S6 Ep4 Bridging research and practice to save democracy: from ivory towers to practicing participation

After hearing about fighting toxic masculinity, climate obstruction and holding autocratic to account, in this episode we dive into re-imagining democracy altogether. And we wouldn't be the People vs Inequality Podcast if that didn't mean: together with citizens of all kinds whilst addressing power and inequalities. How can researchers and practitioners better collaborate to make democracy better, more participatory, inclusive ánd effective in solving real problems?

We go again to Brazil, a country with high inequality and and periods of authoritarianism, but also a powerful history of social movements, citizen education, and participatory democracy experiments.

We have the amazing Silvia Cervellini with us, co-founder and director of Delibera, an organization doing so-called mini-publics, and writing about these experiments too. She's very passionate about democratic innovation and learning together with others to make this happen. So why does she feel this is especially important today, and what is she learning from research and practice on making sure that everyone is heard? And maybe she has some tips for researchers and technical experts on letting go, and for many of us on overcoming our fears to speak with people of diverse backgrounds and opinions. 

This and more in today's episode. So please grab a coffee or tea and listen in on the conversation!

REQUEST: you are very welcome to share your reflections on this conversation with us via peoplevsinequality@gmail.com, as we are capturing this in a blog!

RESOURCES: For more about Silvia's work see

- Website of Delibera: https://deliberabrasil.org/

- Co-founder José Veríssimo explaining the project about affective polarization: https://youtu.be/1omk4riD-N8?si=jpT_HJmhlE0k3nii

- Publication in partnership with Internationa Idea launched at Cop30 https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/amazonian-climate-deliberation-insights-three-citizen-assemblies-climate?lang=en

- English translation of series "Assembleias Cidadãs no Brasil" https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTLLL6iyUZKOaUFLfti5-ug5QiM3j9U3-&si=vft33q7Qp5Ve7dlA

ABOUT THIS PODCAST AND PROJECT:

In a time of crisis and fast change, the People vs Inequality podcast is a space to reflect and learn with changemakers on how to tackle inequality. The show is a co-production between Barbara van Paassen (host, creator) and Elizabeth Maina (producer), and edited by Charles Rigga. 

This series was funded by the Atlantic Fellowship for Social and Economic Equity Programme at the London School of Economics as part of an academic-practitioner collaboration project. The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity programme, the International Inequalities Institute, or the London School of Economics and Political Science. 

More about the podcast: https://peoplevsinequality.blogspot.com/

More about the AcPrac project: https://afsee.atlanticfellows.org/academic-practitioner-collaborations

Transcript

Episode 6.4: Bridging research and practice to save democracy – from ivory towers to participation

Barbara: Welcome to the People Versus Inequality podcast in a time of crisis and fast change. This podcast is a space to reflect and learn with change makers on how to tackle inequality. In this season, we dive into the question of how academics and practitioners can better collaborate at a time in which the democracy and rights are under pressure in many places. We have heard from women doing amazing work in tackling gender backlash, climate obstruction, and holding authoritarians to account by coming together with others, and trying new things. 

In today's episode, we dive into re-imagining democracy altogether. Together with citizens of all kinds. We go again to Brazil, a country with high inequality and and periods of authoritarianism, but also a powerful history of social movements, citizen education, and participatory democracy experiments.

I'm excited to have Silvia Cervellini with us, the co-founder and director of Delibera, an organization doing so-called mini-publics, and writing about these experiments too. She's very passionate about democratic innovation and learning together with others to make this happen. So why does she feel this is especially important today, and what is she learning from research and practice on making sure that everyone is heard? And maybe she has some tips for researchers and technical experts on letting go, and for many of us on overcoming our fears to speak with people of diverse backgrounds and opinions. This and more in today's episode.

My name is Barbara van Paassen, and I can't wait to learn from all the work that Silvia is doing. So please grab a coffee or tea and listen in on the conversation. 

