Objective:The purpose of this article is to analyze a structural remedy model developed by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, called Meaningful Engagement, which can minimize the impact of traditional objections to structural litigation, as it increases community participation and interinstitutional dialogue between the various actors responsible for the solution of the problem.
Methodology: As a research methodology, in addition to the traditional bibliographic research around the doctrine developed on the subject, a more in-depth analysis of the two paradigmatic cases that served as the basis for the development of the South African institute, Olivia Road and Joe Slovo, was carried out.
Results: It is concluded that are intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for seeking inspiration in the Meaningful Engagement model. The South African model, by valuing institutional dialogue and public participation, mitigates the usual criticisms to structural litigation.
Contributions: From the results, it is observed that: a) in dialogic structural remedies, affected communities are treated with dignity and can influence the formulation of public policies that concern them.; b) public participation guarantees the structural injunctions transparency and, to the judges, greater technical capacity, since only with the inclusion of the social segments affected by the problem that is intended to be overcome will the judge be able to produce measures consistent with the real needs the concrete case; c) finally, public participation and institutional dialogue also collaborate to mitigate the criticisms usually made of structural processes.
