PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.G ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CAJP-1664/00 rev. 1 16 May 2000 COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS Original: Spanish Working Group on Representative Democracy REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE WORKING GROUP ON REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY (Approved by the Working Group at its meeting of May (16), 2000)
1. Background The General Assembly, at its twenty-ninth regular session, adopted resolution AG/RES. 1648 (XXIX-O/99), "Promotion of Representative Democracy," in which it instructed the Permanent Council to carry out, through the Working Group on Representative Democracy, the tasks listed in Section 2 of this report. The General Assembly also adopted AG/RES. 1684 (XXIX-O/99), "Participatory Democracy," in which it entrusted the Permanent Council with the tasks mentioned in Section 3 of this report, which were also to be carried out through the Working Group on Representative Democracy. The Permanent Council, at its July 23, 1999 meeting, forwarded the above-mentioned resolution to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs for consideration. At its July 28, 1999 meeting, that committee established the Working Group on Representative Democracy, which elected Ambassador Virginia Contreras, Permanent Representative of Venezuela to OAS, as chair by acclamation. At its September 9, 1999 meeting, the working group elected Ambassador Jorge Rhenán Segura, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the OAS, as vice chair.
2. Proceedings The chair drew up a calendar of activities based on the mandates contained in the above-mentioned resolutions. It was published and distributed as document CP/CAJP-1556/99. As indicated in that calendar, the group carried out the following activities:
This mandate dates back to 1997, when the Working Group asked the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD), as the central body coordinating activities related to the promotion and defense of democracy, to produce a draft of that inventory, as a tool for complying with the provisions of resolution AG/RES. 1475 (XXVII-O/97). In that resolution, the General Assembly requested the Permanent Council to promote, through the Working Group, cooperation between the UPD and the various organs, agencies, and entities of the OAS in the sphere of activities related to promotion and defense of democracy.
b. UPD work plan for the year 2000: The Group examined and approved the UPD work plan for 2000 at its meetings on December 1 and 17, 1999, and approved the plan at the January 13, 2000 meeting.
d. Analysis and design of programs intended to foster ties and exchanges among young leaders in the Hemisphere: The Group discussed this topic at meetings held on September 16, 1999 and February 10, 2000, when delegations took note of reports by Dr. Elizabeth Spehar, Executive Coordinator of the UPD, on progress in this area. The Group also heard presentations given at the February 10 meeting by Dr. Susan Benson, Representative of the Division for the Promotion of Cooperation of the Inter-American Agency for Cooperation and Development (IACD) and Dr. Roy Thomasson, Principal Specialist of the Unit for Social Development and Education, on the Trust for the Americas and Young Americas Business Trust, respectively
f. Network of Parliamentarians of the Americas: At the meeting held on March 14, 2000, the Executive Coordinator of the UPD gave an oral presentation on the steps being taken to organize a meeting of the Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committees, or equivalent bodies, in the congresses or national parliaments of member states of the OAS. That meeting was held, in the framework of activities of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, on March 29 and 30, 2000.
3. Seminars for Analysis and Reflection on Participatory Democracy
a. Background
Through resolution AG/RES. 1684 (XXIX-O/99), adopted at the twenty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly of the OAS, the General Assembly instructed the Working Group on Representative Democracy to organize, in conjunction with the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, a seminar for analysis and reflection on participatory democracy. At its meeting of December 17, 1999, the Working Group approved the agenda for examining this topic by observing the participation of citizens in the democracies of the Hemisphere (See Appendix I).
The Group considered that the purpose of these two-day seminars would be to listen to presentations on the subject by government and nongovernmental and academic experts from the region, to foster dialogue and exchanges among participants with regard to the conditions for citizens’ participation in the democracies of the Hemisphere, and to identify factors that might strengthen and promote such participation. It was the Group’s belief that the results of the seminars should help to enrich the Organization’s thinking about democracy. The seminars took the form of two round table discussions, one on "Citizens’ Participation in the political process in democratic systems" and the other on "Factors promoting citizens’ participation" in democracies, paying due attention to a series of subtopics pinpointed by the Working Group.
