Video summary

Clase 3 | Participación, arraigo democrático e irrupción | Igor Ahedo

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Overview

The session argues that democratic participation only has transformative value when it:

  • politicizes everyday problems
  • builds collective power
  • reconnects citizens to decision-making

—not when it functions merely as symbolic inclusion, legitimacy-building, or a technique disconnected from power.

Participation as Politicization (the “Cinderella model”)

Shifting from private misfortune to public power

The speaker frames participation as a shift from viewing struggles as private misfortune to recognizing them as structural and public.

The Cinderella metaphor

Using the Cinderella story, the “magic” happens when Cinderella realizes that she is:

  • not alone
  • her condition is produced by networks and domination, not personal bad luck

This enables a transition from submission toward:

  • collective organization
  • engagement with the public sphere (“the public network”)
    • rather than seeking access to individual elites (“the prince”)

Why Participation Matters: Power Distribution and “What’s Ours”

Participation is defined around two requirements:

  1. Building community
    • uniting people across differences and invisibilities
  2. Accessing the distribution of power
    • changing political relevance after participation

Key guiding ideas

  • Participation is the transition from “what’s mine” to “what’s ours.”
  • It should enable many people to do a little, rather than a few doing a lot.
  • It must address how inequalities and conflicts require public/political solutions, not individual or market ones.

Current Context: Democratic Backsliding and “Homeopathic Reactions”

The session situates participation in an environment of “reaction upon reaction,” where:

  • democratic formalities are undermined

The speaker highlights an illiberalism dynamic: using democratic mechanisms from within to weaken democracy.

Two criticized responses

  • Neoliberal depoliticization
    • public issues are recast as private/free-market choices
  • Authoritarian/populist exclusion
    • “community” is reconfigured through people-vs-people logic

Participation as placebo (to be avoided)

Participation is urged to avoid becoming a placebo—events that create the feeling of action without fixing democratic or social problems.

Strategic Participation: Clarity, Relevance, and Mobilizing Absences

To be meaningful, participation should be:

  • Strategic
    • methodologies and structures tied to clear goals (“adaptation,” not improvisation)
  • Relevant
    • it must affect lived conditions
  • Clear
    • participants must know where processes lead; confusion breeds frustration
  • Oriented to inclusion of absences
    • those missing from public life due to class/job precarity, racism, age/care burdens, migration, etc.

Far-right conversion of “absence”

The far right is described as turning the “absent” into enemies. Participatory strategy must instead:

  • transform absences into affinities
  • then integrate them into “us”

From Legitimacy to Democratization (Beyond Image and Consultation)

Participation can be valuable for:

  • improving institutional legitimacy and effectiveness
  • movements using it strategically

But the deeper goal is:

  • citizenship-building
  • democratizing democracy, especially under democratic backsliding

The emphasis is that participation should be closer to transformation than reform, including:

  • expanding sovereignty of the demos
  • building more horizontal, inequality-reducing realities

Institutional vs. Disruptive Participation: “Shared Choreography”

The speaker maps actor spaces (parties, pressure/interest groups, citizens/social movements) and distinguishes:

  • Participation inside institutions
    • invited mechanisms (e.g., participatory budgeting)
  • Participation outside institutions
    • mobilization, protest, civil disobedience

Contact spaces and hybrid approaches

Instead of “both dancing on separate margins,” the session calls for contact spaces where:

  • disruptive and institutional logics interact

It proposes “participation with the institution” as a hybrid approach combining:

  • institutional openness
  • civil society pressure
  • respect for the autonomy of disruptive spaces
  • institutional acceptance of limits

Participatory Action Research and “Moments vs. Processes”

A core operational claim:

Moving from participation-as-a-one-time event (“moments”) to participation-as-a continuous process (“processes”) is what turns participants into real political subjects.

Assemblies: praised, but insufficient when they end

Deliberative assemblies may improve decision quality, but are criticized when people:

  • go home afterward
  • do not become durable political actors

Participatory action research

Participatory action research is presented as a method that:

  • transforms communities into subjects of their own inquiry and action
  • aims to reach those absent, not only those already present

Indicators of Progress: Co-Decision and Process Design

Participation advances democratization when it reaches:

  • co-management
  • and ideally co-decision (not stopping at information/consultation)

It also requires:

  • moving from short “participatory moments”
  • toward a process-oriented logic

Example logic

  • “city of children”
  • community networks with shared responsibility and small actions reflecting co-management

The speaker criticizes “accordion” participation (without continuity) and notes that Europe often produces many “participatory displays” rather than sustained democratic learning.

Audience Questions and Examples

Institutional mechanisms as “show”

  • Lucía worries institutional mechanisms become “show.”
  • The speaker responds by emphasizing that processes must be designed through phases of public policy:
    • problem definition
    • diagnosis
    • proposals
    • implementation
    • evaluation
  • It also requires:
    • deliberate openings/closures
    • stable organizational structures
    • identifying community liaisons

Risk of institutional capture

  • Jinet Suárez asks about the risk of institutional capture.
  • Igor responds that the key is:
    • maintaining autonomy of the social
    • creating a bridge where disruptive forces can push institutions toward democratic change

He contrasts examples:

  • a Basque case where demolition of an occupied social center followed police force
  • another where an occupied arms factory became a cultural/dream factory through agreement

Anti–overtourism initiative in the French Basque Country

  • Disruptive tactics (including civil disobedience and occupation) generated public debate
  • That debate led to legislative solutions, described as social-mandate-like constraints on Airbnb listings

Closing Theme and Practical Framing

Participation ultimately involves:

  • politicizing interests
  • converting “what’s in it for me” into collective diagnosis and action

A discussed example involves using music/rap as a gateway for youth engagement.

Throughout, the session returns to the Cinderella thesis:

  • collective recognition
  • collective organization
  • access to power

These together are what change the story.

Presenters / Contributors

  • Igor Ahedo — main presenter (referred to as Igor)
  • Lucía — audience contributor (question/comment)
  • Jinet Suárez — audience contributor (question/comment)

Original video