Justicia para los vecinos

 

Se ha creado una expectativa en el movimiento vecinal por la reciente aprobación de una nueva Ley Orgánica de la Jurisdicción Especial de la Justicia de Paz Comunal (2024)[1] y por ende, por la muy próxima elección de sus jueces de paz correspondientes, este 15 de diciembre. Estos jueces paz serán electos por votación popular en unos circuitos comunales predefinidos externamente al municipio. La preocupación del activismo vecinal es comprensible porque la ley determina que la nueva Justicia de Paz Comunal se organizará al margen del municipio y las parroquias que son los espacios político-territoriales naturales reconocidos por el marco legal vigente[2].

Comentarios

En realidad, el desarrollo institucional previo de la Justicia de Paz en Venezuela ha sido accidentado y no muy exitoso. No se trata de descalificar la utilidad de ese medio de participación para la convivencia, la mediación y la resolución alternativa de conflictos vecinales o comunitarios; pero si se trata de reconocer que la justicia de paz, no ha sido lo suficientemente apoyada por las autoridades públicas de los tres niveles político-territoriales de la República ni tampoco por las propias comunidades, que aún incluso desconocen su existencia y utilidad. Un hecho cierto, es que desde 1994 la aplicación de la justicia de paz en Venezuela ha sido limitada e incompleta desaprovechando así, sus potencialidades pedagógicas como creadora de ciudadanía.

En un muy breve recorrido por su trayectoria, encontramos que la justicia de paz fue incluida por el Libertador Simón Bolívar en la Constitución de 1819 a propósito de la creación de la Gran Colombia. A partir de ese momento del siglo XIX, son muy pocos los estudios y registros sobre el desempeño de esa institución ciudadana; y es hasta bien entrado el pasado siglo XX, cuando encontramos una iniciativa firme para el desarrollo de la justicia de paz, por parte de una entidad de la sociedad civil.

En efecto, fue la Asociación Civil Constitución Activa en 1989 retomó el tema e incluso logró presentar a la opinión pública un proyecto denominado Ley de Tribunales de Paz, elaborado bajo la coordinación de Omar Mago Bendahán. Un año después de esa presentación en 1990, se logró el interés del Concejo Municipal de Caracas que realizó lo que sería el primer taller de justicia de paz del siglo XX.

En el año 1993, el magistrado Alirio Abreu Burelli presentó en el Congreso de la República, un proyecto de Ley de Tribunales y Procedimientos de Paz, basado en el proyecto previamente elaborado por Omar Mago Bendahán. Ocurrió sin embargo, que el proyecto presentado Abreu Burelli tuvo varias observaciones y objeciones que provocó la preparación y redacción de otro proyecto que finalmente dio origen a la Ley Orgánica de Justicia de Paz en 1994.

La Ley Orgánica de Justicia de Paz (1994).[3]

Según la Ley Orgánica de Justicia Paz, el propósito fundamental del Juez de Paz era lograr la justicia en el caso específico sometido a su consideración y viabilizar su solución y la convivencia pacífica de los miembros de la comunidad vecinal. El Juez de Paz, procedía del ejercicio del sufragio directo universal y secreto de los votantes de su respectiva comunidad (parroquia). Sus decisiones eran vinculantes y podía ser revocado bajo ciertas circunstancias.

La primera elección de un Juez de Paz en Venezuela se realizó el 5 de agosto de 1995, en el municipio Baruta, del estado Miranda, siendo electo el ciudadano Pulido Antonio, quien ejerció el cargo durante 7 años.[4] El proceso constituyente de 1999 consagró a la justicia de paz como un derecho constitucional. En el artículo 178, numeral 7, la justicia de paz fue enmarcada en las competencias municipales; y en el artículo 258 se estableció que los jueces serían elegidos por votación directa, universal y secreta: y además, se ratificaba que la ley promovería el arbitraje, la conciliación y la mediación.

Un dato curioso fue que el 16 de enero de 2010, el entonces presidente Chávez en el marco de la estrategia de avance del modelo socialista bolivariano, anunciaba la creación de un Consejo de Justicia Socialista, cuyos integrantes egresarían de la Escuela Nacional de la Magistratura. Dos años después en 2012, se promulgó la Ley Orgánica de la Jurisdicción Especial de la Justicia de Paz Comunal, que sustituiría a la LOJP de 1994. Una de las principales características de esta ley fue separar de facto la justicia de paz del ámbito municipal y ubicarla en el contexto de los consejos comunales y, supeditar la elección de los jueces de paz a la realización de asambleas de voceros de consejos comunales.[5] En la práctica el alcance de esta ley fue aún más limitado por su cooptación al ámbito comunal que determinó la muy baja participación y reconocimiento vecinal.

