Aufklärung. Revista de Filosofia ISSN: 2358-8470 [email protected] Universidade Federal da Paraíba Brasil

Nunes da Costa, Marta DEATH OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY? REFLECTIONS ON OUR (POST) DEMOCRATIC CONDITION Aufklärung. Revista de Filosofia, vol. 2, núm. 1, abril, 2015, pp. 11-26 Universidade Federal da Paraíba João Pessoa, Brasil

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=471547044002

How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative ISSN: 2318­9428. V.2, N.1, Abril de 2015. p. 11­26 DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.15440/arf.2014.22585 Received: 08/01/2015 | Revised: 09/01/2015 | Accepted: 10/02/2015 Published under a licence Creative Commons 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

DEATH OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY?REFLECTIONS ON OUR (POST) DEMOCRATIC CONDITION

AMORTE DA SOBERAANIA POPULAR? REFLEXÕES SOBRE NOSSA CONDIÇÃO (PÓS) DEMOCRÁTICA Marta Nunes da Costa *

ABSTRACT: In this article I try to answer a RESUMO: Neste artigo procuro responder specific question: is it possible to recover a uma questão específica: é possível the value and determinant role of the recuperar o valor e papel determinante do concept of popular sovereignty, in the conceito de soberania popular, na actual condition of contemporary condição das democracias democracies? Assuming that it is still contemporâneas? Presumindo de que é possible (and desirable) to recover this ainda possível (e também desejável) ideal and regulative principle, I want to recuperar este ideal e princípio regulador, explore the conditions that are available quero explorar que condições temos à today in order to do so. That implies, first nossa disposição hoje que nos permitam and foremost, to critically expose the fazê­lo. Isso implica, antes de mais, expor eminent dangers brought by globalization criticamente os perigos eminentes and the new neoliberal imperialism. trazidos pela globalização e pelo novo These put into question the set of imperialismo neoliberal, que põem em fundamental democratic aspirations of cheque as aspirações democráticas freedom, equality and social justice. fundamentais de liberdade, igualdade e Under this light, to question about the justiça social. Neste sentido, questionar conditions of possibility for popular sobre as condições de possibilidade da sovereignty means to questions about the soberania popular significa questionar as conditions of possibility for democracy condições de possibilidade para a própria itself. We will only be capable of recuing democracia. Só conseguiremos recuperar democracy if we redefine: a) the a democracia se redefinirmos: a) a relação relationship between individual and entre indivíduo e comunidade; b) a community; b) the relationship between relação entre nações democráticas e democratic nations and non­democratic organizações globais não­democráticas; global organizations; c) the space where c) o espaço onde a democracia deve democracy should take place (from acontecer (da nação­estado para nation­state to local communities). This comunidades locais). Assim, este artigo article has four moments. First, I offer a tem quatro momentos. Primeiro, ofereço brief reading of the concept of popular uma leitura do conceito de soberania sovereignty in modernity, having as main popular na modernidade, tendo como reference Rousseau. In the second ponto de referência a obra de Rousseau. moment I characterize contemporary No segundo momento caracterizo a democratic constellation in its dialogue constelação democrática contemporânea, between Bernard Manin (1997) and a partir das leituras oferecidas por

