Historically, Latin American communication policies have been captured by economic and political elites (Fox and Waisbord, 2002; Márquez and Guerrero, 2014). This implies enormous inequality during the policies making processes because civic organizations do not participate (Graziano, 1988; Segura and Waisbord, 2016). These policies have resulted in hyper-concentrated and commercial media systems, with production centralized in few urban areas, and sustained by advertising and government benefits; non-existent or poor public media; and illegal or restricted popular media. (Becerra and Mastrini, 2017) Besides, there are gag laws that criminalize defamation, slander and insult; secrecy practices of governments and companies; and violence against press workers. (Loreti and Lozano, 2014) Therefore, the public sphere reproduces existing social, economic, political, cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation and/or generation inequalities (Linares, Segura and others, 2016).
Meanwhile, the communication rights are necessary condition for the exercise and expansion of other civil, political and social rights. Therefore, the democratization of communication is essential for social and state democratization. (Mata, 2006; Fraser, 2006)
During the first 15 years of the 21st century, there were unprecedented state and social activism in communication in the region. Many laws were reformed and, in most cases, it was done with citizen participation. These processes implied, to a certain extent, the passage from elite captured communication policies to participatory ones. (Segura and Waisbord, 2016)
In these new communication laws, civil society achieved the creation of state institutions with citizen participation for the debate, definition, implementation and control of communication policies. Thus, they aimed to institutionalize the social participation and impact on these policies and to avoid or limit their capture by the elites. In Mexico, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, countries with diverse characteristics and which went through different political processes in these years, most of the new laws created advisory councils, commissions and ombudsmen.
Although there are some analyses of its functioning (Linares, 2014 and 2017; Segura, 2015 and 2018; Retegui, 2017; Sáez Baeza, 2020) and its impact on media systems (Segura, Linares and others, 2018), comprehensive and comparative studies have not yet been carried out.
The problem is: To what extent did the participatory state institutions created by the audiovisual communication, telecommunications, and access to information laws sanctioned with social participation between 2000 and 2015 in Mexico, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, succeed (or not) in enabling the impact of civic organizations in the policy making processes and in avoiding or limiting their capture by political and economic elites?
Our argument is as follows: The participatory state institutions created by communication laws sanctioned with social participation in Mexico, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay between 2000 and 2015 did not succeed in ensuring citizen impact on communication policies, but remained subsumed within party negotiations and/or political alliances dependent on social general disputes. This prevented them from facing, with a certain autonomy, the resistance of government and business elites to the reforms. However, they did manage to carry out some initiatives that circumstantially limited or suspended the elite capture of communication policies.