La nueva ley del 14 de noviembre

La nueva ley de Paz Comunal nos deja muy claro ciertos aspectos territoriales y funcionales:

En primer lugar, según la LOJPC la Justicia Comunal ya no compete al ámbito municipal. En efecto, la justicia de paz comunal pasa a ser una instancia de participación del poder popular (LOJPC, artículo 1). En tal sentido, el municipio deja de ser reconocido como entidad político territorial que posee en sus competencias la justicia de paz.

En segundo lugar, los jueces de paz comunal serán electos en unos circuitos comunales (en territorios comunales) cuyo origen y alcance es desconocido por la población, lo que convierte su elección en proceso poco transparente. Además, los aspirantes deben pasar por un proceso previo de probable impugnación ante una comisión electoral comunal.

En tercer término, la justicia de paz y sus decisiones dependerán de una cadena de comités y consejos para intervenir en su gestión, tales como: Comité de Justicia Comunal de cada Consejo Comunal, el Consejo de Justicia Comunal de cada Comuna y la Coordinación Nacional de Justicia Comunal del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. La justicia de paz se integra pues a un sistema que está pensado hacia arriba en forma vertical y centralizada.

En cuarto lugar, y como comentario adicional, destaca el muy bajo interés ciudadano que ha causado la propuesta de paz comunal presentada por el gobierno en la población en general, salvo para aquellos sectores vecinales tradicionalmente activos y siempre en defensa de sus comunidades. Pero lo cierto, es que la propuesta no ha levantado interés ciudadano.

Algunas interrogantes

¿Resulta confiable la elección de una justicia de paz basada en el desconocimiento del marco legal vigente? ¿Hubo alguna consulta ciudadana previa para demarcación de los territorios y circuitos comunales? ¿Por qué tanta premura en la realización de un proceso que requiere de la más amplia información, consulta y difusión de la ciudadanía? ¿Es necesario que la justicia de paz sea comunal, popular y socialista? ¿Es este el momento más adecuado para la realización de ese proceso?  

Finalmente, es muy probable que esta elección de Jueces de Paz fracase por la baja participación vecinal. Pero, y lo más importante es que se continuará oficialmente con el maltrato y menosprecio a una herramienta democrática y ciudadana como es la Justicia de Paz.

---

[1] Publicada en la Gaceta Oficial N° 6.854 Extraordinario de 14 de noviembre de 2024

[2] Nos referimos a la Constitución Bolivariana de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela (1999) y a la Ley Orgánica del Poder Público Municipal (2010)

[3] Publicada en Gaceta Oficial N° 4.817 Extraordinario de fecha 21 de diciembre de 1994

[4] Hay reportes de actuaciones en la jurisdicción de paz: en el Manicomio 1992 (parroquia la Pastora) en Guanare (estado Portuguesa) con Cecilia Morillo en 1993. En el barrio Manicomio 1996, se habría realizado un juicio vinculante que sirvió de modelo para la Constitución de 1999, según Omar Mago B. También hay registros de iniciativas pioneras en la justicia de paz en las parroquias El Recreo, Macarao, El Recreo y Sucre en 1994, según registros de la Escuela de Vecinos.

[5] En Gaceta Oficial de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela Nro. 39.913 de fecha 2 de mayo de 2012

Citizen Participation as an Alternative to Government

 

Contents

•  Citizen Participation: Brief Background and Concept

•  Public Activity Spaces for Citizen Participation

•  Institutional Conditions for Citizen Participation

•  Advantages and Difficulties of Citizen Participation

•  Participatory Democracy versus Representative Democracy?

•  Is Citizen Participation the Alternative?

The complex Latin American reality is still characterized by poverty, social exclusion, high levels of public and private corruption, human rights violations, and widespread governmental inefficiency. This situation undoubtedly requires a new approach that involves establishing institutional mechanisms that allow for the unification of efforts between the State, citizens, and civil society to construct viable short, medium, and long-term solutions in an environment of freedom, inclusion, responsibility, and efficiency. In this context of needs, specialists and experts have turned their attention to the possibility of citizens participating in public management as an alternative for institutional change and "improvement" of our democracies.

Is it possible, then, to promote a new democratic functioning scheme where the citizen, the people, and civil society take a leading role in front of the State, its institutions, and its government? Can citizen participation contribute to achieving the path of development, prosperity, and modernity in our countries? Let's explore some of its distinctive features and perhaps then draw conclusions.

Citizen Participation: Brief Background and 

Concept

The incorporation of the participation topic into the agenda of various governments in our region has been progressive and motivated by several reasons. One of them was the recognition of the State's inability to effectively and efficiently address the diversity of demands and problems in its specific environment. This situation led governments in the region to promote deregulation, privatization, decentralization, and administrative deconcentration measures, trying to incorporate the private sector in resolving an agenda full of unresolved

Issues.