* Doutora em Ciência política pela New School for Social Research. Professora Visitante do Departamento de Filosofia da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina ­ UFSC, e do Programa de Pós­Graduação em Filosofia na mesma universidade. m@ilto: [email protected] 12 AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, V.2, N.1, ABRIL DE 20145. p. 11­26 at ue aCosta da Nunes Marta h raino eea il h c fainto rae this creates alienation of act The will. in translated general positive, also a negative, is is it of but it alienation; creation nature: of that double product the is a a conquest has is discussed, it and equality be insofar invention This the equality. community.’ can in political whole popular that translated of the is idea, to of alienation by rights The total individuals’ theory his alienation p.60) all total 1968, a and ‘[the] its (ROUSSEAU, himself requires to to of contract taken associate leads social each Althusius) This like that authors form. by extreme of a contract proposed in principles consists (initially social strategy sovereignty for His of community. respect political definition the the support translating that in justice simultaneously it of transforming therefore, capable others, for recognition rdcn asas laws producing P I. o si osbet ananoiia reo htcntttsthe constitutes that freedom original maintain such, to as being possible human it is how p.60) 1968, but before.’(ROUSSEAU, one as no free which obeys as under others, remains and and the and person with all, himself, himself the of uniting force defend while collective will individual, the which main each with his association member that of each consider form of to a goods enough ‘find is to it is purpose goal our conceptualization For his nature. develops human Rousseau of which upon grounds the about frfetn n epcighmnntr as nature human respecting and reflecting of elbrls,pltcleult,popular sovereignty. equality, political neoliberalism, eeoy ial,Ilo nothe rescuing into neoliberal for K sovereignty. popular possibility look and democracy and of I conditions third Finally, between ideals the tension hegemony. the In on democratic focus (2006). I moment Urbinati Nadia EYWORDS PLRSVRINYI MODERNITY SOVEREIGNTYOPULAR IN R h hleg ssti h is ae ftebo:t understand to book: the of pages first the in set is challenge The eorc,globalization, democracy, : ups scer–t eietetp fgvrmn capable government of type the define to – clear is purpose usa starts ousseau hysol be should they aigmna hyaeadlwa hymgtbe.’ might they as law and are government, they 49) there p. of 1968, as society, principle (ROUSSEAU, political sure men and in legitimate taking if, any consider be to can is purpose ‘My rnfrigit transforming h oilcontract Social The ewl o ne eeo h details the on here enter not will We . euea eorca o l,o ela, para com P possibilidade e popular. soberania de democracia, conceito de a recuperar condições questiono as fim, e Por democráticos neoliberal. ideais hegemonia entre tensão concentro­ na momento Urbinati me terceiro Nadia No e (2006). (1997) Manin Bernard lblzço gadd política, igualdade popular. soberania neoliberalismo, globalização, ALAVRAS nafedmwt enn and meaning with freedom a in ­ CHAVE ihteewrs His words. these with tis it democracia, : oiia freedom, political n aal of capable and , Death of popular sovereignty? Reflections on our (post) democratic condition

‘artificial body’, this ‘common ego’, with its life and will. (ROUSSEAU, 1968, p. 61) We arrive at a general will that, when playing its active role, ‘is the sovereign’ (ROUSSEAU, 1968, p. 62). Sovereignty, therefore, is nothing more than ‘the exercise of the general will’ (ROUSSEAU, 1968, p. 69), and ‘by the fact that it is, it is always what it should be’. (ROUSSEAU, 1968, p. 63) From here follows that sovereignty is inalienable, it doesn’t allow for representation1, and it is indivisible. There is only one bearer of sovereignty, which is the people; there is only one possible form of government: the democratic. 13

The sovereign people appears not as someone specific (which would 6 violate the equality that can only be achieved through its general character), but as ‘all’. In what ways, then, does the people translate its sovereignty? In the legislative function, i.e., in the creation of laws, since the law ‘unites the universality of the will with the universality within the legislative domain [...]’. Laws are acts of the general will, they are constitutive acts of the political community.

But how are laws implemented? It is impossible for the sovereign to fully act in all political spheres; therefore, while the sovereign is the supreme authority of the state and the prince only its deputy, it is necessary to create a political body capable of dealing with facts and concrete men. Government, then,‘[is] an intermediary body established between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual communication, a body charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of freedom, both civil and political.’ (ROUSSEAU, 1968, p. 102) Here we get to a problem. The sovereign is sovereign insofar it remains ‘universal’, i.e., insofar it envisions the common good and