The Group devoted several meetings to examining the issues and asked the UPD to prepare an annotated agenda, which was submitted as background for work to be undertaken during the seminars (See Appendix II). The Group also asked the UPD to present a list of possible participants and the Chair asked representatives to take such steps as they deemed necessary to ensure the participation of distinguished experts from their respective countries. A calendar of activities was also produced. (See Appendix III).
The seminars were held in the framework of a special meeting of the Working Group on Representative Democracy on April 10 and 11, 2000, with the participation of distinguished government and academic experts (see Appendix III). The Secretary General of the OAS, César Gaviria, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, José Vicente Rangel participated in the opening session. Participants then proceeded to elect Mauricio Alice, Alternate Representative of Argentina, as rapporteur.
In their papers, the speakers dealt with the topics they had been assigned, and then opinions, information, and experience were exchanged on the topics included in the agenda. The ideas that emerged were recorded in the Rapporteur’s report, which is attached to this report as Appendix IV.
APPENDIX I
PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.G ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CAJP-1607/00 rev.1 9 March 2000 COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL AND Original: English JURIDICAL AFFAIRS
Working Group on Representative Democracy
ANNOTATED AGENDA
SEMINARS FOR ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION ON PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
washington, D.C., April 10 and 11, 2000
SEMINAR FOR ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION ON PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
washington, D.C., April 10 and 11, 2000
ANNOTATED AGENDA
I. Introduction
Resolution AG/RES 1684, adopted at the OAS twenty-ninth General Assembly in June 1999, provided a mandate to the Working Group on Representative Democracy to organize an event, together with the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, that would provide a forum for analysis and reflection on "participatory democracy". During its December 17, 1999 session, the Working Group approved an agenda, which proposes to analyze this theme by looking at citizens’ participation in the democracies of the Hemisphere. The objective of this two-day event ("Seminar") will be to hear from both governmental and non-governmental experts from the region on the issue and to stimulate dialogue and exchange among participants regarding the state of citizens’ participation in the democracies of the hemisphere and elements for its strengthening and promotion. The results of the event are intended to contribute to enriching the discussion of issues concerning participation in the hemisphere and the Organization’s own reflection on elements for strengthening democracy.
The event will generally be organized into two roundtables, one on "Citizens’ Participation in the Political Process of Democratic Systems", and another on "Elements which Promote Citizens’ Participation" in democracies, with due consideration of a series of sub-themes also identified by the Working Group. The current document has been prepared as a guide for panelists and participants on the issues to be discussed.
II. Panel One: Citizens’ Participation in the Political Process of Democratic Systems
This first panel will provide an overview of the situation of citizens’ participation in the democracies of the hemisphere, with particular emphasis on the challenges to greater and more effective citizens’ participation in the countries of the Americas.
Civil society participation was singled out as one of the key themes at the last Summit of the Americas of the Heads of State and Government, held in Santiago, Chile, in 1998. In the Final Summit Declaration, the Governments pledge to "foster more active participation in civil society", and also make explicit the indissoluble link between participation and democracy: "The strength and meaning of representative democracy lie in the active participation of individuals at all levels of civic life."
In order to set the groundwork for the deliberations and process of reflection of the Seminar, it is important to begin by discussing the significance, the scope and the objectives of citizens’ participation in the hemisphere. Over the past two decades, citizens throughout the hemisphere have reclaimed their rights to be able to freely participate as candidates and to elect their leaders in democratically held elections. The advances in democratization in the Americas have also meant greater opportunities for citizens to participate more broadly in public affairs. Despite advances formidable challenges remain in order to achieve fuller and more meaningful participation of citizens in the decision-making processes of their societies, particularly on the part of those minorities or vulnerable groups that have traditionally not had a voice.
