Nouvelles instances participatives et contre-pouvoirs : Fung et Wright «revisités» à partir des expériences marseillaises et québécoises

Abstract

Résumé. Selon Fung et Wright, la mise en place d'une gouvernance participative impliquerait l'apparition de contre-pouvoirs spécifiques, différents de ceux qui caractérisent les espaces politiques «agonistiques» dans lesquels opèrent les mouvements sociaux. Nous discutons ces conclusions à partir d'une comparaison des rôles joués par des comités de citoyens à Marseille et à Québec dans l'émergence et l'activité d'instances participatives nouvelles. À l'inverse des deux auteurs, nous soulignons que, dans certains cas au moins, la mise en place d'une gouvernance plus participative ne saurait se passer de l'existence de mouvements sociaux, et que certaines des «qualités» que Fung et Wright prêtent aux contre-pouvoirs spécifiques des nouvelles instances participatives peuvent favoriser, au contraire, des logiques de cooptation, néfastes aux pratiques de la démocratie participative. Nous terminons cette discussion par une réflexion plus générale sur les façons de penser le conflit en science politique et sur leur pertinence épistémologique et heuristique.Abstract. According to Fung and Wright, the establishment of participatory governance involves specific stakeholders, different from those characterizing the “antagonistic” political spaces in which social movements operate. We discuss these conclusions via a comparison of roles played by citizens' committees in Marseille and Quebec City in the emergence of new participatory instances. Contrary to the two authors, we stress that, at least in certain cases, the establishment of more participatory governance could not occur without the existence of social movements. More precisely, some features that Fung and Wright attribute to participatory stakeholders could, on the contrary, favour co-optation, harmful to the practices of participatory democracy. We complete this discussion with a more general overview of ways of perceiving the conflict in political science and their epistemological and heuristic relevance.

Participatory Democracy, Decentralization and Local Governance: the Montreal Participatory Budget in the light of ‘Empowered Participatory Governance’

“…From this angle of enquiry, decentralization is no longer viewed simply as a way of organizing participatory bodies, but as one of the conditions that shape the power relations between stakeholders and will thus impinge on the establishment of the participatory body. In our view, not only are the modalities of decentralization decisive factors in defining the scope of participatory bodies, but their design is also particularly revealing of the power relations between the actors (Patsias and Patsias, 2009). Decentralization can be the result of the dynamics between actors as much as it may dispose actors more or less favorably towards participatory procedures.…”

“…Continuity, because many of these projects have been in existence for some time, having been developed when the groups were still counter-powers (Latendresse, 2006). A more far-reaching retrospective of Quebec participatory experiments provides a clear background to this picture (Bherer, 2006a;Patsias and Patsias, 2009). The scenario also features in Porto Alegre and other Latin American experiments (Abers, 1996;Sintomer et al, 2008).…”

“…Brazilian studies have highlighted the role of the Workers' Party (WP) in launching participatory budgets, for these first emerged in cities already controlled by this left-wing party (Abers, 1996). In the majority of cases progressive parties have played the same role (Bherer, 2006a;Goldfrank, 2007;Heller et al, 2007;Sintomer and de Maillard, 2007;Patsias and Patsias, 2009). However, this tendency has decreased over time; we can see this as a sign of the success of participatory budgets as well as of specific national histories.…”

“…The Montreal example contradicts claims that the participatory exercise requires the emergence of other types of deliberative counter-powers, adapted to the particular dynamic of participatory arrangements (Fung and Wright, 2005). Some strongly dissenting social movements can, indeed, act as watchdogs of participatory arrangements and can, in part, adapt to the demands of more deliberative discussions (Patsias and Patsias, 2009).…”