A trama da crítica democrática: da participação à representação e à accountability The conceptual web of democratic critique: from participation to representation and accountability

Este artigo atenta para deslocamentos conceituais ocorridos entre "representação política", "participação" e "accountability" na crítica interna à democracia ao longo das últimas décadas, bem como examina sua ressignificação recíproca na definição de nova trama conceitual da crítica democrática. O conceito de accountability parece oferecer, hoje, o registro normativo para lidar com as exigências de legitimidade nas experiências de representação política extraparlamentar. Argumenta-se também, que as circunstâncias históricas que propiciaram a polaridade negativa ou capacidade crítica à "participação", no campo da teoria democrática, não apenas mudaram, mas tornaram inadequada sua especifi cação analítica para a compreensão das experiências de inovação democrática em curso.<br>In the last decades there has been a surprising conceptual shift between the role of three concepts - political representation, participation and accountability - in the internal criticism of democracy. This article sheds light on that shift by examining the reciprocal redefi nition of meaning between those concepts and the shape of a new conceptual network for democratic critique. Nowadays, internal critique of democracy has been developed from the stand point of representation theories, which used to be traditionally related to the defense of democracy. Participatory democracy models, once the main stand point for criticizing democracy, either lost influence or where integrated to more sophisticated deliberative democratic models. We argue that this state of affairs is due to a conceptual worthy dissociation between representative government and political representation. This dissociation works under democratic and pluralistic assumptions, thus, it is sensible to legitimacy challenges faced by extra-parliamentary political representation. In this scenario, accountability appears as a normative concept useful for dealing with those challenges. We argue as well that the democratic critical leverage of the concept of participation relied on historical circumstances that are not longer in place, rendering standard defi nitions of participation inaccurate for the understanding of ongoing experiences of democratic innovation

Associations, active citizenship, and the quality of democracy in Brazil and Mexico

In many Third Wave democracies large classes of people experience diminished forms of citizenship. The systematic exclusion from mandated public goods and services significantly injures the citizenship and life chances of entire social groups. In democratic theory civil associations have a fundamental role to play in reversing this reality. One strand of theory, known as civic engagement, suggests that associations empower their members to engage in public politics, hold state officials to account, claim public services, and thereby improve the quality of democracy. Empirical demonstration of the argument is surprisingly rare, however, and limited to affluent democracies. In this article, we use original survey data for two large cities in Third Wave democracies-So Paulo and Mexico City-to explore this argument in a novel way. We focus on the extent to which participation in associations (or associationalism) increases "active citizenship"aEuro"the effort to negotiate directly with state agents access to goods and services legally mandated for public provision, such as healthcare, sanitation, and security-rather than civic engagement, which encompasses any voluntary and public spirited activity. We examine separately associationalism's impact on the quality of citizenship, a dimension that varies independently from the level of active citizenship, by assessing differences in the types of citizenship practices individuals use to obtain access to vital goods and services. To interpret the findings, and identify possible causal pathways, the paper moves back-and-forth between two major research traditions that are rarely brought into dialogue: civic engagement and comparative historical studies of democratization