Democracy, governance and associated complexities:
The challenges involved in recognizing cultural pluralism

Within the framework of the Second World Social Forum
Porto Alegre (Brazil), between 31 January to 5 February 2002

Venue of the Workshop:
4 February 2002, from 14.00 to 18.00
At the Auditorium of the ILEA (Instituto Latino-Americano de Estudos Avançados), UFRGS, campus Vale

1. UNESCO and the WSF

UNESCO, as a laboratory of ideas and experience-sharing for preparing guidelines and policies, contributes to the advancement of knowledge and international scientific and intellectual cooperation. It helps foster dialogue between the spheres of scientific knowledge, empirical knowledge and public action involving the leading actors of contemporary issues in political and civil society alike. This dialogue combines analysis of the underlying historical conditions with concrete proposals for dealing with the problems that affect universal values.

It is natural for UNESCO to participate in the World Social Forum in that it shares the latter's belief in the need to collectively draw up an alternative blueprint for a new social order. With a backbone of realistic strategic action, this common ideal will serve to harness humanity’s longing for a fairer world so that the roads to globalization and human rights might one day converge. During the First World Social Forum, UNESCO launched a debate on democratic governance, a strategic theme that we are now aiming to build into discussions conducive to policy-making for the future.

That initial debate centred on the input of African, Asian, European and Latin American participants in four key areas:

1. the role of the state and social movements in strengthening a democracy’s capacity to offset and manage globalization for the benefit of its citizens;
2. the international regulatory authorities in place and those that needed setting up;
3. the means of introducing governance of the world system based on democratic principles;
4. the role of the United Nations and non-governmental actors, especially NGOs, in such "democratic world governance".

The various reports on that debate (1) have brought out the need for more in-depth analysis of democracy as a complex conflict-management system that gives precedence to politics over economics. Hence the fertile question: how should the theoretical and empirical study of democracy be tackled in the light of the crisis in political representation and the emergence of new forms of citizenship?

This year, the broad strategic theme of "democratic governance" will serve to orient debate on more focused questions situated historically in a specific time and place and within a specific body of problems. The programme that UNESCO is putting forward for the 2002 WSF comprises three themes:

1. Democracy, governance and associated complexities: The challenges of cultural pluralism.
2. Blueprints for the city: Urban governance, management and policy-making.
3. Creating learning societies: Participation, citizenship and governance.

Each theme will be tackled in a separate seminar where the aim is to encourage open discussions on such key WSF issue areas as:

• access to wealth and sustainability;
• social movements, processes and governance.

2. Democracy, governance and associated complexities: the challenges of cultural pluralism

Discussions initiated by UNESCO during the first WSF highlighted the need for more in-depth analysis on democracy as a complex conflict-management system that gives precedence to politics over economics. What theoretical and empirical approach should be taken to the study of democracy given the crisis in political representation, the emergence of new forms of citizenship, identity-related demands and the rights of cultural minorities? Torn between government by the people (direct and participatory) and government for the people (representative), what view should be taken of the divergence between empirical and theoretical readings of democracy?

Democracy, according to Karl Marx, should consist of "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (2). Yet to what extent is the tension between freedom (liberal democracy, favouring moderation) and equality (radical democracy, favouring virtue) subject to regulation? This is by no means a purely academic question, for the institutional arrangements stemming from the choice of one particular form of democracy over another will differ greatly: liberal democracy, for instance, involves a system of checks and counterbalances designed to maintain a balance of power while radical democracy, on the other hand, strives for the concentration of means (e.g. via a common assembly).

What does the future hold for representative democracy (where power is delegated through regular and competitive elections)? What about participatory democracy (pre-eminence of popular sovereignty) and deliberative democracy (a forum for debate prior to decision-making)? Is democracy but one of a number of possibilities or the only prospect for any legitimate political order (Aristotle’s "politeia" or "ideal political system")?