So welcome, Sylvia. Hello. Thank you so much, Barbara. Hi. It's so good to have you here right after Carnivals. Yes. You're in a much warmer place than me. Uh, tell me how are you doing today? 

Silvia: Oh, good. Just with the energy of Carnival still going on. We have pre carnival and post Carnival, so we're still in the post carnival period. 

Barbara: So you're doing both working for democracy and dancing in the street with people? Yeah. That sounds, that sounds like my ideal combination of, uh, of activities. So I'm very excited to have you here. Um, I'm really interested in how we can do democracy differently, better, uh, especially in this time and age. Uh, and you're doing really awesome work around that. But maybe before we dive into the, all the work that you do and what you're learning, I'm very curious to know a bit more about you and how you got to do what you're doing today. Can you share a bit more? 

Silvia: Yes. I, I started, I had a long career in public opinion and market research industry. I was like, for more than 30 years working on building a career, in the major Brazilian and Latin American Survey company. My background is in social science. The last years I was a little bit frustrated and, um. And I realized that I was worried about how Brazilian society was not finding ways to, to make collective decisions in a consequential way, in a informed way. And so I, exactly. I went back to university because I said I was in the practice for 30 years, but I wanted to know what was being produced in knowledge about democracy.

And I went to the university to do this discipline in the political science department of University of Sao Paulo. With Professor Adrian LaValley and it was about democratic innovations and participation. And then I got to know this form of participation that are the mini-Publics, and somehow at that time I told the professor, I said: Adrian, maybe this is something I'd like to do now. So he said, okay, let's talk about that. And then I left the company and I started talking to people and in 2017 we founded Delibera because we all had this eureka moment with this form of participation, like we are all worried about - although at that time, the threats of autocratization here in Brazil, they were not so much, so much visible. Uh, we, we couldn't see. It's amazing, but we couldn't see what was going on already. But the Democratic crisis was there. Like, we have here two big, uh, football team, soccer teams. Flamingo and Fluminense and we say that politics here were, a fluff flu game. Like you always have the two sides, one against the other, and we won't go together for anywhere. So we all were worried about that. So we were 11 people from multidisciplinary backgrounds. And many, many came from together, from, uh, ibope, they were working with me either in the same place or in the social branch of IBOPE with social research. And then we started Delibera to, we thought that this form of participation could help strengthen participation because we wanted to help that politics was not only a thing about political parties.

We wanted to help that people, common people can get to the political decisions. And uh, and we thought that these many publics were a good form, a complimentary form, uh, besides the ones that Brazil has already all the innovation here. Uh, but we thought that this could help. Uh, so we started Delibera with this hope and with this bet we bet on it.

We said, okay, let's try to promote this and see what's going on here. Uh, it was already a moment where this was, uh, uh, getting more and more, uh, known in Europe. Uh, but we wanted to bring here and see, and this is interesting because. Normally people say, okay, but in Brazil you, you do so much participatory process and you know so much about participatory budget. I think we don't need the European formulas. And I said, but listen, this was, it was interesting because many publics were invented by two persons in different places of the world in the 1970, Ned Crosby, United States and Peter Junior in Europe, in Germany, they both had the same idea without know each other. So I would say that this is not, um, in European or a global north thing. This is something that academics, they were both academics. They were trying to find out answers for democracy. They got to this model where we have three, three pillars and that's, I think it's very interesting because that was what made me like, oh, these three pillars together.

That is inclusion. We, we invite people, normal people, they are in their homes. We invite them to participate, will invite them. Uh, give them, uh, even a incentive, financial incentive to participate, uh, controlling profile. So they are representative of the population. So this, we usually have 80% of the participants who have never participated in anything before, and then give them information. They have time and conditions to learn about what they're gonna discuss, and then we have deliberation. So they, they wanna, they need to come together to recommendations that they, they all have to sign. Below the recommendations letter. So they have to look for consensus among the, with all the differences, with all the, uh, polarization that's going outside the room.