Another motivating cause for participation was the need to democratize relations between the State and civil society as a modernizing element and a refreshing of democracy as a political system (Venezuela was a typical case of this type of initiative starting in the late 1980s).

A third path resulted from the development of civil society itself, which, combined with the emergence of new political leaderships in Latin America, also contributed to opening spaces for individuals to participate in public management.

The emergence of new managerial approaches and State reform fostered new forms of accountability and control of public management through the incorporation of communities and specific social sectors (New Public Management from the 1990s).

Finally, the presence of multilateral development and technical cooperation organizations (the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Andean Development Corporation, or the United Nations Development Programme) has also contributed to the expansion of this participatory trend through training programs and even financing local development projects that involve co-management of official and private entities.

In very simple terms, citizen participation is the process by which citizens, directly or through their associative expressions, influence certain governmental processes that define public policies. That is, through citizen participation, individuals, communities, and organized social sectors have the opportunity to intervene in various ways in resolving certain matters of collective interest. But being even more direct, we must indicate that this citizen intervention in public affairs translates into the possibility of participating in three fundamental events: namely, the formulation, execution, and control of public policies. We will make some very brief comments on these three aspects.

Citizen participation in the formulation of public policies implies the obligation of governmental entities to: i) define the administrative acts that may be subject to consultation (laws, regulations, plans, programs, or investment projects, urban or urban planning ordinances, to name a few); and ii) establish the conditions, mechanisms, procedures, and duration of each respective public consultation. It should be added that the complexity of these civic consultation processes will depend on the political-territorial scope where they are carried out, whether at the national, state (provincial, state, departmental), and municipal (local) levels.

On the other hand, citizen participation in the execution of public policies is somewhat clearer. Indeed, there is much more experience in this area in the Latin American region. In this regard, it is enough to recall the processes of privatization, public concessions, decentralization, or agreements with private parties (with or without profit motives) for the provision of certain services.

Finally, the concept of citizen participation directly implies the exercise of social control. This social control involves the participation of citizens, communities, and organized social sectors in the supervision, control, and monitoring of public policies with national, regional, local, and community impact, with special emphasis on those aimed at human development. Social control is an important and strategic segment of citizen participation that requires extensive and urgent technical and legislative development to make it a reality effectively and efficiently.

Public Activity Spaces for Citizen Participation

On the other hand, and to reflect on the relevance of citizen participation as a new paradigm of democratic functioning, we must distinguish its different areas of impact within governmental activity. Indeed, citizen participation initiatives for better understanding can be located in six distinct areas of public activity that are clearly distinguishable. Let's see.

One of them is citizen participation linked to the social sector. Here, citizen initiatives, those driven by organized communities and other specific sectors of society, would have the right to co-manage public educational, health, cultural, sports policies, and those related to housing construction and related services.

A second area of operation is the economic one, which also offers the possibility for the incorporation of civil society in the management of public programs related to the so-called social economy, such as the development of agricultural cooperatives, popular markets, savings banks, and micro-enterprises.

A third area for citizen participation is represented by the defense of human rights against the State, more specifically against the judicial and penal-penitentiary system, and against possible abuses from entities within the private sphere of society. The defense of gender, children's and adolescents' rights, the elderly, political or conscience prisoners, freedom of expression, and environmental rights, among others, are a field where social volunteering and thematic organizations have consolidated their presence and operational capacity.

Another sector for the development of citizen participation is linked to local planning, which includes municipal planning, urban development, urban planning, and the incorporation of citizens and organized communities in the discussion of public budgets. In this particular sector, notable successes have been achieved in our America, such as the participatory budget experiences in the Municipality of Caron( (ALMACARONI) in the state of Bolivar (Venezuela) and, of course, the renowned and more well-known participatory budget experience carried out in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Citizen participation in the processes of electing peace judges and community representatives to local management bodies (urban or environmental authorities) is another significant segment for the exercise of a citizen democracy.

Finally, we must mention the classic form of citizen participation (this of a political nature and directly linked to the democratic system) that refers to the possibility of electing members and components of the different branches of the State. Here we refer to the possibility of electing Presidents, Vice Presidents, Governors, and Mayors within the executive branch. To select Senators, Deputies, State Representatives, and Councilors in the legislative power and to elect other officials such as Magistrates within the judicial power or Rectors or members of electoral bodies. Political participation would also imply the right to convene and conduct referendums, constitutional, constituent, and even recall consultations (as in the Venezuelan case) and also the possibility of presenting legislative initiatives by citizens in the different legislative bodies that each Republic possesses.

