the Legal Concept🇧🇷 São Paulo: Saraiva, 2006, p. 135.

[21] PEREZ, Marcos Augusto. The Participation of Society in the Formulation, Decision and Execution of Public Policies. In. BUCCI, Maria Paula Dallari (org.). Public policy. Reflections on the Legal Concept🇧🇷 São Paulo: Saraiva, 2006, p. 168.

[22] See WAMPLER, Brian; AVRITZER, Leonardo. Participatory Publics: Civil Society and New Institutions in Democratic Brazil. In. COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (eds.). Participation and Deliberation. Democratic Theory and Institutional Experiences in Contemporary Brazil. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p. 210-238. P. 211-212: “Civil society organizations have promoted institutional reformulations as a means to challenge the legacy of hierarchical social relations, which generated a confined public arena and the patrimonial control of the State, which have characterized the historical process of nation building (nation-building) and modernization (in Brazil)”. […] The idea of ​​Participatory Publics comprises organized citizens who seek to overcome social and political exclusion through public deliberation, the promotion of transparency and accountability (accountability) and the implementation of its political preferences”.

[23] FUNG, op. cit., 177.

[24] DRYZEK, John S. Legitimacy and Economics in Deliberative Democracy. In. COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (eds.). Participation and Deliberation. Democratic Theory and Institutional Experiences in Contemporary Brazil🇧🇷 São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p. 41-62.

[25] FALCON, op. cit., p. 87.

[26] MATTOS, Paulo Todescan Lessa. Economic and Social Regulation and Public Participation in Brazil. In. COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (eds.). Participation and Deliberation. Democratic Theory and Institutional Experiences in Contemporary Brazil🇧🇷 São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p. 317.