But inside the room, they have to get together, uh, and think about the common good. So we all believed a lot in this idea, and I think it's interesting because it has to do with what you are talking about, researchers, academia, and particular, because this is a concept, very powerful concept, and we believe that, and we have testified that this concept can be, can be put in reality in our political life.

Barbara: Yeah. Yeah. That's so interesting. And indeed, I also said, when we first spoke, I was like, but Brazil is the country of like, you know, so much of this history. I guess it only shows that we can learn both ways and probably also the people that develop this were inspired by different things from across the globe, right? This is how knowledge and, and, and practice builds on each other. Um, yes. It may not always be so straightforward, but it's, it's, yeah, I think it's really interesting that you're working with this model and, I'm curious, can you say, can you tell us how, how that goes? What, what does the mini public look like in practice? So you said already people get invited, they get information, then they deliberate. What happens in that deliberation that wouldn't otherwise happen? 

Silvia: Yeah, the, I think that the main difference is that they, they have a task. To, to answer. You know, when we start a process, uh, usually we work with, uh, authorities, public, public, governments, governments, uh, at local level. Here in Brazil, we have more than 20 experiences with local governments and, um, local leadership. Some, some social movements too, but they have a problem, a difficult problem. Mini-publics are good for difficult and complex problems. So we have a, like for example, uh, the regularization of motor taxi, motor taxi service.

There are many questions. It seems simple, but it's not like who is gonna be which kind of, uh, conditions you have to be a motor taxi driver. How can they work in the city? What are the limits? Things like that. So there are many conflict of interests. So they receive this task. The political leadership asks them to help and say: Okay, I need help, your help on this. And then we call stakeholders, call different positions we call ex experts. And they help us to build materials, to build some, uh, to present to the citizens, uh, the context, the choices, the pros and cons of each idea, each proposal, and then citizens. Get and deliberate and we facilitate the deliberation.

But usually things go very smoothly because they start discussing and they are finding the ways, and they get to some deadlocks, but then they listen each other again and they look at the information they have and they say, okay, no, it's better to go this way. Normally we do it in 3, 4, 5 days, uh, of encounters. And then at the end we build with them a letter of recommendations and we go through it and say, okay, this is what you want to recommend. And we validate that. They get the responsibility to help, uh, the decision maker with some difficult task.

It's not as other participatory process where you, uh, map demands or co-create things. It's much more focused on a decision, on a problem. So I think this is.. It's not a panacea and, and should be complementary to other ways of participation, but has this specific advantage that people really have to deliver [Yeah] a recommendation and not just, make desires or make demands or, and they have to make difficult choices. We have worked with budget, we have worked with priorities. So they, they really take seriously. Mm-hmm. 

Barbara: And what does it do to people that sit in such a process that maybe have never done that before? What are some of the responses you get or the, the impact you see it having? 

Silvia: When we measure, uh, when we measure, we do, usually we do interviews with them before and later. Um, and we always have very great results of like how they learned, how they feel that they are important empowered. All involved, like not only the participants but the authorities, the political leadership involved in directly in a process like that. They, they never get, get the same afterwards because you see, what you citizen mode working it activates the, everybody there is thinking what's best for those who are not in the room.

So this is so beautiful. Oh yeah. This is so powerful. And, uh, it's weird because it's weird. No. But we are studying, try to study that because we talk a lot about political polarization and we have here Bolsonarists against, uh, workers parties and, and things like that. But it's, uh, amazing that in the room when they are dealing with a specific problem. We don't know who is Bolsonarista, who is Lulista. We don't know that they don't bring this, and they even say that sometimes in the beginning when we are doing the combinations for the, the discussion, they say, let's not bring politics into the discussion. So, so it's crazy because you see politics is so detached from the real problems they have to solve. It's like, oh no, let's not talk about politics here. We have to solve this. Okay. 

Barbara: Which is of course also political, but not in a way that it's like party-political. Yeah. 

