Crítica à participação política no estado: o capital como ventríloquo da política

• Autor(a) principal: Maria Diana de Oliveira
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFMG
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/30437
• topic: Participação; Cidadania; Estado; Direito; Democracia; Mercadoria; Valor

This thesis focused on the political participation in the city of Belo Horizonte, because it is considered a reference in popular participation both nationally and internationally. This reference is mainly due to the experiences of institutional participation implemented since the 1990s and to the research presented by Avritzer (2010) and Milani (2008), among others, whose parameters of political participation are pointed out as the highest among the Brazilian cities. As for the establishment of the spheres of participation, they were made possible by a socio-political conjuncture, backed by the 1988 Constitution, for which there was great popular mobilization so that its text referred to mechanisms of direct participation in the decision of issues of interest to the collectivity. Constitutional reforms and popular participation were worked as a privileged moment of popular sovereignty, at which point the people would directly determine the form of state organization. Finally, at a time when democracy could present itself with all its titles of legitimacy. But what is the meaning of this popular sovereignty and of participation whose focus is the State? In this direction, it is sought to reflect on the limits / foundations of political participation for a true democracy and human emancipation, for a radical democracy, besides the State, that is, to what extent, such participatory mechanisms are just fetishes. After all, social participation is presented as a mediator of the terms of the bet: State, democracy, law and citizenship and it is in this proposition / bet that local governments, most decidedly those of Popular Fronts have established themselves. The question of the positivity presented in the studies, participation as a rights mediator (who participates is limited to the subject category of right) as well as its limits were addressed in this study. Finally, here is the thesis: participation through the State has in itself a genetic limitation, since its configuration is based on the subject of law. This category, in appearance, bears an equality, but, in essence, it maintains the characteristic inequalities of civil society. It is from this inequality that the central role of the state will be understood in the maintenance of capitalism, in the valorization of value and in the maintenance of a limited democracy.