Council Democracy as a Repertoire of Democratic Radicalization: Brazil and Venezuela in Comparative Perspective

This study situates itself within the growing historical-political and theoretical-normative debates on council democracy. It argues that council democracy has functioned, in Latin America, as a key conceptual and institutional repertoire through which projects of democratic radicalization have been articulated, contested, and redefined. It develops a systematic comparative analysis of the reinterpretations of this variant of democracy in the Brazilian and Venezuelan contexts. It builds on the common – yet underdeveloped – scholarly argument that there is a direct connection between attempts to radicalize democracy and the council democratic tradition. Methodologically, the paper combines conceptual history and comparative politics, using the former to ground and refine the latter. It retraces the historical-philosophical formation of the notion of council democracy, framing it as a variant of democracy that enables collective self-government through a federated council system. It engages with recent debates from the Global North (e.g., James Muldoon, Benjamin A. Popp-Madsen, Shmuel Lederman), while advancing them through theoretical perspectives and institutional experiences drawn from Latin America. The descriptive-analytical part of the paper examines how the notion of council democracy was reworked in Brazil and Venezuela. In the Brazilian case, the analysis covers the period from Brazil’s “political opening” (1974) to the end of the first two Lula administrations (2002-2011). For Venezuela, it centers on the Bolivarian Revolution, both during its period out of power (1992-1998) and once in government (1999-nowadays). The comparison reveals two sharply divergent trajectories of council democracy. In Brazil, council democracy emerged as an ideal model of working-class-led government supported by the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), but was progressively marginalized in favor of participatory governance proposals compatible with liberal constitutionalism. In Venezuela, by contrast, council democracy has appeared through the attempt of establishing a communal state (Estado comunal), composed of a network of communes and communal councils. For Brazil, the study of how elements of council democracy were incorporated into the PT’s early ideology is examined through textual analysis of national-level documentary sources, party leaders’ discourses, and the limited 1980s–1990s literature on the party’s first experiences in local government. For Venezuela, this approach is supplemented by an analysis of the extensive body of normative texts drafted over the past two decades in support of socialist decentralization. On this basis, the paper provides a first, critical study of how differing discourses, institutional designs, and strategic objectives have shaped contrasting uses and interpretations of council democracy. Overall, the paper highlights the reinterpretations that council democracy – originally emerged in Europe – has undergone in the South American region. It shows how these informed the design of participatory mechanisms in two different contexts: a liberal constitutional democracy (Brazil) and a growingly less competitive authoritarian state (Venezuela). In presenting the contribution of the PT and the Bolivarian process to the theory and praxis of council democracy, the paper underscores both the adaptability of this democratic form and the tensions that arise when it is embedded in divergent political regimes.