How has grassroots political activity in Latin America affected social development in the region? This paper, by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), examines the evolution of grassroots political activity in Chile and Brazil. Specifically, it explores how the relationship between grassroots organisations and national government has changed in response to the transition from authoritarian to democratic rule. It finds that democratic rule has pushed grassroots organisations to the political sidelines and argues that international agencies need to support them in promoting alternative futures for social development.
Grassroots activity in Latin America has been shaped by the historical experience of authoritarian and military rule. This historical context forms the basis of an understanding of the current role of grassroots political organisations, and the way they have adapted – or not – to democratic transition and the rise of neoliberalism in the 1990s.
- During the period of authoritarian rule, grassroots demands were driven by local and material concerns that were stated in terms of rights. The principles of mobilization and struggle were clear and grassroots organisations were dynamic.
- During the democratic transition of the 1990s, social movements declined and arguably became less effective. They became overwhelmingly urban and motivated by material demands. The demand for rights was diffused and the emphasis shifted towards interaction and negotiation with state agencies. Their influence on social policy was piecemeal.
- Democratic transition saw NGOs multiply and become more visible, but their interaction with the state became necessary for their effectiveness. Where they did interact with the state they were often subordinated to state policy. Financial survival became paramount.
- Evidence from recent case studies shows that closer relationships between grassroots organisations and the state have lead to complete or partial co-optation and exposed grassroots organisations to clientelist controls.
- Neoliberal policies (in particular decentralisation) have the potential to promote new forms of popular participation and move grassroots organizations towards a more influential role. Nevertheless, the risk of co-optation remains. Decentralization in particular can strengthen clientelist policies and the state can create its own user groups rather than respond to autonomous grassroots activity.
Grassroots organisations can adapt and change over time but they face difficulties pressuring political society and in forming relations with political parties. The relationship between the state and grassroots organisations in new democracies can be categorised in terms of both clientelism and clientization. Overall, social movements have lost the capacity to promote alternative development projects. Therefore, donors should:
- Support grassroots organisations to play the critical roles of criticism and advocacy.
- Be less selective in their funding agendas and more selective in terms of which organisations they fund, so as to ensure they are supporting organisations that can legitimately represent and voice the interests of the community.