Institutional Conditions for Citizen 

Participation

Participation as a citizen event, as a social process, requires the fulfillment of a series of conditions for its full exercise. A first institutional condition is the indispensable existence of a democratic legal framework that supports, promotes, and supports the exercise of citizen participation directly or semi-directly (through their associations) in an environment of equality, transparency, simple procedures, and timely responses. A second condition is that the practice of citizen participation develops within ethical principles based on honesty, solidarity, tolerance, free criticism, and responsibility. Thirdly, citizen participation requires the development of educational programs aimed at raising the civic and participatory capacities of citizens, communities, and organized social sectors in a democratic, plural, and free framework. But also, and linked to the previous point, the participatory process requires the implementation of a training and training process for members of public bureaucracies as a direct counterpart to the technical processes and events that would derive from the new participatory condition of the administration. Fourthly, the State and its institutions must facilitate organizational, technical, and technological resources, informational and computer resources, and physical spaces for the effective fulfillment of citizen participation processes. A fifth condition is the timely and sufficient provision by the State of budgetary resources to guarantee the functioning of the different citizen participation bodies. Finally, for the realization of citizen participation processes, strong support and political commitment from governmental forces in alliance with organized civil society are needed. Without a firm political conviction, citizen participation will only be a declaration of well-intentioned principles.

Advantages and Difficulties of Citizen 

Participation

The practice of citizen participation in its transcendence entails a series of advantages and risks that should not be avoided in this global overview we have undertaken around the topic.

Let's start with the most relevant advantages.

One of the benefits of citizen participation is its direct contribution to the increase of Social

Capital. Indeed, participation strengthens citizen associativity, cooperation, and solidarity, civic

awaæness, anu values. UI coulse, Mils conuluon requires an Insuwuonal e1101L governmental agencies to consolidate these established links and their benefits. Similarly, participation favors the Empowerment of Citizenship and the most vulnerable Communities. Under a governmental paradigm based on participation, it allows the fulfillment of four key characteristics of empowerment, such as access to information, inclusion, responsibility, and civic organization capacities.

Thirdly, participation also allows the articulation of Networks as alternative and autonomous organizational means of communities and organized social sectors in solving their problems. Networks contribute to the exchange of experiences among citizens, thus strengthening their negotiation capacity and independence from the State. Lastly, a participatory scheme substantially redefines the relationships between the State and civil society, under a framework of belonging, co-responsibility, and mutual accountability and control.

Citizen participation has some difficulties. The first, which is obvious, is the possible hindrance of government management due to the presumed continuous realization of consultation processes and hearings with the citizenry. Added to this is (and it is not a risk but a reality) the resistance of the public bureaucracy in our countries to accept "the invasion" of an external agent (the citizenry) into their patrimonial domain. Similarly, it must be mentioned that citizen participation is prone to being manipulated for clientelist and political-party purposes, thus distorting its essence of citizen protagonism. Lastly, citizen participation cannot be seen or idealized as a panacea under the risk of wanting to replace it with the natural instances of government without any result.

Participatory Democracy versus Representative Democracy?

A redefinition of the functioning of democracy should not be based on the false dichotomy of "a representative democracy versus a participatory one." Participation and representation are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are two intimately linked and even inseparable qualities. All democracy is based on the combination of three strategic aspects, such as: i) the direct and/or semi-direct participation of its citizens; ii) the presence of representative public entities, and iii) the separation and independence of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. As we have seen, through participation, citizens have the opportunity to influence the events that occur in the instances that make up a democratic model of government. Therefore, there is no antagonism between participation and representation.

Is Citizen Participation the Alternative?

And why not? The path to prosperity and development of our continent is a shared responsibility between citizens and their associative expressions in a leading role and the State as the ultimate guarantor of the nation's order. This historical situation is unavoidable.

Continuing under statist models, where the will of the citizenry remains hijacked by the omnipresence of a single actor, is to continue navigating in failure, blaming external factors for our own mistakes and our lack of future vision. The time for citizens has come. The opportunity to start a new model of government open to citizens: responsible, democratic, plural, and inclusive is in front of us. The only possible mistake is not to embark on this path.

Miguel Gonzålez Marregot. Venezuelan educator, with postgraduate studies in Political Science at Simon Bolivar University. Specialist in Public Management from the Venezuelan Institute of Planning, IVEPLAN. Elected representative to the Local Council of Public Planning (CLPP) of the Baruta Municipality (2004-2006 period). President of the Permanent Commission of

Institutional Affairs and Public Security of the CLPP. Advisor to the Chacao Municipality,

Miranda state, in the area of Citizen Participation and Social Capital. ciudadanolibre@gmail.com

Rights reserved PADH - UASB Andean Human Rights Program - Andean University Simon

Bolivar Andean Contributions Journal No. 14. Participation and Citizenship. July 2005 http://www.uasb.edu.ec/padh