Recent literature has advanced our understanding of local politics and electoral mobilization, focusing on political relationships between politicians and voters and the roles of political brokers. Drawing from ethnographic research on local councilors and their political staff in São Paulo, Brazil, this article introduces a critical contribution: the concept of mandatos. These are networks of actors linked by partisan, political, professional, and personal ties, which help mobilize support for politicians. By bridging formal institutions and informal practices, mandatos transform specific urban territories into constituencies. Their structure and actions transcend individual brokers and mediate larger entities, such as political parties, legislative bodies, and executive agencies, as well as smaller local groups and voters. While brokers play a key role, mandatos are more complex and dynamic than the hierarchical view of brokers and politicians suggests. This article invites scholars to rethink how we understand local representation and electoral networks.
AnsellA.2018. “Clientelism, Elections, and the Dialectic of Numerical People in Northeast Brazil.” Current Anthropology59 (S18): S109–S121. https://doi.org/10.1086/695751
3.
AmesBarry.1994. “The Reverse Coattails Effect: Local Party Organization in the 1989 Brazilian Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review88 (1): 95–111.
4.
Amorim NetoO.SantosF.. 2003. “O Segredo Ineficiente Revisto: O que Propõem e o que Aprovam os Deputados Brasileiros.” Dados - Revista de Ciências Sociais46 (4): 661–98.
5.
AuerbachA.2016. “Clients and Communities, the Political Economy of Party Network Organization and Development in India’s Urban Slums.” World Politics68 (1): 111–48.
6.
AuerbachA.2017. “Neighborhood Associations and the Urban Poor: India’s Slum Development Committees.” World Development96: 119–35.
7.
AuyeroJ.2000. “The Logic of Clientelism in Argentina: An Ethnographic Account.” Latin American Research Review35 (3): 55–81.
8.
BryceJ.1995 [1889]. American Commonwealth. London: Liberty Fund.
9.
BussellJ.2019. Political Responsiveness in Patronage Democracies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.
CainB.FerejohnJ.FiorinaM.. 1984. “The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament.” The American Political Science Review78 (1): 110–25.
11.
CreweE.2021. An Anthropology of Parliaments. Entanglements in Democratic Politics. London: Routledge.
12.
D’ÁvilaP.Cerqueira LimaP.JorgeV.. 2014. “Indicação e Intermediação de Interesses: Uma Análise da Conexão Eleitoral na Cidade do Rio de Janeiro, 2001–2004.” Revista de Sociologia e Política22 (49): 39–60.
13.
DosekT.2023. “El Clientelismo en Paraguay: ¿Compra de Votos o Compra de Participación Electoral?” Latin American Research Review58 (3): 612–30.
14.
DosekT.2024. The Persistence of Local Caudillos in Latin America. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
15.
DownsAnthony.1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
16.
EulauH.KarpsP.. 1977. “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly2 (3): 233–54.
17.
FennoR.1977. “U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration.” The American Political Science Review71 (3): 883–917.
18.
FirpoS.PonczekV.SanfeliceV.. 2015. “The Relationship Between Federal Budget Amendments and Local Electoral Power.” Journal of Development Economics116: 186–98.
19.
Gurza LavalleA.VeraE.. 2011. “A Trama da Crítica Democrática: Da Participação à Representação e à Accountability.” Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política84: 95–139.
20.
HageneT.2015. “Political Clientelism in Mexico: Bridging the Gap Between Citizens and the State.” Latin American Politics and Society57 (1): 139–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24765959.
21.
HerzogL.ZackaB.. 2019. “Fieldwork in Political Theory: Five Arguments for an Ethnographic Sensibility.” British Journal of Political Science49 (2): 763–84.
22.
HollandA.Palmer-RubinB.. 2015. “Beyond the Machine: Clientelist Brokers and Interest Organizations in Latin America.” Comparative Political Studies48 (9): 1186–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015574883.
23.
HoylerT.2022. Representação política e conexão territorial: Uma etnografia de vereadores e brokers em São Paulo (Tese de doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Ciência Política.
24.
HoylerT.MarquesE. C. L.. 2023. “Local Politics and Intraparty Coordination in Electoral ”Dobradas“ in São Paulo.” Brazilian Journal of Social Sciences38 (111): e3811001. https://doi.org/10.1590/3613811001
25.
HurtadoE.2018. “El Trabajo Político en América Latina: Actores, Recursos y Trayectorias. Hurtado, E. et al. Presentación del Dossier. Las Dimensiones del Trabajo Político: Destrezas, Escalas, Recursos y Trayectorias.” Iconos Revista de Ciencias Sociales60: 11–29.
26.
JamesD.2011. “The Return of the Broker: Consensus, Hierarchy, and Choice in South African Land Reform.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute17 (2): 318–38.
