There is growing interest in participatory democracy, much of it galvanized by the World Social Forums held in Porto Alegre, Brazil. The participatory budget (PB) pioneered by the Workers' Party (PT)?led municipal government in Porto Alegre and taken up in other Brazilian cities is being widely discussed.

Is this a positive example that can and should be emulated, as some in the New Politics Initiative (NPI) have suggested? Are current notions of participatory democracy simply a new form of co-optation? What implications do they have for how activists approach municipal politics? Here we present two viewpoints by editors of New Socialist - and we welcome readers to join the debate with letters or articles.

In a philosophical sense, the idea of people actively participating in the decisions that affect their lives is basic to a socialism from below approach. Neither Stalinism nor social democracy embodies the notion of popular, community and workers' control over society.

The limits of liberal democracy are glaringly apparent, especially in an age of global capitalist expansionism. Millions of people are frustrated by their lack of any control over decision-making. However, there is a lack of confidence in the possibility of an international socialist alternative. Thus, one response to capitalist globalization is the demand for new, radical forms of democracy and increased local (and sometimes national) control.

Overall, this is an understandable popular sentiment. However, the demand for local control is not, in and of itself, clearly anti?capitalist.

Ideas of participatory democracy, like virtually everything else under capitalism, are potentially co?optable. This is especially true if ideas of radical democracy are divorced from a critique of capitalist relations of production and the capitalist state. As a result, some on the anti?capitalist left react in a dismissive and sectarian way.

Participatory democracy is most effective when it is linked to a mobilizing perspective of organized mass movements for social change. In Porto Alegre, it was used to increase active support (based on dialogue) for new budgetary priorities in the interest of the people. This is an important stepping stone ? but it has obvious limits given the continued power of international and domestic capital.

The Left and Municipal Elections

Municipal socialism is obviously not the solution to international capitalism. Some on the Left have given municipal politics a very low priority. However, this arena is potentially accessible to demands by community and labour organizations. Popular participation at a local level is easier to visualize than participation in a geographically dispersed state like Canada.

Should the Left focus on municipal elections? This is a tactical question. In British Colombia, the 2002 civic elections are important. Major service cutbacks and the loss of thousands of municipal jobs are anticipated as a result of the downloading of the BC government's austerity agenda. Groups like the Committee of Progressive Electors (COPE) have opportunities to make gains.

What should the Left do? It would be useful to mount a campaign focussing on "No Cutbacks" and "Defend Public Services." This would entail a radical shift in municipal priorities, with tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy. Such measures would generate vehement resistance ? they could only be implemented with active public support and mass mobilization from below.

Against Social Democracy

One of the most telling critiques of social democracy is its lack of accountability. Like a broken record, social democratic governments like those of the NDP fail to implement their party's policies or serve the interests of those who elected them. How can such governments be held accountable to the movement?

Only self?organized movements can do this. Movements should be able to play an active role in setting priorities, including determining budgets.

Participatory democracy, used as away to mobilize and empower, can be an important means to impose a partial agenda contrary to the will of capital.

Since 1988, Porto Alegre has been governed by an alliance led by the PT. The Porto Alegre PT is led by organized political currents that are on the party's left wing. Begun in 1989, Porto Alegre's PB process involves people through neighbourhood forums and community organizations in discussing and setting priorities for how a portion of the municipal budget will be spent. Among the results have been better local infrastructure and social services, less corruption and more active involvement of workers and poor people in community groups.

Political Significance

These achievements have inspired many activists who are fighting neo-liberalism and eager for a practical alternative to it. With the credibility of socialism battered by the collapse of most of the Stalinist "Communist" societies and by defeats inflicted on movements of the exploited and oppressed, the PB appears as a success story.

Even if the World Bank has, for its own reasons, published a book on PBs co-written by former Porto Alegre mayor Tarso Genro, many on the Left support the PB as a way to challenge the priorities of the rich through participatory democracy. Some even suggest it's a step towards a form of state power that isn't capitalist (a dangerous illusion, in my view).

There's much about the PB experience in Brazil that deserves to be examined, not least because much of the discussion about it, on the Canadian Left at least, has been shallow, ill-informed and uncritical.

But the pressing question is: should the Left here start to campaign for PBs? I believe that to do so would be a serious mistake.

Wrong Direction

Canada is not Brazil. The level of self-organization and radicalism of the broad working-class movement (unions, community organizations, parties etc.) in Brazil far outstrips that here. Compare the PT with the NDP, or the unions of Brazil's CUT with those of the Canadian Labour Congress! The point is not to suggest that the Brazilian movement doesn't suffer from bureaucracy and adaptation to neo-liberalism, but that its organizations are much more powerful than their equivalents in English Canada and Quebec. The Porto Alegre experience can't be replicated where unions and community groups have a hard time even electing left-wing city councillors.

Some activists are already moving to mount campaigns to pressure local or even provincial governments to adopt PBs. This completely misunderstands that what's happened in Porto Alegre - whatever one makes of it - wouldn't have happened without the city's working-class movement.

By itself, the PB is only a reform to capitalist state administration. Without the involvement of powerful labour and social movements, how would PBs change the corporate priorities of governments?

The fundamental challenge facing people who want to fight neo-liberalism at home is to contribute to the self-organization and knowledge that working people need to effectively resist the attacks of employers and governments. Without big improvements in our political capacities, we won't be able to make significant gains.

There are many projects waiting to be taken on. These include: organizing in workplaces and communities that's militant, democratic and solidarity-minded; educational initiatives that develop activists' skills to analyse and act; taking steps towards a new party on the Left that can help such efforts; and building a vibrant current of socialist activists.

These should be our immediate priorities, not PBs. As we advance on these fronts, the PB should be part of our debates about what strategies and tactics we should use to change society and what our ultimate goals are.