First, there is a worldwide trend in low or decreasing voter turnouts for elections. In some countries that have had vigorous turnout in the past, electoral participation is decreasing, while in others, especially where there has been the prospect for invigorated democracy, voter participation has failed to meet the levels that had been anticipated. Observers of these trends have noted a number of possible causes, such as possible weaknesses in the democratic political culture, voter apathy (the feeling that balloting is not very effectual), disenchantment or frustration among the voters about politics in general (the feeling that the political system may be too complex, distant, or corrupt for one voter to make a difference), obstacles in electoral law or practice (such as the inability of the voters to cast their ballots near where they live, inappropriate boundaries for electoral districts, inaccuracies with the electoral registry, etc.), and other causes.
When the electorate fails to participate at healthy levels, political parties are sometimes cited as a major contributing cause. Throughout the hemisphere, and indeed worldwide, there is concern about a "crisis of legitimacy" of political parties. That is, there is some questioning of the role of political parties as the "natural" intermediaries between citizens and the state. In some countries, political parties, particularly the traditional or well-entrenched parties, are increasingly seen by the electorate as remote, self-serving, and generally out-of-touch with the real needs and aspirations of the population. This situation has had an impact on citizens’ participation, in that the crisis of legitimacy of political parties can further discourage voters from casting ballots and alienate them from politics as a whole, although it can also give impetus to new political movements or other forms of participation.
Limited citizens’ participation is also sometimes associated with the weaknesses of political and other institutions. Governmental institutions which appear to be unresponsive, ineffective, overly-bureaucratic or lack transparency can both prevent citizens from participating effectively as well as discourage them from doing so. Weaknesses in all branches of government, not just the executive, can impact in a variety of ways on participation. A weak and inadequate judiciary can prevent individuals from fully exercising their basic rights as citizens. Weak legislatures, confronting a lack sufficient resources, an overly-dominant executive branch, or other problems, may not be providing an inadequate flow of information to citizens which hampers their understanding of and interest in this vital institution. In some countries, at the municipal or regional levels, governments may lack the authority as well as the resources to be more effective in carrying out their mandates and in opening opportunities for participation. In all cases, both the actual weaknesses of basic institutions of government as well as the perception of weakness on the part of the population can adversely affect citizens’ participation. These and other challenges to fuller citizens’ participation can be analyzed during the first panel of the seminar.
Iii. Panel Two: Elements Which Promote Citizens’ Participation in Democratic Systems
The second panel will attempt to discuss and examine elements that can promote citizens’ participation in democratic systems, with particular emphasis on promising developments in the hemisphere. These elements can include the development of constitutional norms or legislation to promote or facilitate citizens’ participation, governmental actions or initiatives at all levels (central, local, legislative) which provide access or opportunities for participation, and actions or programs of NGOs and other civil society groups which promote and facilitate participation in public affairs. The panel will therefore address the current role of civil society, looking in particular at how this role has developed through new forms of participation, as well as through the emergence of new actors (that is, beyond traditional political parties), who are broadening the possibilities for direct citizens’ participation in public affairs - - civic associations, NGOs, Chambers of Commerce, etc.
One critical element for citizens’ participation is access to information, particularly information on the policies and programs of government. Informed citizens can play a much more meaningful and useful role in governmental decision-making processes, in developmental processes, and in oversight of governmental functions, thus promoting greater transparency and accountability in government. The role of government agencies, the media and others in providing this information, as well as the potential for enhancing the information flow and increasing dialogue between governments and their citizenry through modern technology (teleconferencing, virtual "town hall" meetings, e-mail, etc.) can be analyzed during the panel and follow-up discussions.
An area of government action that could be reviewed as an element for the promotion of citizens’ participation is decentralization, and how political and administrative decentralization policies can positively affect citizens’ participation. For example, it is often suggested that the local level of public affairs is an ideal environment for enhanced citizens’ participation, in that municipal governments are frequently more accessible to citizens and individuals can more easily see the direct results of their participation within their own towns or communities.