Silvia: But the partisan politics of this polarization world, it's, it's not the real lives. Their real lives are there, is there what they're discussing, you know? [Yeah.] And then, um. Yeah, you have housewives, like a case where a housewife was there and, uh, her husband came and he was outside. I went to talk to her, to him, and she said, what my wife is doing there, I need to talk to her. I want to be with her. And I told him, wait a minute, she's the invited one. Uh, so I'm gonna talk to her. And I went there and she said, I'm not leaving. I wanna be here and I don't want him to be here with me. I am. The, the, because we have the sortition, so she was the one selected. Yeah. And I told him, and he was pissed off and we had the security to, to, to assure that he won’t do anything. So they, they really get changed. I mean, that woman, he'll never be the same anymore. Some of them even engaged in, in participatory process and, and more political lives. But not always, uh, it's not obliged to keep on doing political things, but at that time you are a political actor and they, they feel that.

Barbara: yeah. Yeah. Really interesting. And of course, in this podcast we're also very, interested in, in inequalities, and I wonder how that plays out in the room. So, of course you have kind of a, a random selection of people, but uh, people have their own different backgrounds, so maybe they're highly educated, others not, some maybe come from a poorer area, others, how, yeah, how does that play out in the room? 

Silvia: Yeah, this is the magic. Uh, this is the magic because, we had a process on solid waste management. And uh, we had in the first session a lawyer and she came with a proposal ready, a paper. Like she, she said, oh, I made some ideas. And, and she was pretty much on penalization of people who did things wrong. He wanted to have a lot of penalization loss. And we had a solid waste, peaker, very poor. And we were discussing afterwards. He told her, okay, but what if I can't pay the, the punishment, the I will go in jail? So do you think that's the solution that people who, who are penalized because they are doing something wrong, but probably because they don't have conditions to do the right thing. So that's the solution? And then she completely changed. So that's it. It's real life. Uh, people, people sometimes are in their bubbles, and when they get there, they, they see the, the real life playing. You know, like, the arguments show, the arguments come and so they will find the best solution for all.

Barbara: Um, very human. It's humans. Humans to humans. Yeah. From what I hear. And, and why do you, because in this, in the previous episode, and you mentioned of course also, uh, that Brazil's been going through a democratic backlash / authorization period with Bolsonaro again, and now that's being slowly rebuild. Um, you also talked about polarization. How do you, um. See this work? You mentioned it's complimentary to other processes. How do you see this fitting in this context? Why is it so important, maybe especially today? 

Silvia: Yeah. Uh, well, Mariana. Uh, my previous x, I heard her saying about the autocratization of Brazilian system, and, and we are, as in many other countries, we can see that political system is failing in answering some complex questions. And in making decisions, because some decisions are unpopular. Some decisions are too complex to explain in a electoral campaign. and polarization captures the public debate. So I, I think that, uh, political leadership is trapped in this system. And what we were, we have in this first nine years, I think we were demonstrating that this can work. That people, uh, when political leadership call people to help, uh, it works well and it can help a lot to make better, better decisions for, for the good. But I think, uh, we still need to get this spirit into the party Politics. This is missing because otherwise we are going to be doing all this great stuff, but party politics will still keep on going the same way, you know?

So I think now it's a time to start. Mariana has talked about coalitions and I think it's, it's a time where we we have to keep on calling. political leadership to this kind of movement and try to hack the political system, hack with insider people not to replace not to. But to combine, somehow we have to combine this kind of participatory process with representative democracy. But, uh, the political leadership has to do it together with this. I don't believe that civil society organizations or academia can do this alone. 

And I think that, um, Brazil is in a very delicate moment because the democratic leadership, the ones that the go, the, the current national government, the whole center left and progresses more parties and, and political leadership. They, they are so much, uh, putting so much energy on fighting this authoritarian forces that working to participation, innovation, it's hard. You know, we, we have noticed in the last four years a lot of efforts to rebuild participation in Brazil. But to do things very differently. There are risks of course. And, uh, they are afraid. They're afraid because they say we cannot risk. We have too much to fight. There are forces there just waiting us to make one mistake.