translates this concern in laws, which by definition are general. While AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, N.1, V.2, ABRIL DE 2015. p. 11­2 the general will determines what constitutes the just and fair and how justice should be administrated– determining which actions should be punished and rewarded – it cannot judge individuals. This limit conditions its own power, and we arrive at the visible tension in Rousseau: if the sovereign only deals with generality, and the prince only applies the law to particulars, it is also true that the sovereign can put aside the prince when he does not exercise his power in adequate and proper manner. But which conditions does sovereignty has that allows it to make such a judgment and determine what constitutes, or not, a good execution of the laws? If as our starting­point the sovereign cannot think about particulars, where should we look for the criteria 14 AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, V.2, N.1, ABRIL DE 20145. p. 11­26 oeegt:uiy(s‘h epe) nlso n reciprocity. popular sovereignty. and of inclusion popular principles people’), of ‘few’. three ‘the the practice) to sovereignty transfer (as the would (and Representation unity violate concept sovereignty: would endanger any would representation Representation p.122) kill that 1968, position (ROUSSEAU, his and exists’. clear form speaking, was be simple ‘strictly it number since, will However, a (ROUSSEAU, greater government, governed.’ of mix never the government be have that no there only number We order 112) smaller and natural p. the democracy, 1968, the and true to govern contrary a should is been it never [because] has there II.C of model actual representative? mainly the are to which democracies, practices, contemporary democratic participatory on mainstream founded these democracy, the Today, pact’s to institutions. pact. necessary representative social threats in this mainly the of itself as of grounds find which revision perceived model, restoring we the are successive here allow conditions the that would and clear that conditions becomes question into space it put institutional pact, or condition same of that and of this that proposals pact realm social or accepts the the measures maintaining one of within questioning function If will, the p.147) have general assemblies 1968, the these proposes. (ROUSSEAU, of Rousseau returning exercise assemblies. by that as citizens’ dilemma this sovereign, balances’ overcome the can and to One ‘checks 51) p. of 2006, (SIMPSON, system the keep p.106) 1968, (ROUSSEAU, dissolved.’ is politic other the h eutta hr r,s osek w oeegs one sovereigns, two with speak, hands, to his so in to is are, will obedience which there particular enforce force that a to public has result if, the prince the uses and he the sovereign, will, that the particular of about of this that comes accurateness than it active the end more that the judge recognizes in morally Rousseau if Indeed, and ‘[…] application? politically and interpretation to laws’ him allow that at ue aCosta da Nunes Marta ONTEMPORARY CONSTELLATION DEMOCRATIC enr ai in Manin Bernard term, the of sense strict the ‘in that acknowledged Rousseau u o a ejsiytesitfo oseuinmdlof model Rousseaudian a from shift the justify we can how But to impossible is it otherwise question; this answer to crucial is It efacto, de hntesca odvnse toc n h body the and once at vanishes bond social the then h rgn fRpeettv Government Representative of Origins The ejure de and Death of popular sovereignty? Reflections on our (post) democratic condition

(2005) explains why this transference from ‘popular sovereignty’ to representative institutions happened. He goes back to the American and French revolutions to show that during this time of creating a new constitution and defining a new form of government, there was absolutely no regard for the traditional democratic methods – such as lottery – and there was a general consensus that election was the method of selection for government. In order to fabricate this consensus, one identifies a shift in the discourse about what constitutes a legitimate form of government as well as the source of political 15

obligation. From the moment ‘consent’ appears as political category to 6 justify political obligation, the question of lottery versus election appears under a different light: with lottery, there is never a question of consent, it is a question of political equality affirmed as capacity that each individual has of governing and speaking in the public sphere. With election, on the other hand, the citizen starts to be seen as source of political legitimacy but not as political agent per se. The citizen can consent to be represented by the ‘few’, assuming that these ‘few’ match a set of criteria and conditions of the hypothetical social pact, but he is not, himself, an obvious candidate for public offices. Manin’s goal is to show that the logical apparatus and the institutional instantiations of representative government, implemented during the XVIII century, remain largely unchanged. Therefore, even today, we are permanently challenged in defining ‘democracy’, because democracy appears as a combination of democratic and aristocratic elements, or as Aristotle would put it, as a mix constitution. While Manin’s reading denounce a suspicious attitude vis­à­vis the democratic nature of democracies, Urbinati, on the other hand,

