Democracy and fertility

A Masters Thesis, presented as part of the requirements for the award of a Research Masters Degree in Economics from NOVA – School of Business and Economics

Res Publica: Citizenship and Political Representation in Portugal, 1820-1926

The term res publica (literally “thing of the people”) was coined by the Romans to translate the Greek word politeia, which, as we know, referred to a political community organised in accordance with certain principles, amongst which the notion of the “good life” (as against exclusively private interests) was paramount. This ideal also came to be known as political virtue. To achieve it, it was necessary to combine the best of each “constitutional” type and avoid their worst aspects (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy). Hence, the term acquired from the Greeks a sense of being a “mixed” and “balanced” system. Anyone that was entitled to citizenship could participate in the governance of the “public thing”. This implied the institutionalization of open debate and confrontation between interested parties as a way of achieving the consensus necessary to ensure that man the political animal, who fought with words and reason, prevailed over his “natural” counterpart. These premises lie at the heart of the project which is now being presented under the title of Res Publica: Citizenship and Political Representation in Portugal, 1820-1926. The fact that it is integrated into the centenary commemorations of the establishment of the Republic in Portugal is significant, as it was the idea of revolution – with its promise of rupture and change – that inspired it. However, it has also sought to explore events that could be considered the precursor of democratization in the history of Portugal, namely the vintista, setembrista and patuleia revolutions. It is true that the republican regime was opposed to the monarchic. However, although the thesis that monarchy would inevitably lead to tyranny had held sway for centuries, it had also been long believed that the monarchic system could be as “politically virtuous” as a republic (in the strict sense of the word) provided that power was not concentrated in the hands of a single individual. Moreover, various historical experiments had shown that republics could also degenerate into Caesarism and different kinds of despotism. Thus, when absolutism began to be overturned in continental Europe in the name of the natural rights of man and the new social pact theories, initiating the difficult process of (written) constitutionalization, the monarchic principle began to be qualified as a “monarchy hedged by republican institutions”, a situation in which not even the king was exempt from isonomy. This context justifies the time frame chosen here, as it captures the various changes and continuities that run through it. Having rejected the imperative mandate and the reinstatement of the model of corporative representation (which did not mean that, in new contexts, this might not be revived, or that the second chamber established by the Constitutional Charter of 1826 might not be given another lease of life), a new power base was convened: national sovereignty, a precept that would be shared by the monarchic constitutions of 1822 and 1838, and by the republican one of 1911. This followed the French example (manifested in the monarchic constitution of 1791 and in the Spanish constitution of 1812), as not even republicans entertained a tradition of republicanism based upon popular sovereignty. This enables us to better understand the rejection of direct democracy and universal suffrage, and also the long incapacitation (concerning voting and standing for office) of the vast body of “passive” citizens, justified by “enlightened”, property- and gender-based criteria. Although the republicans had promised in the propaganda phase to alter this situation, they ultimately failed to do so. Indeed, throughout the whole period under analysis, the realisation of the potential of national sovereignty was mediated above all by the individual citizen through his choice of representatives. However, this representation was indirect and took place at national level, in the hope that action would be motivated not by particular local interests but by the common good, as dictated by reason. This was considered the only way for the law to be virtuous, a requirement that was also manifested in the separation and balance of powers. As sovereignty was postulated as single and indivisible, so would be the nation that gave it soul and the State that embodied it. Although these characteristics were common to foreign paradigms of reference, in Portugal, the constitutionalization process also sought to nationalise the idea of Empire. Indeed, this had been the overriding purpose of the 1822 Constitution, and it persisted, even after the loss of Brazil, until decolonization. Then, the dream of a single nation stretching from the Minho to Timor finally came to an end.

Bits, Atoms, and Information Sharing: new opportunities for participation

The particular characteristics and affordances of technologies play a significant role in human experience by defining the realm of possibilities available to individuals and societies. Some technological configurations, such as the Internet, facilitate peer-to-peer communication and participatory behaviors. Others, like television broadcasting, tend to encourage centralization of creative processes and unidirectional communication. In other instances still, the affordances of technologies can be further constrained by social practices. That is the case, for example, of radio which, although technically allowing peer-to-peer communication, has effectively been converted into a broadcast medium through the legislation of the airwaves. How technologies acquire particular properties, meanings and uses, and who is involved in those decisions are the broader questions explored here. Although a long line of thought maintains that technologies evolve according to the logic of scientific rationality, recent studies demonstrated that technologies are, in fact, primarily shaped by social forces in specific historical contexts. In this view, adopted here, there is no one best way to design a technological artifact or system; the selection between alternative designs—which determine the affordances of each technology—is made by social actors according to their particular values, assumptions and goals. Thus, the arrangement of technical elements in any technological artifact is configured to conform to the views and interests of those involved in its development. Understanding how technologies assume particular shapes, who is involved in these decisions and how, in turn, they propitiate particular behaviors and modes of organization but not others, requires understanding the contexts in which they are developed. It is argued here that, throughout the last century, two distinct approaches to the development and dissemination of technologies have coexisted. In each of these models, based on fundamentally different ethoi, technologies are developed through different processes and by different participants—and therefore tend to assume different shapes and offer different possibilities. In the first of these approaches, the dominant model in Western societies, technologies are typically developed by firms, manufactured in large factories, and subsequently disseminated to the rest of the population for consumption. In this centralized model, the role of users is limited to selecting from the alternatives presented by professional producers. Thus, according to this approach, the technologies that are now so deeply woven into human experience, are primarily shaped by a relatively small number of producers. In recent years, however, a group of three interconnected interest groups—the makers, hackerspaces, and open source hardware communities—have increasingly challenged this dominant model by enacting an alternative approach in which technologies are both individually transformed and collectively shaped. Through a in-depth analysis of these phenomena, their practices and ethos, it is argued here that the distributed approach practiced by these communities offers a practical path towards a democratization of the technosphere by: 1) demystifying technologies, 2) providing the public with the tools and knowledge necessary to understand and shape technologies, and 3) encouraging citizen participation in the development of technologies.

