PHASE 3: AND AFTER Legislative Theatre?
FROM CIVIL SOCIETY TO INSTITUTIONS
The process implemented by Augusto Boal was bidirectional:
- On one side, proposals that emerged from the community-based Nuclei, and were developed by the Metabolic Cell, were brought to the City Council of Rio de Janeiro.
- On the other side, depending on the issue under discussion, the City Council could organize a Chamber in the Square to facilitate public voting and dialogue.
In all cases, a feedback loop was maintained: developments within the City Council were reported back to the communities. When proposals were approved, the communities were encouraged to monitor the implementation of the laws. If the proposals were rejected, new strategies were developed to increase pressure on the institutions.
In the case of “Estudantes por Empréstimo”, focused on university scholarships, as mentioned earlier, a vote was held to select the top three proposals out of ten. A petition was then circulated throughout Portugal to collect signatures in support of these three proposals, which were formally submitted to Parliament. The continued to perform in high schools to raise awareness among students preparing for university, emphasizing the challenges of accessing scholarships. Although the proposals were not fully approved, partly due to the end of Soeiro’s parliamentary mandate, some procedures for obtaining scholarships were simplified.group
Similarly, in the “Unpaid Care” project, Legislative Theatre sessions led to a petition which was submitted to Parliament after collecting public signatures.
In the case of “Easy Way Out”, performances of the play were accompanied by a social media campaign and a public initiative under the slogan of “Quality Schools for All”. The legislative proposals, publicly stated in the campaign, were sent to Croatian institutions, and a public discussion on policy changes, including activists, politicians and other public figures was organised. However, the participants feel that this is just one phase of a long-term struggle to improve the educational system in Croatia – not only for Roma children and youth, but for all. In that sense, the legislative theater is just one aspect of wide initiative which is still in progress.
For “Gender Equity Rules: Creating an Equal Society for All”, the post-Legislative Theatre phase should focus on supporting the desired change, for example, by ensuring that the debate continues at a broad societal level and remains visible. Educational materials can be created for schools to influence long-term cultural and systemic change. As part of the project, five agreements were signed with secondary schools and universities. These institutions committed to incorporating the educational content developed during the project into their programs within a set timeframe. A new initiative, Niti ena več (Not One More), was launched in collaboration with Amnesty International and Radio Študent, shifting the focus toward reproductive rights and media advocacy. Educational materials, including toolkits, workshop guides, and policy briefs, were distributed to schools, NGOs, and government agencies, supporting long-term educational outreach.
Metka Bahlen Okoli emphasized the importance of translating the enthusiasm from Forum Theatre sessions into sustained advocacy efforts. This includes continued networking, policy monitoring, and legislative follow-up. In the case of “Status Quo in the Labor Market”, one of the key challenges was the precarious working conditions of the initiative’s organizers. Focused on day-to-day survival, they lacked the capacity to monitor the progress of their proposals after submitting them to trade unions. Nevertheless, the issue of youth precarity in Slovenia gained visibility through broader movements and was well represented in public media at the time.
In “Caring every day”, the initiative continues to:
– Perform the play and engage audiences.
– Collect signatures for the legislative proposal.
– Advocate for the creation of a national care system in Portugal.
In “Easy Way Out”, Josipa Lulić, building on earlier Forum Theatre performances, drafted a proposal for educational reform that respects the rights of Roma communities. She submitted it to the Municipality of Zagreb and launched an Instagram campaign titled “Better Education for All.” This culminated in a public debate featuring politicians, academics, and civil society representatives. As a result, the Municipality included some of the proposals in its official Integration Action Plan.
In “Goods. Housing. Human Rights”, following the performances, a Citizen Council was organized to refine the political proposals. Proposals were voted on, and only those with 90% approval were included in the final report, ensuring strong consensus and actionable support for each recommendation.
In “Playing together” the project demonstrated the value of combining urban planning, performance art, and legislative processes to address local issues. The initiative worked so well that it had been expanded and was being carried out in 16 different locations in Austria.
Katy Rubin states: <Theatre of the Oppressed NYC (TONYC) has extensively reflected on post-Legislative Theatre actions and their potential to influence policy. In order to take the most impactful and strategic steps while remaining grounded in community-based goals, TONYC joined issue-aligned coalitions working on the policies developed during Legislative Theatre events.
In summary, three key strategies emerged for post-theatre engagement and support:
- Collaborating with coalition members to develop scenes with impacted community members;
- Supporting coalition events advocating for change through performances;
- Creating Know Your Rights plays and public forums.>
(Excerpt from The Impact of Theatre of the Oppressed NYC Legislative Theatre on New York City Policy and Civic Engagement by Rebecca Kelly-Golfman)
One further aim is to embed the approach of Legislative Theatre more deeply into governmental and administrative structures to ensure that its outcomes lead to tangible legislative or policy changes.
Another element to think about when implementing the lT process is the impact we desire and that is possible. Historically, Augusto Boal focused mainly on an Institutional impact.
“Gender Equity Rules: Creating an Equal Society for All” aimed to have impact on multiple levels:
– the individuals, taking part in creating and implementing the performances and the spect-actor visitors of the performances: raising awareness and encouraging proactive engagement from youth, educators, and cultural workers.
– the institutional level: encouraging educational institutions to integrate gender equality topics and Legislative Theatre as educational tools.
– systemic level: seeking to influence legislative processes by submitting formal legislative proposals to decision-makers.
To provide readers with a concise overview of the various paths taken by our interviewees, we conclude with a set of summaries drawn from the interviews. We recognize that each Joker or team of Jokers developed a process tailored to their specific context. Thus, referring to “models” would be too rigid; rather, what emerges are structural outlines of individual experiences as they were recounted to us. Below, we present them in alphabetical order, following the three key phases we used in chapter 2:
1. Preparation of the intervention
2. Development of the LT process
3. And after Legislative Theatre.
In general speaking we can identify 2 main strategies in the history of LT:
- top-down, like in “Take part, is about us”
- bottom-up like in “Status Quo at The Labor Market” and other projects.
Boal in truth delivered a double direction using both strategies, on one hand asking citizens oppressed when he was asked to vote in the Municipal Chamber and on the other when CTO came to favels and other oppressed groups creating Forum Theatres about their own oppression and then translated them into law proposals.
As Armin Staffler says: <It is important the flow of communication between society and decision-making bodies. In Boal’s work, there seemed to be a more circular process: when decisions or debates occurred in parliament, the information was brought back to the public through tools like Forum Theatre or Invisible Theatre. This created a feedback loop between society and power, fostering continuous interaction. In our project, this circularity was not evident. After the law was passed, information dissemination followed a more conventional path>.
It’s likely more easy using the first if you have a politician linked or the initiative starts from them.
When there is no institutional ally it is easier to use the second one.