presents a more optimistic – at least a more open – approach to AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, N.1, V.2, ABRIL DE 2015. p. 11­2 representation. For Urbinati (2006) representation can never be reduced to a mere act of authorization or contract. Representation becomes ‘democratic’ representation insofar it is simultaneously constituted by the particular and the general. Under this light, representation must be seen as ‘original form of political participation’ (URBINATI, 2006, p.133). Given that representation is not a contract, it can be defined as relationship supported by ‘ideological sympathy and communication’, i.e., ‘in democratic politics, representation does not mean “acting in the place of somebody”, but being in a political relation of sympathetic similarity or communication with those in the place of whom the representatives act in the legislature.’ (URBINATI, 2006, p.133) 16 AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, V.2, N.1, ABRIL DE 20145. p. 11­26 meilpwro rnntoa oprtosta w pcsof sphere ‘private’ spaces the constitute owe would the what with along of that (through expression’), eradication of sphere progressive corporations ‘freedom a the public for transnational the means and of of communication this and privatization power to adding a alternative But imperial identify etc. spheres, possible could ‘private’ practices creating we social as of established consumerism, already of of many being – reinforcement mainly for is by means the action as and Even used discourse viewed of political consensus. growth for was space the political complementary to (ever­going) that due the as internet well in the as within inputs wealth formation of demagogic opinion’s political) concentration wrong public and more of therefore, privatization democracies (or to sphere contemporary (and due wrong that stake economic went at states what are clearly of ask Urbinati increase to expected). than us an forces is which inequality, there Adding this hand­in­hand. go to where representation representation the and of sustain concept deliberation to expanded participation, difficult more more interests the increasingly of people’s reading becoming translating previous is of it capable and politics. claims longer democratic and no of future are the and parties present by Political the transformed The about made disenchanted judgment. and more judgment the political expanded on of be p.1) depends 2012, (AVRITZER, actors. importance democracy represented to of vital has sovereignty background. legitimacy of the its Rousseau concept as encompassing the by Urbinati, pluralism For sovereignty, with proposed of p.134) practices. process conception 2006, versatile unifying (URBINATI, and social mutable as more ‘we understood will a and ‘general to Rousseaudian get brought the light would from institutions the expansion; under conceptual and redefined this be by representatives state to ought between Urbinati, for Sovereignty, communication between direct of of idea represented, channels the by of open supported participatory is importance and it both happens. insofar encompasses dimensions vital also deliberative Urbinati and relationship and in representative traditional representation crucial the Therefore, linking where the representation, politics to significance. informal of political institutions concept and difference,representative the meaning and acquire expands plurality of positions Urbinati horizon all a which assumes also from It unity. previous a at ue aCosta da Nunes Marta nmr eettxs ohMnnadUbnt emslightly seem Urbinati and Manin both texts, recent more In of translation as not process, unifying as appears Representation Death of popular sovereignty? Reflections on our (post) democratic condition

(since even the most private things of human beings are being publicly exposed through the internet and social media), and these elements all together make us question what remains common to all of us. To identify what is common is to identify what is intrinsically political in nature. Politics is about common life, it is a realm where individuals leave their private dimensions and appear in a public space as citizens, to encounter others, as equals. If these two elements I mentioned – privatization of public sphere and publicization of private 17 sphere – distort the image individuals make of themselves, by limiting them to the role of spectators of a great world scenario, it means that 6 individuals are led to forget their condition as political beings. And as Arendt would say, following Aristotle’s path, the human being is a political being, a being that can act, and not merely reproduce behaviors and thoughts or work in order to survive. One could say, in a preliminary tone, that critique is crucial to recover our human condition as political beings. We will get to this on the last part of this paper. For now, we still need to characterize our current state of affairs, and more precisely, the relationship between democracy and neoliberalism, that is at the basis of our present socio­political constellation.

III.DEMOCRACY VERSUS NEOLIBERALISM

Rousseau’s creation of the ‘general will’ is the foundation of one of the most important concepts of modernity until today, namely, the concept of autonomy, which was latter developed and systematized by Kant and furnished the ground for the paradigm of liberal­democracies.

