Dos caras de la participación ciudadana: análisis sobre la inclusión - exclusión política en instancias presenciales y mediadas por aplicaciones
The analysis of institutional innovations for channeling citizen participation allows us to recognize that they can be oriented towards the realization or reinforcement of very diverse and contrasting "societal" projects. In this paper, we propose to address different participatory instanc...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Instituto de Investigación y Formación en Administración Pública (IIFAP-FCS-UNC)
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/37496 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | The analysis of institutional innovations for channeling citizen participation allows us to recognize that they can be oriented towards the realization or reinforcement of very diverse and contrasting "societal" projects.
In this paper, we propose to address different participatory instances through various theoretical-methodological approaches in order to provide evidence and contribute to the discussion. The selected cases correspond to institutional innovations that encourage individual or collective citizen participation and that are implemented at different levels of government with varied designs.
For this purpose, we mainly consider how inclusive each of the instances analyzed are and whether they tend more towards strengthening representative government than towards the progressive installation of a more participatory conception of democracy.
The evidence produced allows us to recognize that in the case of the JPV, the PP Barrial, JPC-CB and the application App Ciudadana, the centrality of the management undertaken by the representatives in the government is explicit, strengthening a representative conception of democracy at both levels of government. In the case of community-based cultural policies, the centrality of national and municipal management is not evident, rather it is concealed by the rhetoric of co-management. Plural participation in the framework of these policies has been restricted and depowered by institutional weakness, but also as a result of instrumental and corporate participation.
In terms of epistemic diversity, these innovations as a whole fail to guarantee the inclusion of varied, open and accessible channels for people with different life trajectories, in all social positions, to publicly express their dissent. |
|---|