Thanks for your comment, here is mine:

First of all, I am very well aware that the UPP Social is very recent, that is has been set up to deal with problems for which there are no easy solutions, and I agree that it will take years of intense work to revert old patterns and improve relationships between state and favela in a sustainable manner.

My main point of criticism is that the obstacles are not only to be found in the innumerous problems of the favelas or the difficult relationship between state and favela, but, additionally, within the state apparatus. You mentioned clientelism – no doubt one of the key characteristics of Brazilian public administration and very much present within the UPP Social.

You mentioned social oppression through violence – a huge problem indeed, but one should not forget that social oppression in Rio de Janeiro goes well beyond violence and is very much present in our every-day societal interactions and “peaceful” state-favela-relationships, also those involving the UPP Social.

For these reasons, from the UPP Social’s point of view, making a fundamental change must go well beyond opening formal participation spaces, towards tackling internal obstacles, improving capacities and changing attitudes.

In relation to the formal participation processes, my criticism is not only that discourse is way to optimistic, but that civil society is de fato not adequately involved in the policy process. It’s not a secret that political participation is relatively low in the favelas and “community representation” a tricky issue, however, these facts should not be used as excuses for not making the UPP Social more participatory.

If one strategy does not work, try another one. If it is hard to collaborate with one group, move to the next.

In order to establish trusting relationships, state officials and favela residents need to JOINTLY define problems, elaborate solutions and close a contract about what has been agreed on, so that the state, and community, can be held accountable. Deliberative participation does not mean that civil society “follows” and “comments on” the proceedings, but that they should be the starting point and an integral part of all proceedings. Accountabilty cannot be achieved by making internal recordings of the meetings which are being analyzed behind closed doors afterwards. It is a great plan to “create functional communication channels between the favela and the world outside” but it does not help to encourage participation when the people that follow the invitation feel that their participation is not given credence or valued.

I don’t understand the association you are making between “follow-up meetings” and “reduction in numbers.” For me, the latter is clearly a sign that the first meeting has not convinced the participants that things are going to change for good this time…

My criticism about the proceedings of Light was focused on the case of Rocinha, where I have talked to various residents who have never been offered a “reduced Tarifa Social charges and payment schemes.”

Last but not least: I have chosen this title in a very conscious manner and because I believe that if the UPP Social continues as it has started, with the scope and capacity it has had in the past 8 months, it will fail to make the “fundamental change in the relationship between city authorities and the favela” that they are aiming at.

While it’s useful and important that civil society follows and comments on the proceedings, and you highlight some important points, I don’t think the title of this piece is helpful. If you listen to Ricardo Enriques you will know he takes care to say “the process will not be perfect” and “change will not come from one day to the next”.

Regarding community voice all steps are taken to encourage participation and the meetings are recorded. This process is an attempt to reverse conditions created by 30 years of unregulated armed conflict in these areas. It’s not possible to overturn one set of rules, i.e. the law of silence, from one day to the next. People who might step forward don’t, so as not to be seen as collaborating with police.There is also a question of representation, as individuals who claim to represent the community/be a community leader, sometimes simply don’t/aren’t. For these reasons establishing relationships with community representatives and discovering who is who takes time.

Regarding the costs such as electricity, Light is always present at the meetings, and publicises its reduced Tarifa Social charges and payment schemes. The forum is a one off meeting meant to kick start the process, the other meetings are follow-ups, hence the reduction in numbers.

At its essence the UPP Social program intends to act as a catalyst to create functional communication channels between the favela, and the world outside, channels that until now haven’t existed. It is the beginning of a long process.