The act of self­legislation plays the key role in defining autonomy, AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, N.1, V.2, ABRIL DE 2015. p. 11­2 which is at the foundation of the concept of popular sovereignty. The subject gives himself the law that he will follow – a universal law, recognized as such by every other human being. This act of self­ legislation – and the reciprocity and recognition it entails – happens within a political community, defined by the regulative principle of equality. Equality, in Rousseau, is revealing of the truly democratic nature of democracy. Equality is not a claim for recognition of identical talents, gifts, skills or strengths; equality is political equality, i.e., it is the condition that everyone shares with everybody else where each is part of a political body and as such, each individual has the right (and duty) to participate in the construction and maintenance of it. However, 18 AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, V.2, N.1, ABRIL DE 20145. p. 11­26 rpslo ioiygopa agn ftemisra oiia and political mainstream the of a margins Keynesian then at group until when minority was a accumulation capitalism, which of the neoliberalism, proposal of and compromised, results crisis became expected capital another producing of but longer 1970’s. by others, no the marked was during and of model ideology time Friedman, alternative a rules Hayek, as In by power global and 1960’s visibility and gained the 1950’s the and during democracy of political the aspirations between neoliberalism. tension social the with and confronted immediately are we pee nteohrhn,w e htpltcleult as ­ equality global political of a question at the also that stake to but at turn nations, see we is democratic Once – political specific level. we democracy within the of only hand, ideal not in today, regulative the other and finance to principle the and foundational due that On economics mainly argues today, (2006) of sphere. challenges Dahl involvement serious Robert pernicious Even faces fulfilled. equality be political to had conditions democratic. be to claim cannot may system project a democratic equality specific political without each take, contours different many are there Common promoted. republic. best are are interests the common interests within when Private promoted good. harmony and private defended the with human converges sustain each of therefore, with to good, necessity) cooperate order however, all (and must in independence, nature individuals other that how the economic showing arguing underline than interdependence, to More not distributed wanted concern. was was wealth Rousseau his how he not indeed, same; was the independence, argued realm have Rousseau the should When economic with labor. individuals do of some to realm the thing the and for little is nature) or Politics (of nothing matter. necessity this has of on which clear action, Economic was of the Arendt realm about survival. reflect mere property. and of realm think to having only conditions can publica physical res one and because as mental equality the political have for such condition a is independence requirements, economic others. to equal becomes one equal; born not is one at ue aCosta da Nunes Marta elbrls seooi adpltcl hoywsdeveloped was theory political) (and economic as Neoliberalism oseuke htti oiia qaiyrqie htother that required equality political this that knew Rousseau if Even democracy. of values core the of one is equality Political some met already has one when equal political becomes One hnoei olne osmdb h el fnes the needs, of realm the by consumed longer no is one when why spltcleult tstake, at equality political is Death of popular sovereignty? Reflections on our (post) democratic condition economic thought, had the opportunity of making the difference and jumping out to the center of capitalism’s recovery. Thatcher and Reagan were two of the fierce defenders of neoliberal theory. Of course, as Harvey points out (2011a an 2011b) neoliberalism as theory is one thing, neoliberalization, is another. Neoliberalism’s strategy consists in the disciplinary restructuring of labor forces, readjustment of public debt in countries, flexibilization of labor markets, opening of markets in the name of competitiveness, privatization of public goods – such as water, energy, etc. – de­regulamentation, and constant 19

reinvention of forms through which ‘primitive accumulation’ can 6 reinvent itself. Neoliberal ideology progressively conquered the globe. Neoliberalism is incompatible with democracy and in ultimate instance with politics. Even if Harvey tells us that neoliberalism is part of a larger political project, aimed at strengthening the power of elites (HARVEY, 2011a, 2011b), we should only understand the world ‘political’ in this context as standing for a specific strategy of further accumulation using the ‘political’ space and the ‘political’ appearances to make the life of the ‘few’ easier and to be considered as legitimate by those who are increasingly usurped, exploited and reduced to misery. The irony with neoliberalism is that it actually never accomplished what its purpose was, namely, to reestablish levels of economic growth, even the considered as necessarily minimum for the maintenance of the capitalist system (3% of GPD). Nonetheless, this fact seems irrelevant by those who are forced to accept ‘adjustment programs’ led by IMF, World Bank, European Bank and European Commission. Recent European history is a living proof of this. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, but also other countries that are hunted by IMF