27.
JohnP.2011. “Why Study Urban Politics?.” In Theories of Urban Politics, 2ª ed, edited by DaviesJ.ImbroscioD.. London: Sage Publications.
28.
JosephL.AuyeroJ.. 2007. “Introduction: Politics Under the Ethnographic Microscope.” In New Perspectives in Political Ethnography, 1–13. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72594-9.
29.
KeckM.1992. The Workers’ Party and Democratization in Brazil. New Haven: Yale University Press.
30.
KitscheltH.WilkinsonS.. 2007. Patrons, Clients, and Policies-Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
31.
KosterM.2012. “Mediating and Getting ‘Burnt’ in the gap: Politics and Brokerage in a Recife Slum, Brazil.” Critique of Anthropology32 (4): 479–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X12456643.
32.
KuschnirK.2000. O Cotidiano da Política. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Ed.
33.
LachiM.2008. "Construir Clientelas. Llave del éxito Electoral en Paraguay." Novapolis (3): 45–58.
34.
LealV.2012 [1948]. Coronelismo Enxada e Voto. São Paulo: Compania das Letras.
35.
LimongiF.2015. “Fazendo Eleitores e Eleições: Mobilização Política e Democracia no Brasil Pós-Estado Novo.” Dados58 (2): 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1590/00115258201547.
36.
LipskyM.1980. Street Level Bureaucracies - Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Sage Foundation.
37.
MarquesE.2017. “Em busca de um objeto esquecido.” Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais32 (95): 23–42.
38.
McAdamD.1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. University of Chicago Press.
39.
MerryS.2006. “Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle.” American Anthropologist108 (1): 38–51.
NichterS.2018. “Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot.” The American Political Science Review102 (1): 19–31.
42.
OstromE.1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
PallerJ.2015. “Informal Networks and Access to Power to Obtain Housing in Urban Slums in Ghana.” Africa Today62 (1): 30–55.
44.
PeruzzottiE.2012. “Broadening the Notion of Democratic Accountability: Participatory Innovation in Latin America.” Polity44 (4): 625–42.
45.
PitkinH.1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
46.
RakoveM.1975. Don’t Make no Waves–Don’t Back no Losers: An Insider’s Analysis of the Daley Machine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
47.
RochaM.2023. “The Third Wave of Studies on Clientelism in Latin America: A Critical Reading.” Revista Brasileira De Ciências Sociais38 (111): e3811023. https://doi.org/10.1590/3811023/2023.
48.
RochaSilva. 2017. “O Poder de Indicar: Preferências Legislativas de Vereadores Mineiros”. Cadernos Adenauer18 (2): 185–208.
49.
SamuelsD.2000. “The Gubernatorial Coattails Effect: Federalism and Congressional Elections in Brazil.” The Journal of Politics62 (1): 240–53.
50.
SawardM.2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
ScottJ.1969. “Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change.” American Political Science Review63 (4): 1142–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955076.
52.
ScottJ.1977. “Patron-client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia.” In Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism, edited by SchmidtG.LandéS., 123–46. Berkeley: University of California Press.
53.
StewartF.1950. A Half Century of Municipal Reform. The History of the National Municipal League. Berkeley: The University of California Press.
54.
StokesS.2005. “Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina.” American Political Science Review9 (3): 315–25.
55.
StokesS.DuningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV.. 2013. Brokers. Stokes, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
56.
TillyC.2006. Regimes and Repertoires. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
57.
UrbinatiN.2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
58.
UrbinatiN.WarrenM.. 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science11 (1): 387–412.
59.
Von LiersB.PiperL.. 2014. Mediated Citizenship: The Informal Politics of Speaking for Citizens in the Global South. London: Palgrave.
60.
Weitz-ShapiroR.2014. Curbing Clientelism in Argentina: Politics, Poverty and Social Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61.
WheelerJ.2014. “Parallel Power’ in Rio de Janeiro: Coercive Mediators and the Fragmentation of Citizenship in the Favela.” In Mediated Citizenship: The Informal Politics of Speaking for Citizens in the Global South, edited by Von LieresB.PiperL., 696–713. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
62.
WolfingerRaymond.1972. “Why Political Machines Have Not Withered Away and Other Revisionist Thoughts.” The Journal of Politics34 (2): 365–98.
63.
ZarazagaS.2014. “Brokers Beyond Clientelism: A new Perspective Through the Argentine Case.” Latin American Politics and Society56 (3): 23–45.
64.
ZarembergG.Gurza LavalleA.Guarneros-MezaV.. 2017. “Beyond Elections: Representation Circuits and Political Intermediation.” In Intermediation and Representation in Latin America. Actors and Roles Beyond Elections, edited by ZarembergG.Guarneros-MezaV.Gurza LavalleA.. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