[Yeah.] And so I think that we really need to try to join forces in a very transparent and, with some few common values to, to put efforts, energy in some very few and good initiatives that can help us get out of this threat because the threat of autocratization is always there.

I am hopeful [Yeah.] But not so optimist. I I don't think that the problem is solved. No, not at all. So I think that, uh, sometimes political leadership are, are in this dilemma because they have to fight the authoritarian forces. [Yeah.] At the same time, if they don't find new ways to do things.

[Exactly, yeah.] These won't want to be sustainable, you know? 

Barbara: Yeah. This really resonates, and that's also why I was so keen to close off this series with an episode talking about these alternatives and, I see the same tendency in lots of places, and not just in politics, but also even in civil society, that people with the risks and the threats of authoritarianism that are there. People get scared to do new things, whereas we need them more than ever, so it's like. We get stuck in the kind of paralysis that is not helpful. Um, so how do we do both fighting the bad and building the good? Um, that's, that's, that's the question. Uh, so thank you so much for, for talking a little bit to that and it's, yeah, one way in which of course you're also, uh, working with this, it's not just doing the mini-Publics, but you're learning from them. You're writing about it, you work with researchers as well. Can you say a little bit about that? How is that, why is that important and how are you, how are you doing that?

Silvia: Yes. I, I think our relation with, uh, researchers and experts and, and academic, knowledge begins with our practice because during the mini-publics, we have to approach experts and academics to learn about the subjects and to ask them to teach the citizen assembly, the mini-publics about it. And this is, this is really interesting and challenging.

We always tell academics and experts that they need to do a homework to synthesize, and be really focused and didactic about what is relevant for the deliberation. So we are always trying to get the relevant information to the citizen assembly. So this is interesting, and this kind of dynamic I think it's also present in the projects that we are doing with about research. We would love to do more, but nowadays we are part of a network called Democracy R&D. There are many researchers there but most of our members are practitioners. So we have journals and, uh, other publications, academic publications in the field.

And what the one thing that I found interesting is that the, the main journal of the field, they started with interviews like you are doing interviews with practitioners and they, they take these interviews and transform in articles. Because we practitioners, we don't have time to systematize our knowledge. You know, we don't have time to write about it. So I think this is a good way to, to make this bridge better. How to put the knowledge that practitioners have in academic production. 

And we are also working with two partners in democracy R&D we got a grant. To develop our work with some colleagues from India about sortition process. I didn't explain very well, but sortition is, uh, in Europe. I think you know a lot more than here. Sortition is the way that we select participants for the mini Publics. It's random selection among a poll of pre-invited groups. And we are studying how, how to include or what are the advantage and the advantage of including political attitudes as variables for sortation.

So we usually control for gender, age, school level and things like that. And there is a discussion that we should include also political attitudes. To give more realistic realism to the deliberation. Otherwise, people who are going to be there may be all nice, all like progressives. And we take, we leave outside the other side.

Um, so we are doing this experiment to learn here in Boujaro in Paraiba state, and in pun in India, two cities where we have done process and we are studying how a kind of polarized group of, uh, voters react to recommendations that were built in a not controlled for political attitudes citizen assembly. So we are doing this study. This is very, uh, relevant for the field. There are many people working on this in the field, and it's very important to have this made by a global South group. [Yeah.] Because usually the research in the field is mostly done by Global North groups. And the other, uh, the other project that I think it's very interesting is with CEBRAP, you have heard about CEBRAP, a think tank. And it's also a project, international project with scholars from, uh, India, England, South Africa, Brazil. And it's a major academic study on youth polarization and social media. But we enter in this project, uh, with many publics to, to test and to, to study the potential of many publics to reduce polarization among youth, especially in the social media. Like how can we get polarized, uh, youth participants in a room and have them deliberating on a subject and find common recommendations and how this is gonna impact their behavior afterwards in their real life and in social media behavior.