The promotion of fundamental democratic values and practices in a democratic society is crucial for stimulating and supporting citizens’ participation. In this sense, another important element for the promotion of participation is education for a democracy, a key summit of the Americas mandate. The second panel could discuss and analyze the merits and limitations of both governmental and non-governmental "education for democracy" programs and initiatives as they relate to citizens’ participation (formal programs within school systems, non-formal education, informal education initiatives). APPENDIX II PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.G ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CAJP-1608/00 rev. 3 5 April 2000 COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND Original: Spanish POLITICAL AFFAIRS Working Group on Representative Democracy
CALENDAR Seminar for Analysis and Reflection on Participatory Democracy April 10-11, 2000 Washington, D.C.
Seminar for Analysis and Reflection on Participatory Democracy
Monday, April 10, 2000, 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 11, 2000, 9:00 a.m. – 12 noon CALENDAR
Monday, April 10, 2000
10:00 a.m. - 10:45 a.m. WelcomE and opening remarks
d. Election of the rapporteur and presentation of the moderators
11:45 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION: Questions and Comments
3:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION: Questions and Comments
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
12:00 p.m. -1:00 p.m. FINAL SESSION a. Rapporteur’s Report b. Closing Remarks
APPENDIX III
PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.G ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CAJP-1605/00 rev. 1 3 March 2000 COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS Original: Spanish
Working Group on Representative Democracy
SEMINAR FOR ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION ON PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
washington, D.C., April 10 and 11, 2000
AGENDA
(Approved at the meeting of December 17, 1999)
Appendix iv PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.G ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CAJP-1638/00 corr. 1 26 April 2000 COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND Original: Spanish POLITICAL AFFAIRS
Working Group on Representative Democracy
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR ON THE SEMINAR FOR ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION ON PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
April 10 and 11, 2000, Washington, D.C.
(Prepared by Dr. Mauricio Alice, Alternate Representative of Argentina to the OAS)
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR ON THE SEMINAR FOR ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION ON PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
April 10 and 11, 2000, Washington, D.C.
(Prepared by Dr. Mauricio Alice, Alternate Representative of Argentina to the OAS)
The Seminar for Analysis and Reflection on Participatory Democracy, held on April 10 and 11, 2000, at the headquarters of the organization, was viewed as an excellent opportunity for the eminent participants to exchange views and information, and to present their experiences. The elements and mechanisms designed to increase citizen participation as a means to strengthen the democratic system provided an opportunity for a fertile exchange, the main points of which this rapporteur attempts to set out below.
There was agreement during the seminar's presentations and discussions, where reference was made to the situation in various countries of the Hemisphere, on indicating the need to improve forms of citizen participation - not only regarding general political issues of society, but also regarding those day-to-day issues affecting people’s lives. In that connection, the lack of contradiction between representative democracy and participatory democracy was mentioned, as representation and participation have been issues raised since the beginnings of the system of democracy itself and, in particular, since the eighteenth century. Reference was also made to the complementarity of participatory democracy and representative democracy, while emphasizing that mechanisms for direct participation are a source of both risk and opportunity. Among significant features of representative democracy were mentioned the effectiveness of human rights, the rule of law, and the separation and independence of the branches of government, and it was suggested that there was a need to further the enhancement of the democratic system beyond such features. It was felt, in this connection, that democracy was not a static, immutable concept, but one that was dynamic and susceptible to improvement.
The point was made that in various societies of Latin America and the Caribbean we were witnessing a loss of credibility of certain forms of participation characteristic of representative democracy, especially in terms of the use of political parties as the main participatory channel. It was commented that a system in which elections were the exclusive source of representation led to periodic electoral processes, after which the citizenry became estranged from participation in the issues most affecting their lives. It was also stressed that citizen participation had to be both regular and ongoing. There was agreement, too, that one factor contributing to the loss of credibility of the forms of representation had been the inability of representative systems to solve the serious economic, social, and cultural problems that had affected the most vulnerable sectors of society and the inability of such systems to achieve true development. This had led to an immense waste of resources, a situation attributed to the form of participation that was inadequate and to the lack of control of the governors by the governed, which had made it possible for serious corruption to occur.