predictions and expectations, force their populations into a contract that AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, N.1, V.2, ABRIL DE 2015. p. 11­2 no one accepts of endorses. Under this light, we should ask: what are the implications of neoliberalism for democracies, in particular, and politics in general? Authors like Benjamin Barber (2008) argue that if sovereignty is a necessary precondition for democracy (which you cannot have without a state), when sovereignty is at stake, so democracy is stake. Clearly, from the moment assertions like ‘there is no such thing as society’ (Margaret Thatcher) or ‘there is no such thing as public interest’ (Reagan) are absorbed and interiorized by individuals, Thatcher’s prediction that neoliberalism had to transform the soul, is realized. With this, something very wrong starts to happen. Not only 20 AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, V.2, N.1, ABRIL DE 20145. p. 11­26 rnntoa rgoa oeegt e yfnnilinstitutions. financial new by a led to consent) sovereignty popular global sovereignty or national or and/ of of and transnational participation think displacement to this popular needs representatives see just (through a One to to between results. restricted countries least political at democratic European creating are communication of they The closed minimum not sovereignty. bare if of closed; their now are but fact, represented – channels institutions of representative elections, matter the regular – a remain as procedures can lose, few the IFM only unfortunately is freedom which where the one order, finance; human word, meaning. new its and nice taste a economics a of rise of but promoted the the nothing realm goal: and individualism the politics ultimate as of radical into the death to) politics accomplishes The reduced freedom, of no ties. of absorption (and with rhetoric social other, understood the each or through be from bound to separated atoms, special is as society considered individuals where portray a miinaddie u htti ota rssfo h itr of picture the from non­ erases portray This this the what action. is But for politics individuals’ competition, drive. for and as initiative, in personal freedom ambition for as state space sense, the negative grants the interference a in from in essentially understood non­interference action be Political to for is interest. here capacity public the the government. of i.e., levels for several in freedom, and participation representatives through political politics, good their fosters of common decision­making equality the as representatives, and for their individuals judgment by stand when their the represented opinion, something; that feel their beings, feel for that political count as know citizens, interests, and in feel their understood individuals be position, and when must agenda the sovereignty sense: of Popular making this policy. the public in to participate right influence a to equal to right for means equal equality back also Political but democracy. step vote, of values us core Let the of world. the of the 1% by play tiny of must the game simply moment. global by They passive large control. defined a no into rules, absolutely of converted have pieces they become and which nations also transformed but progressively consumers, citizens are at ue aCosta da Nunes Marta onre htg hog h tutrlajsmnsporm of programs adjustments structural the through go that Countries n ftepeie fnoieaimi reo.Btfreedom But freedom. is neoliberalism of premises the of One one is equality political that showing by section this started We common seto ieado iig elbrls offers Neoliberalism living. of and life of aspect Death of popular sovereignty? Reflections on our (post) democratic condition

Approximately 70% of political decision­making that impacts every European country happens at the level of the European parliament. That means that from the 100% that national citizens ought to deliberate, participate or contribute in the political process, only 30% or less are available for people’s reflection and input. Even these 30% formally available for actual politics become hostages of Troika, that now force governments to implement their policies’ suggestions. Popular sovereignty? Apparently not. As Barber says 21 "Citizens become subject to laws they did not really participate in making; they become the passive 6 constitutions of representatives who, far from reconstituting the citizens' aims and interests, usurp their civic functions and deflect their civic energies." (BARBER, 2003, 147) Given such a scenario, where globalization and capital’s enhancement through neoliberal imperalism force us to a childish and passive position of mere consumerism, where the public good is subverted and popular sovereignty privatized by the hands of the elite that escape from any possible democratic control, what tools do we have available today to rescue democracy and recover popular sovereignty?

IV.RESCUING DEMOCRACY – WHERE IS THE FUTURE OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY?

