Democratic Practices in MERCOSUR and the OAS: What Space for Transnational Civil Society?

ABSTRACT

Democratic theory asserts that the legitimacy of contemporary international and regional organisations rests on a degree of consensus expressed by various actors. The quest for diffuse support now extends beyond member states and explains the opening up of IOs/ROs to transnational civil society’s participation. Despite both notions being familiar to IR scholars, a more precise understanding is needed concerning the relationship between each concept, particularly with regard to the inclusion/exclusion nexus and in the still neglected study of organisations in the global South. Using a practice perspective, the paper offers a contribution to that understanding by proposing a micro-level analysis of the behavioural practices of both ROs and TCS using MERCOSUR and the OAS as case studies. A nalysis of the opening up of these organisations, and the concurrent engagement of civil society reveals how inclusion is still both incomplete and unequal. Political liberalisation of ROs thus remains an unfulfilled mandate.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusion/exclusion practices
• MERCOSUR
• OAS
• opening up of regional organisations
• civil society participation

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation to my colleague Jean-Philippe Thérien and to the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. My gratitude also to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for appreciated financial support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Anders Uhlin (2016, 34–35) quite aptly remarks that the term political liberalization seems more appropriate than democratization to describe the particular dynamics at work in GGIs. Political liberalization refers to more transparency, expanded participation and strengthened accountability as the main democratic values that should be used to assess IOs (Uhlin 2016, 35).

2 The choice of organizations is not altogether different from that of Uhlin (2016) whose analysis focuses on ASEAN and the Asian Development Bank. Comparison between regions could produce interesting insights even though the analysis in the book is much more developed than the exploratory study found here.

3 This section uses data taken from Mace (2021).

4 CSOs can also have their voices heard through other instances such as PARLASUR, the regional parliament, working sub groups, specialised meetings and other venues too numerous to list here. This kind of access, however, is limited, generally ad hoc, and not regulated. The situation may illustrate MERCOSUR's willingness to open up to CSOs but the unavailability of data suggests that these channels have only been used sporadically.

5 Country membership in the Forum was increased from nine to twelve at the 2012 Mendoza Summit, giving an equal number of representatives to business, labour, and CSOs.

6 Held in December 2004, the meeting adopted the Buenos Aires Consensus (also called Ouro Preto II), an important step in the tentative to re-launch MERCOSUR.

7 Data compiled from the listings included in the final declarations of the summits.

8 The Register can be consulted at: http://registroups.mercosur.int.

9 This section borrows in part from Mace (2020).

10 See text of the Charter at: http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-41_charter_OAS.asp.

11 Rules governing the cooperation between the OAS and TCS were subsequently clarified in 1971 and the General Assembly has adopted various resolutions, since 1997, enjoining member states and all organs of the OAS to adopt measures facilitating widespread involvement by civil society.

12 The Registry does not cover the years 2016–2018 for unknown reasons.

13 Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the United States and Mexico. Data taken from the World Bank’s Data bank at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.Cd.

14 Data taken from the CIA’s World Factbook at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.

15 Listed on the OAS’ civil society web page. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/sre/dai/sociedad_civil/index.shtml. No information on the topic is provided for the period 2014-2022.

16 Attempts to obtain more systematic, and up to date, data were unsuccessful.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: [Grant Number 410-2011-2448].

Notes on contributors

Gordon Mace

Gordon Mace is professor emeritus of Political science and International politics at Laval University. He is a past editor of Études internationales and past director of the Inter-American Studies Center. He has published extensively in various journals in Europe and in the Americas, most recently Global Society, International Politics and Latin American Policy. Among the books he recently co-authored or co-edited are Summits and Regional Governance: the Americas in comparative perspectives (London & New York, Routledge, 2016, co-edited with J. P. Thérien, D. Tussie and O. Dabène), and Guide d’élaboration d’un projet de recherche, Third edition (Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 2017, co-authored with F. Pétry). He is the recipient of the 2008 ISA Canada Distinguished Scholar Award.