So this is a very ambitious project. Not because we believe that we are going to do mini publics, hundreds and thousands of mini publics in the world, but because the triggers in the mini-public may help us to think about political education, [Yeah.] social media approach, campaigns, things that can help to, to bring these people together on a common ground and for some real urgent decisions that we have to make as societies, especially in such inequality context like India, South Africa, and Brazil. 

Barbara: Yeah, exactly. because of course, inequality, is very present in all these places. Are you already? Yeah. Do you already have any insights or, or results of what could be those things that that could Um, no.

Silvia: The minipublic are being done now. And it's interesting because I don't know anything about that. And I get into the meetings and it's very good because they do some kind of summaries of the theories, of the learnings, the academic learnings. So I learn a lot. So I think this is very nice. And at the same time now that we are approaching the planning of the mini publics, we, the practitioners, we tell, okay, people, but let's land this. So let's put this in practice. How can we do it? 

aAnd also it's interesting because. We are participatory activists, so we, we don't want people to participate for nothing. [Mm-hmm.] Just to be observed as laboratory. No. So we tell them the academics, okay, but what's gonna be the expected impact of this participation? We have to think what, what are we going to do with this deliberation, with these recommendations? We need to think about something. It can be only, I don't know, a campaign or something we can deliver to some authority, but something you have to do with this. It's not just research, you know? It's participation. Yeah. So it's been very, very interesting. 

Barbara: And are people open to that? Like uh, [yeah,] academics. Working more in that way, thinking about what could be done with the work. Making it land. 

Silvia: Yeah. Because I think, I see at least, uh, in my surroundings, I see more and more academics trying to do action research, like [mm-hmm.] Something that really can, can make change in the, in the society, in the people's lives, you know? And uh, so they are grateful that we keep bringing them to the practice, we keep bringing them to, okay, but what? What do you want? And also, this is interesting because sometimes academics have so much concern about being neutral, not being, and we say, yeah, okay. But you have your priorities, you have your principles, you have your premises, you have to put this on the table. You are not neutral. So you have to tell the participants where, why you are doing this work. Where do we wanna, you know? Yeah. 

Barbara: And they're also human. Yeah. They bring their stories into the room, right? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, uh, how do you feel like about, because a lot, um. In, in collaborating between academia and practice, and especially also involving citizens, there's also sometimes perceived inequalities of which knowledge is most relevant. You know, who holds what kind of knowledge and gets valued for that. How do you see that playing out? Or how can we deal with that in a way that feels just.

Silvia: I've collaborated, uh, in our work in the democracy R&D network, we called mutual Learning Protocol. It was about collaboration, mostly the collaboration between Global South and Global North organizations and, and people. And I think one of the first conditions is that the work has to be strategic for all involved. Like if you invite a practitioner for a project, we don't invite, oh, okay, I wanna study you and, uh, come here. No, you have to go all. And the same with researchers. If I invite a researcher, I, I must ask, okay, is this important for your work? How are you gonna use and thinking about the logics of each field, because for me the most important is the participation has a result. For them, they also have to think about publications, scientific, merits, I don't think, I don't know they, their career in the university. So this has to be useful for both sides.

I think if you get this contract in the beginning where everybody is very clear about why they are doing that. I think this solves a lot of the inequalities, because everybody knows why they're doing that and, and. And respect. I, of course I know that I will not be able to write so much about my work in this project as the colleagues from the university, but I know that, that they are doing credits for what you do and they will, you know, so, yeah.

Barbara: And you've also co-authored papers, right? Or you've written [Yes] pieces. I think that's also an important, uh. aspect of crediting? 

