From judicial protagonism to institucional dialogues: an introduction to Kramer's popular constitucionalis, Sunstein's minimalism, and the dialogical theories of Bateup and Linares

Abstract

This article examines some of the different theories and conceptions that seek alternative forms of opposition to judicial protagonism, either through dialogical theories, which propose that there be a dialogue between the powers, their institutions and popular movements; or by state models that do not contemplate the Judiciary as having the final word in law, such as Kramer's popular constitutionalism, Sunstein's democratic constitutionalism and Minimalism. Without  retension to exhaust such analytical aspects, the article introduces the dialogical theories from the systematization of Bateup and Linares. The work leads to a reflection on the limits and possibilities of these forms of dialogue, and their importance for guaranteeing access to justice and for the enjoyment of fundamental rights in contemporary democracies. From this study, the objective of the article is to counter to the judicial protagonism these diverse proposals of State that seek a dialogue between the powers through the study of the selected authors and the several institutions, using bibliographical revision in the field of the right constitutional and comparative.