Luiza Teixeira
The virtual conference was divided into three stages: the first stage focused on proposals elaboration, the second focused on the choice of proposals, and the third focused on the conference evaluation. In the first stage, initially, there were some discussion forums containing studies and legislation about the axes of the conference. The discussion forums relied on a mediator to lead discussions on the subject, and guide the proposal elaboration. In the second stage, the focus was the prioritization of proposals, so participants could allocate up to 20 points for the proposals they considered most important in the four themes. The third stage focused on the results systematization, the presentation of prioritized proposals, and the evaluation of the conference.
Analyzing the first dimension in the Democracy Cube, which is who participates; at a first sight we could say that the selection of participants in Virtual Consocial is the Diffuse Public Sphere, because participation is open to everyone. This is the least restrictive mechanism, because it includes all people. But, by analyzing it more carefully, we can conclude that the participant selection was Open Self Selected, because, even though participation was opened, only people that, somehow, are involved with the theme participate. Part of the population does not get involved in this process. And, to begin with, there wasn’ t a massive campaign to inform the population of the featuring conference.
Observing the participants profile, posted at CGU’ s website, answered by 205 participants, out of 2,960, the idea of participant selection being Open Self Selected is reinforced. 64 % of the participants had already participated in other conferences. 37 % were attending post‐graduate studies, 29 % had a college degree, and 24 % were attending college. Considering the social reality in Brazil, it is easy to conclude that this is a very specific group, more informed than the majority of the citizens.
The second dimension of the cube, which refers to the way the communication and the decision making occurs, the Virtual Consocial is in the fifth stage, Deliberate and Negotiate, out of six, toward a most intense participation. In this stage, people are able to deliberate to discover their needs individually and in groups. So, it is possible to state that in Virtual Consocial the views and preferences of the participants in a collective vision were observed. The tools available in the website supported the negotiation and deliberation.
The most used tool was the forum, organized in accordance with the different sub topics, and mediated by a team hired by CGU. Altogether there were 12 discussion forums, 4 specific forums for proposals elaboration, on the four sub topics. In these four thematic forums mediation team sought to stimulate the participants to systematize their ideas into proposals collaboratively. All ideas presented were converged into proposals, and it is possible to visualize the processes that were registered in the discussion forums. The other forums supported parallel discussions. In these spaces participants performed campaigns around their proposals, raised questions about the selection of guests for the National Stage, requested clarification on general issues, sent criticisms etc. During the first stage of the Virtual Conference, 405 active participants( 15 % of those enrolled) sent 3,624 messages in the forums. According to the evaluation research, 69 % of the participants said that the tool Forum facilitated conversations and the creation of proposals.
Other tools available were: chat rooms, to engage participants to talk to each other, and to discuss the topics with invited experts; virtual library, with articles and other supporting documents; and the tool for prioritizing proposals, developed especially for the second stage of the Virtual Conference, where participants ' points could be distributed among the proposals they considered most relevant. During the conference, there were 9 chats, with around 40 minutes each, and with the participation of approximately 25 people. All the tools available were well evaluated by the participants.
Using these tools, participants elaborated 150 proposals related to the four sub topics. Out of the 150 proposals, 80 were prioritized by participants, 20 for each thematic axis. These proposals were sent to the National Conference, held in Brasilia in May 2012, with the final product being the National Plan on Transparency and Social Control. Therefore, it is possible to say that the virtual conference process involved negotiation and deliberation to achieve the result of 80 proposals.
The third dimension of the cube, extent of authority and power, is more difficult to analyze because its final result is still being discussed by the government. The virtual stage had 29 of its proposals incorporated into the 80 proposals of the National Plan, equivalent to 36 %. Although the objective of this conference process is to guide policy making, the National Conference final report mentions the intention of preparing a Law Project
532