Among current problems were mentioned the breakdowns of the political party system itself, the widespread temptation towards popular Caesarism, and trends towards presidential systems in which power was abused so that presidents were re-elected to office indefinitely. It was felt that such phenomena had also led to a loss of credibility of state institutions and of the legislative and judicial branches themselves, which were seen as inefficient and tending to defend group interests over those of society as a whole. This dynamic had occurred in tandem with world trends toward globalization and had unleashed complex processes, such as those involving reform of the state apparatus, in a framework of economic restrictions which had added to the difficulties facing the populations of the Hemisphere. Among elements mentioned which might channel participation towards the new state structures were citizen participation in public policies and fulfillment by citizens of their political obligations, while at the same time developing a practice of "citizen oversight." In addition to these different forms of popular initiative was the transfer of public services to civil society, sometimes through forms of co-management. For all of these, emphasis on the relationship between civil society and democratic participation was, by all lights, imperative.
It was also commented that, in some countries, state structural reform policies, globalization-derived policies, and diminishing economic resources had also met with high levels of social and political violence, which was an important additional obstacle to improving levels of participation. It was felt, in this connection, that economic policies should take account of such factors so that a more appropriate level of citizen participation in the institutional environment in which they carried out their activities might be fostered.
In attempting to respond to these serious problems, the participants considered that an attempt should be made to make participation a central element of the political life of our societies, in the aim of bringing citizens closer to power by including them in decision-making processes at regional and local level, and through other forms of social organization affecting daily life. Participation was in that sense the key to legitimacy.
It was felt at the seminar that participation as a fundamental practice of democratic societies should take place not only on an ongoing basis, but also within the various social institutions. Among the most important were mentioned institutions of regional government, through decentralization, universities, companies, political parties, and professional associations. Emphasis was placed on the importance of access to pertinent information in obtaining meaningful, effective participation. In this context, it was felt that civil society organizations or institutions had come to play a fundamental part and that they should be strengthened and improved, while preventing them from falling into the same errors of bureaucratization and defense of sectoral or group interests for which were criticized the institutions that today we sought to reform.
In such a context, political participation was viewed as a sustained process of access to rights – civil, political, and social – the dynamics among which provided a fundamental means to convert such rights into institutions capable of establishing limits between political power and civil society, as it was suggested that the weaker the institutions, the less the extent to which citizens would be able to exercise their rights. Political participation, therefore, included the responsibility of the state and its organs, the responsibility of civil society organizations, and the accountability of the governors to the governed through compliance with the law and the existence of efficient judiciaries, especially in terms of fiscal matters. It was also suggested that such institution-building was a process developed on the basis of the specific history of each society. It provided an ongoing test of the imagination to reconcile participation-based demands while taking account of gender equality, cultural pluralism, equity and social peace, and sustainable development.
It was also felt that the legal and constitutional reforms caused by this process had been supplemented by mechanisms that fostered the promotion and defense of democracy and participation in initiatives of public concern. In that connection, mention was made of activities such as social oversight, electoral observation, and the establishment of civil rights and civil liberty organizations.
It was felt that an important aspect of these social and political processes was the enhancement of access to civil justice in the Hemisphere, which was discussed in terms of its cost and target or final beneficiary. It was felt that political or social reform processes should be accompanied by judicial and procedural reforms in order to move towards more just and equitable social orders. It was also felt that judicial reforms should take account of the history and reality of the various societies and that reforms should never be made at the expense of traditional fundamental guarantees of due process and judicial impartiality. It was stressed that judiciaries could not be isolated from society, but had to promote their own participation by building bridges to ensure their involvement. Examples of mechanisms making such participation possible were bar associations, judicial conferences, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and legal education and community access programs.