Contributions to the debate will revolve around three key sub-themes (see below). Workshop participants are invited to present papers that tackle one or more of them from the point of view of their own disciplines, fields of research, experience in the field, working practices and/or political responsibilities.

a) Citizenship and democratic systems

In what respect can citizenship be regarded as a society’s private, individual and collective property? Citizenship and the way it is structured often give rise to the formation of civil society organizations: striving to have neglected rights recognized as universal rights fuelling the struggle of women’s associations, for instance.

Citizenship is affected both by globalization and by divisions and "glocalization". New forms of citizens’ allegiances can take shape via two distinct processes: recognizing complex, hybrid—and no longer national—identities; globalist identities laying claim to the last word. The resulting types of citizenship relate to differing human rights.

b) Complexities and revitalization of democratic practice and theory

Have traditional models of democracy outlived their usefulness? Are the new models of democracy and forms of citizens’ allegiance in force in Latin America and elsewhere generating a danger of systemic social crisis? What view should be taken of the matter of representativeness, elections or other participatory political systems or other systems that need to be devised, bearing in mind that today’s NGOs tend not to be all that representative and can be "performative", "speech-acting"? Is society still producing new theories for the management of conflicts within democracies faced with multiethnic societies and religious systems such as Islam?

Analysis of the governance of complex systems where politics takes precedence over economics is no longer geared to the homogenization of the political corpus. Once demonstrations have been analysed, such forms of expression need to be examined in the light of democratic theory. Society may be seen as a complex body made up of many different ethnic and cultural identities bereft of an appropriate voice; there is no homogenous form for the varied interests prevailing in a democracy.

c) Indigenous cultural identity, cultural pluralism and multicultural citizenship

Multicultural citizenship falls within the broader framework of safeguarding cultural identity, diversity and pluralism within individual States and rejecting the "pensée unique". Recognizing cultural pluralism is one of the cornerstones of democracy for it involves upholding the right of individuals and groups to enjoy an intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence rooted in cultural identity. Indigenous people want to see their identity and specificities safeguarded while forming part of a unified national whole. How can one reconcile endeavours to secure respect for indigenous people’s right to be culturally different with efforts to promote their accession to full and equal citizenship, a "cultural citizenship" that respects differences of every kind? Should more not be done to encourage national cultural policy-making that values indigenous people’s differing forms of expression, their social institutions and legal systems and, hence, that underscores their contribution to the majority culture and universal civilization? And should efforts not be made to foster greater intercultural dialogue as a prelude to a better understanding of the inherent richness of each and every culture?

The UNESCO workshop within the framework of WSF II

This workshop will form part of the 2^nd World Social Forum (WSF II). Its aim is to encourage open discussion on, inter alia, themes 3 and 4 from the Forum programme: "Civil society and the public arena" and "Democratizing global authority". The debate will be coordinated by a chairperson. A synthesis of the presentations will be drawn up by the rapporteurs and published on the UNESCO website.

Languages: French, Spanish, English and Portuguese (with simultaneous interpretation)

Date: 4 February 2002 (p.m.)

Schedule:

Chairperson: Mr Carlos Arturi, Professor (Doctor in Political Science), UFRGS Graduate Programme

14:00 – 14:10 Chairperson’s welcoming speech
14:10 – 14:25 Introduction to the workshop by Carlos Milani (UNESCO/MOST)

Part One

14:25 – 14:45 Ms Saras Jagwanth (South Africa)
14:45 – 15:05 Mr Jaime Preciado (Mexico)
15:05 – 15:45 Open debate introduced and led by Mr Guy Hermet (France)
15:45 – 16:00 Coffee break

Part Two

16:00 – 16:20 Mr A. Godfry Kouevi, (Togo)
16:20 – 16:40 Mr Julio Ruiz Murrieta (Peru)
16:40 – 17:20 Open debate introduced and led by Mr Guy Hermet (France)
18:00 Summing up by rapporteurs: Mr Frédéric Vacheron (UNESCO/Cultural Policies Division) and Mr Carlos Milani (UNESCO/MOST)

Contacts :

Notes :

1. See www.unesco.org/most/wsfunesco.htm
2. Quoted in HERMET, G. et al. 2001. Dictionnaire de la science politique et des institutions politiques. Paris : Dalloz/Armand Colin.