In the previous sections I offered a reading of the foundations of

the concept of popular sovereignty – based on a general will that AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, N.1, V.2, ABRIL DE 2015. p. 11­2 exercises itself; I tried to show how the shift from a participatory model of democracy to a representative model opened the path for a new geo­ political configuration, where progressively popular sovereignty became privatized by the few. These few, however, under neoliberal imperialism and the perpetuation of the logic of capital’s accumulation, escape any form of democratic accountability. Also, they have no pretension or interest to represent the ‘many’. The expansion of neoliberalism at global scale and its hegemonic consolidation led to an erosion of the public spaces where possible alternative ideologies could emerge. The privatization of the public, which happens in most of democratic nations (despite the internet) contributes to the 22 AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, V.2, N.1, ABRIL DE 20145. p. 11­26 ups ti ot oigta abri n uhraogohr who others among author one is Barber that (2013) noting worth Barber is it which purpose upon its world’. premise the (in ruled basic mayors metamorphosis ‘if hypothesis the local a his of his/her develops is is through kind citizen This citizen some the recover community. a through must global we If going community nature), no political ‘democratic’ is alternatives? larger still the nation) for if are and (the look community, there political a we that of member should Given where citizenship. citizens, of practices) (and pressures external many rescue too game. in are to interests There financial order power. and to in and nation­state will relationship, the voice, for representative citizens’ wait democratic cannot nation the we the Briefly, rethink that problems. seem our doesn’t and solve states it can nation­state need function, the still to we will; governments While and central globalization. power with of transformed been centers has autonomous ‘where’ and unique rethinking as the and address implies to valid that remains challenge happen. convinced to ought am democracy) democracy I democratic of because in ‘where’ contemporary (reflected models ask account I Rousseau’s participatory popular pertinent. because define of – to is not most is it today ‘what’ problem – our sovereignty that suggesting which already of am grounds, the several of itself, existence on example. the by one contested show, but assure, be is to Europe tried can not I sovereignty does As popular sovereignty. – – popular restructured itself of and adjusted existence maintaining fact was the formally sovereignty However, national nations. while of among scope action the concerted addressed a that be must in and increasingly level, global global are became at they Issues of others. sovereigns on trend officially dependent sovereignty, more The remain national states of good. concept while common the insofar of the erosion an about and brought globalization reciprocity citizens and dialogue, among action, inequalities common existing deliberation great surviving for the necessary by endanger spaces, that marked public gaps, political society and global social structural a of reinforcement at ue aCosta da Nunes Marta ewl o ne eetedtiso abrsagmn;frour for argument; Barber’s of details the here enter not will We concept the recovering implies sovereignty popular Recovering sovereignties national to back way a is there like seem doesn’t It I ‘where’ asking By sovereignty? popular of future the is Where e se per Death of popular sovereignty? Reflections on our (post) democratic condition stresses the vital need of betting in social and political innovation. Shifting from the nation­state to the city as ideal and real political space where change can happen allows us to create a more realistic and manageable approach to contemporary challenges. Since 1983 when Barber wrote Strong Democracy, that the author shows how globalization brings

"[…] an internationalization of goods, markets, crime, disease, poverty, capital, drugs, weapons, and terrorism; 23 [globalization] describes the malevolent and anarchic

side of sovereignty's weakening. But it does not describe 6 anything like the internationalizing of civic or of political institutions, because this has yet to occur. Global relations are ruled by anarchy (no global democratic governance institutions at all) or by private tyranny (market forces manipulated by global corporate monopolies and less than­democratic transnational institutions like the IMF and the WTO) and not by any innovative forms of benevolent or constructive interdependence grounded in transnational forms of citizenship or of civil society." (BARBER, 2003, p. xi) Barber’s argument in this book was to show how a strong democracy depends on a strong feeling of citizenship:

"Democracy can survive only as strong democracy, secured not by great leaders but by competent, responsible citizens. Effective dictatorships require great leaders. Effective democracies require great citizens. We are free only as we are citizens, and our liberty and our equality are only as durable as our citizenship. We may be born free, but we die free only when we work at it in the interval between." (BARBER, 2003, preface to the 1990 edition, p. xxix) AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, N.1, V.2, ABRIL DE 2015. p. 11­2 Given the actual context of individuals’ political indifference – with a visible increase of political abstention and lack of motivation for citizens to participate – the restoration of democracy’s credibility and legitimacy depends on rescuing spaces for popular sovereignty is a condition. If we accept Barber’s premises that representation is incompatible with freedom, equality and social justice2, we must look for spaces that can revitalize the sense of citizenship, which is necessarily linked with an active conceptualization of politics. Brazil is a paradigmatic case that has implemented several democratic innovative institutions for the past 30 years, providing us with fertile theoretical and practical ground to overcome the crisis of 24 AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, V.2, N.1, ABRIL DE 20145. p. 11­26 VIZR enro “ Leonardo, AVRITZER, R V. 232) p. 2003, (BARBER, vision." endows common participation into for whom capacity work, a persons common with autonomous and are seeing Citizens common transformed, citizens. in are participation members their individual through the "[…] community democratic dialogue empathy, by reflect, supported deliberate, matters, reciprocity. assemble, common and people on decide when and will of judge general function their the ‘a of space as exercise all their above must the considered in ( do’ citizenship and with find Therefore, redefined concerned development. be who are also and who virtual), existence people and of of conditions (physical activity an space is ‘same’ it foremost and new a generates beings political – politics. ‘[…] as in dynamics themselves terms relationship, where constitute and spaces qualitative of can body representative expansion citizens law­making The or the the p.14) 2012, between (AVRITZER, quantitative citizenry.’ in relation the of in element patterns new have new generating national may of level a different case each the introduce the of impact (in regardless – level of initiatives national the three to and recommendations These process of state conferences). set city, deliberative a c) at at councils); the policy arrive government, of and by case topics participatory the different brought (in discuss of actors differentto society outcomes case civil in and the process the state between by decision­making (in the fields level priorities transform ‘non­electoral policy of city to set of at the b) define budgeting); allocation idea to associations, a) budgetary the mobilized: civil for are foundation Groups, citizens individual their p.16) and 2012, as (AVRITZER, have authorization’. of spaces society these Avritzer, national civil to also According which and dimensions. institutions, deliberative participatory councils include of examples policy some are budgeting, conferences of aggregation Participatory of angle preferences). the through perceived (generally representation at ue aCosta da Nunes Marta ABR 03 .2) oua oeegt a ercvrdas recovered be can sovereignty Popular p.226). 2003, BARBER, EFERENCES ocuewt abrsqoe hnh asta nastrong a in that says he when quote, Barber’s with conclude I first neighborhoods; the within city, the within happens Politics eorc eodageain the aggregation: beyond Democracy htwe what Death of popular sovereignty? Reflections on our (post) democratic condition