With respect to mechanisms for control of electoral processes, mention was made of experiences of civil society participation in such control, with a view to lending transparency and credibility to the system. An attempt should therefore be made to seek mechanisms for civil society participation in political and electoral processes as such so as to confront situations of loss of credibility of the institutions responsible for such processes. The participants felt that the reforms introduced gave rise to a fertile process of enhancement that continued today with a view to improving existing systems. It was felt that the role of civil society institutions complemented that of government institutions. Emphasis was placed on the importance of efficient, organized political parties to channel citizen participation appropriately. The influence of civil society organizations was thus also highly important in this area in obtaining viable, self-sustaining democratic systems.
It was felt that the sustainability of the system involved the practical effectiveness of all human rights as a means to promote broad citizen participation. Mention was also made of various experiences in support of the work of nongovernmental and civil society organizations to encourage the development of programs having a positive impact on the strengthening of local government and the enhancement of electoral systems. Also cited were experiences of assistance in the development of youth leaders, and in the participation of traditionally marginalized sectors, such as women, the poor, or indigenous populations, in matters of national concern. It was felt that by these means an attempt had been made to encourage increased participation of traditionally marginalized sectors so that the objectives of eradication of poverty and sustainable development might be achieved. It was felt that the implementation of certain economic policies had contributed to accentuating some defects which constituted obstacles to the development of democracy in our societies. Cited, in this context, was the deepening of extreme poverty and the appearance of traumatic transitions towards market economies. There was a need for greater participation by the private business sector through the creation of conditions favorable to strengthening democratic institutions and social conditions promoting such institutions.
It was also mentioned that there were new realities, such as party foundations, towards which public funds were being directed, sometimes in substantial amounts, in the aim of improving the operation of political parties. With respect to the loss of credibility of political parties, some panelists mentioned a crisis of legitimacy affecting participation, particularly electoral participation. A distinction was drawn between the crisis of political parties per se and the crisis of political parties in fulfilling their functions. But the risks of anti-political discussion were also emphasized, which called political parties and institutions of representative democracy into question.
By way of conclusion, I return to the assertions by some panelists that democracy did not in and of itself provide solutions to social problems but rather provided the general framework in which such solutions should be sought and channeled. Democracy had to guarantee pluralism and the exercise of social, civil, and political rights. Democracy had to serve everyone.
Thank you very much.
ANNEX
DRAFT RESOLUTION
PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY
(Approved at the meeting of May 16, 2000)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BEARING IN MIND that the Charter of the Organization of American States establishes in its preamble "that representative democracy is an indispensable condition for the stability, peace and development of the region" and that one of its essential purposes is "to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention"; HAVING SEEN the Annual Report of the Permanent Council (AG/doc. /00) and, in particular, the chapter on the Report of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CP/CAJP-1664/00 rev. 1) as it relates to the promotion of representative democracy; CONSIDERING: Resolution AG/RES. 1063 (XX-O/90), which requested the Secretary General "to establish within the General Secretariat a Unit for the Promotion of Democracy," and resolution CP/RES. 572 (882/91), in which the Permanent Council adopted the Program of Support for the Promotion of Democracy; and That, pursuant to resolution CP/RES. 572 (882/91), the Unit "will be available to perform such tasks as the competent authorities may entrust to it in support of democracy in the Hemisphere";
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the resolutions on representative democracy: AG/RES. 1080 (XXI-O/91), AG/RES. 1402 (XXVI-O/96), AG/RES. 1475 (XXVII-O/97), AG/RES. 1551 (XXVIII-O/98), and AG/RES. 1648 (XXIX-O/99), and AG/RES. 1696 (XXIX-O/99);
TAKING NOTE of the report of the Working Group on Representative Democracy and the rapporteur’s report on the Seminar for Analysis and Reflection on Participatory Democracy (CP/CAJP-1638/00 corr. 1) held at OAS headquarters on April 10 and 11, 2000 pursuant to resolution AG/RES. 1648 (XXIX-O/99), "Participatory Democracy"; and HAVING CONSIDERED the report of the Chair of the Working Group on Representative Democracy on holding Seminars for Analysis and Reflection on Participatory Democracy, RESOLVES:
|