Silvia: Yes. And it's so hard. I think that we have to acknowledge that there are different fields, uh, to be sympathetic with each other's difficulties. Also, yeah, I think solidarity is a good work. That good word that Marina has to be solidarity, you know? Yeah. Um, everybody and, and, and here, uh, uh, either academia and, um, and protect civil society organizations, we don't have money. Uh, we don't have, we are very tired, working a lot, both. [Mm-hmm.] And without money. So I think we have more and more try to, uh, join efforts to go after money, to do things together and not fighting among us, uh, for the money. You know, I think we have to join forces to convert efforts because, and to get money and time to do our, our things because for initiatives, we need to be together not only academia and practitioners, but also different countries, like we are doing things with South Africa. [Yeah.] We are now doing a project in Mozambique. Uh, so. 

Barbara: Yeah. Yeah, that's also really cool. You, you told me about that in a previous conversation, that you're also working, with people in Mozambique now to try out some of these mini Publics. Yeah, yeah. It's great when that cross fertilization can happen, I think.

We're gonna almost close off. Um, but before we do that, I wondered what would your. If we're talking about re-imagining, what would your ideal democracy look like in two sentences? 

Silvia: In two sentences.. My ideal democracy would be political leadership, representatives that take very seriously participation. And that face, in a very honest way, the difficult choices that you have to, to make as societies and a collective body. And I hope that citizen assemblies and mini- publics are in the tool box of this political leadership. To work on these difficult decisions together with people. People can, people want and people must help to find these answers that we have to face very, very urgent and very, very serious. 

Barbara: Yeah. Thank you so much. That's, uh, I mean that's really inspiring. And, you talked already, of course, about how to collaborate and the different roles of academics, practitioners, activists, and others. What are some of the recommendations that you have for each of these to, to be able to come together and do that? What do you think it takes?

Um, I think comes to my mind that curiosity, real interest for the others, like thinking that they are, they want the same that you want. So let's, let's talk, let's listen. Uh, let's be open to work together. And, um, and I think common values, really deep values that we all want. I, I mean, in our mini publics, we always see like values like equality, self-determination, peace, well-being. Nobody's arguing about that. So why can we not [That's really interesting] work together to get this? So I think if we bring this core values in our work and call others to collaborate towards that, and being honest about what we want from that. [Mm-hmm.] Being open, transparent, and, uh. And that's it. 

Barbara: Yeah. Thank you. That sounds, that really resonates and curiosity has come up so much, in these conversations and values do too. And I'm very keen on those, so I really like that. Something you've also mentioned in a previous conversation is that all sides have to also work on themselves to be able to cross that bridge. And I guess that also relates to that curiosity. What can you suspend or what can you reflect on to be able to open up, and really listen. Yeah. Um, yeah. So thank you so much for reminding us of that. Um, is there anything else you want to share before we close off?

Silvia: Oh, something that, Lisa, the previous podcast said that I always believe a lot. I hope, and Mariana, I think, said something about dance too. I think art, art is a powerful element for this imaginary future. Uh, we really need to, to get other forms of expression so we can, we can express the value of this because this is our reality and all these problems are so complex. All these dynamics are so complex, but also at the same time, they respond so much in our very deep feelings that I think art can help us to put to, to put outside what we are doing to talk to the general public. Because here in Brazil 200 million people, I mean, you have to reach this. How, how, how am I going to do that? So when I see Carnival, this kind of power of art and music and dance. We have to do that. We have to bring this in our, in our side and talk about serious things with art. Thank you so much. Uh, I really love that as an ending also back at Carnival, but also at Arts and Serious things, um, and we need it all.

Barbara: So thank you so much, Silvia. Um, thank you, [Barbara so much and congratulations for your work]. You too. It's amazing to learn more. Thank you, Silvia, for joining us and sharing such valuable insights. It's really great to learn more about this work and what it can mean for democracy and collaboration alike. 

And thank you listeners for being with us today. As this was the last episode in this series, we'd like to invite you once more to share ideas and experiences with us via our blog or email, which we will bring to bring together in a piece. Also, please see the show notes for details on how to reach us and for more about Silvia's work. And as always, we'd love it if you can leave a review of the podcast and share with others so that more people can join. Thank you all and ciao!