As Comissões Parlamentares de Inquérito no Portugal democrático, 1976-2015

As transformações operadas no mundo contemporâneo, em especial no que respeita às estruturas do poder, à sua maior autonomização e diferenciação, tiveram particulares reflexos ao nível dos Parlamentos e das funções que prosseguem. Desde a sua origem, no passado século XIII, à atualidade, grandes acontecimentos, clivagens e factos históricos estão presentes na sua linha evolutiva. A democratização do regime parlamentar e a legitimidade outorgada através de eleições democráticas e concorrenciais são um marco ímpar na sua história. A complexidade das sociedades hodiernas catapultou o Poder Executivo em detrimento do Parlamento, enquanto órgão legislativo por excelência. Tal circunstancialismo levou, não ao proclamado declínio dos Parlamentos, mas a reformas estruturantes. Outras e mais importantes funções seriam prosseguidas. Se as iniciativas legislativas e a definição das políticas públicas passaram a ser quase um exclusivo do Governo, havia que desenvolver e ampliar, por parte dos Parlamentos, os instrumentos de controlo, fiscalização e escrutínio da ação governativa. Entre os clássicos instrumentos de controlo avulta o Inquérito Parlamentar, materializado em Comissões Parlamentares de Inquérito, dotadas de poderes especiais para recolha de informação e para investigação. No seu percurso parlamentar, também as Comissões de Inquérito foram sendo alvo de constantes aperfeiçoamentos, de ordem constitucional, legal e regimental. A excessiva partidarização da atividade parlamentar de outrora e sobretudo a confusão entre o governo e o partido que o sustentava a nível parlamentar, o confronto desequilibrado de meios entre as maiorias e as minorias, levaram a um reposicionamento do inquérito parlamentar enquanto garante do direito das minorias. Não sendo expectável que as grandes iniciativas de controlo sejam tomadas pelo partido maioritário, cabe à oposição esse papel. Em Portugal, diminuta era a tradição do instituto do inquérito parlamentar, razão porque foi efémera e sem resultado a sua utilização no tempo da monarquia constitucional. O regime democrático, abraçado com o 25 de abril de 1974, relançou o órgão de soberania Parlamento e estabeleceu prioridades. Até ao amadurecimento da democracia viveram-se tempos mais conturbados mas de grande aprendizagem. O inquérito Parlamentar, a partir da revisão constitucional de 1982, passou conceptualmente a integrar um dos meios mais relevantes da fiscalização política. É, pois, o levantamento exaustivo e a análise das Comissões Parlamentares de Inquérito no Portugal democrático, período de 1976-2015, o objetivo a que nos propomos neste estudo.

As peculiaridades da democratização da região do Cáucaso do Sul no contexto da Política Europeia de Vizinhança

O período após o colapso da União Soviética foi o tempo da procura de novas identidades na nova realidade e de escolha de novos parceiros e aliados, o tempo da construção de novos estados e de formulação das regras e normas nacionais. Após o desmoronamento da ideologia soviética - um facto reconhecido oficialmente durante o período da Perestroika –, as pessoas sentiram uma necessidade de preencher o vácuo ideológico e desenvolver uma nova identidade. Foi proclamada a rejeição da estrutura política administrativa herdada da União Soviética e do sistema de economia planificada, e desenvolvida a tendência para a construção do estado democrático fundado numa economia de mercado. As expectativas relativas às transformações no período pós-soviético estavam relacionadas com o Ocidente (EUA e UE), e a construção do estado soberano foi fundada em modelos ocidentais de estado de direito, ‘boa governança’ e a economia de mercado. A UE desempenhou um papel importante na democratização dos estados da região do Sul do Cáucaso através de vários projetos e programas bilaterais e multilaterais no âmbito da Política Europeia de Vizinhança e da Parceria Oriental. Embora as reformas democráticas tenham sido realizadas com vista ao estabelecimento de uma Constituição democrática, à implementação de eleições democráticas e ao desenvolvimento da sociedade civil, fortaleceram, também, ainda mais, a natureza autoritária do poder, impediram a criação de um estado de direito, reforçaram violação dos direitos e das liberdades humanas. (NODIYA, 2003: 30; BAKHMAN, 2003: 17; BADALOV, 2003: 20). Deste modo, o processo da promoção da democracia através das reformas nos três estados do Sul do Cáucaso conduziu à criação de estados de “conteúdo autocrático misto, mas de forma democrática” (CHETERYAN, 2003: 41). Embora seja possível identificar as semelhanças entre os três estados da região do Sul do Cáucaso nas reformas do processo de desenvolvimento, os métodos e meios de implementação de reformas nas realidades dos estados regionais pela administração nacional foram bastante diferentes, por razões associadas às especificidades de cada um (DELCOUR e WOLCZUK, 2013: 3). Cada país é caracterizado pelas suas peculiaridades ao nível da situação geopolítica e diversidade do potencial económico – fatores que definem a trajetória política e económica do estado no período pós-soviético e, em certa medida, influenciam o modo como se desenvolvem as relações com a UE e, portanto, o processo de adoção das reformas e a sua introdução a nível nacional.