participatory dimension of public deliberation” in Journal of Public Deliberation, vol. 8, iss.2, article 10, 2012. Available at: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art10 AVRITZER, Leonardo, Participatory Institutions in Democratic Brazil, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2009. BARBER, Benjamin, “Shrunken Sovereign: Consumerism, Globalization, and American Emptiness” in World Affairs, Spring 2008, available at http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/shrunken­sovereign­ 25

consumerism­globalization­and­american­emptiness (accessed in 6 July 5, 2014) BARBER, Benjamin, If Mayors ruled the world, Yale University Press, 2013. BARBER, Benjamin, Strong Democracy, University of California Press, 2003. HARVEY, David, A Brief history of neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Nova Iorque, 2011. MANIN, Bernard, The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997 NUNES DA COSTA, Marta, ”How participatory budgeting changes the meanings and practices of citizenship” in Ethica – International Journal for Moral Philosophy, vol. 12, n.2, pp. 302­ 320, 2013(a) NUNES DA COSTA, Marta, Modelos Democráticos, Arraes Editores, Belo Horizonte, 2013(b) ROUSSEAU, J.J., The Social Contract, Penguin Books, London, 1968.

SIMPSON, Matthew, ‘A Paradox of Sovereignty in Rousseau’s Social AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, N.1, V.2, ABRIL DE 2015. p. 11­2 Contract’ in Journal of Moral Philosophy, vo.3 (1), 2006, pp.45­ 56 URBINATI, Nadia, Representative Democracy, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2006.

NOTAS

1 "[...] power may be delegated, but the will cannot be.” (ROUSSEAU, 1968, p. 69) 2 "Representation is incompatible with freedom because it delegates and thus alienates political will at the cost of genuine self­government and 26 AUFKLÄRUNG, ISSN 2318­9428, V.2, N.1, ABRIL DE 20145. p. 11­26 ersnain ial,i noptbewt oiljsiebcueit because justice social with incompatible is finally, Representation, of absence the in because] [… equality, with incompatible is Representation at ue aCosta da Nunes Marta h vlto fapriiaigpbi nwihteie fjsiemight justice of 146) idea p. precludes the 2003, which it (BARBER, in because root." public and take participating to justice, a ability of of of community's evolution instrument every the up the regulating that impairs a made self­sufficiency it as function because and society demands, autonomy mass order personal political a the on of encroaches it specter as the easily as raises clones. divides consumer that merely indistinguishable not but that unites fiction a equalities rights, community, private security, directly enjoy are not they lives much and interference. are common from however freedom their who all, decision, and determine at women free that common really policies and not the deliberation, Men for other. action common common sustains the through each to correlates; responsible life are gives citizenship and and Freedom […] autonomy.