Author: André Franco Montoro Filho

Source: Folha de S. Paulo - SP - OPINION - 10/09/2009

TRENDS / DISCUSSIONS

——————————————————————————–
It is common to associate corruption in the public sphere and impunity with authoritarian regimes, without elections. But what about Brazil?
——————————————————————————–

 
It is COMMON to associate corruption in the public sphere and impunity with authoritarian regimes, without elections or with rigged elections, without Parliament or with fictitious Parliaments, where there is no freedom of expression, with censored press and the Judiciary submitted to the Executive. And where laws only apply as long as it is in the interests of the powerful.

The explanation for the coexistence of corruption, impunity and authoritarian regimes is that there are no checks or balances to control the abuses of those in power, who thus exercise absolute power. It has been said that power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The remedy used to fight corruption was democracy and freedom. In democratic regimes, political power is controlled by laws and institutions and, more importantly, subject to popular demands. As a result, the space for misusing public assets was reduced and the guilty could be punished. But what about Brazil? The Constitution, in its article 1, provides that Brazil is a democratic State of Law and, afterwards, lists the rights and individual, collective and social guarantees.

Now, these precepts have been observed. We hold free and periodic elections, there is independence from the Judiciary, freedom of the press, opinion and political organization. With the limitations imposed by the ills of human nature, it is certain that in Brazil there is freedom and democracy.

However, frustrating the hope of so many who fight for redemocratization, the perception of corruption and the sense of impunity in the public sector persist, if not increase. What went wrong?

The sole paragraph of article 1 of the Federal Constitution states: "All power emanates from the people, who exercise it through elected representatives or directly, under the terms of this Constitution".

Formally, this command is observed. The population that elects its representatives. Regarding the Executive, not only formally but also effectively, the popular feeling is that it is the people who choose the president, governor or mayor. As he chooses, the voter accompanies, charges and punishes or rewards by voting.

Taking into account the inevitable imperfections of mass social processes and the stage of development in Brazil, I believe that, for the Executive Branch, the aforementioned single paragraph in fact reflects our reality. We hope that the continuity of the electoral practice will improve the process of choosing government officials.
However, in the case of the Legislative, the reality is quite different. As a rule, there is no feeling, for the majority of the population, that the federal, state or even municipal parliamentarians are their political representatives, that is, those who exercise power in their name and should have their activity monitored and charged. , punished or rewarded for voting.

Most voters don't even remember who they voted for. The relationship of political representation is almost non-existent. What prevails is a clientelistic relationship between the voter and the candidate. The parliamentarian is seen as a dispatcher who solves problems and meets particular demands, which are not always legitimate.
It is in this perspective that manifestations of parliamentarians who said they do not care about public opinion should be understood. They believe that they will not be judged by their voters for ethical or political attitudes, but for their ability to meet particular or local demands, such as a daycare center, support for the football club, public employment, back roads, health posts, etc.
As long as this reality persists, it will be very difficult to reduce the impunity that prevails in Brazil. To change, changes are needed in the voting system for proportional elections that encourage a relationship of political representativeness between the voter and the elected, such as the adoption of the district vote, as this mechanism promotes the approximation of the candidate to the population.

But we must not stand around waiting for politicians to solve the problem. These changes can be hastened with the awareness of each citizen of their ethical and political responsibility. The politicians are not to blame. Rogério Ceni is right.

It is a task for all of us.

ANDRÉ FRANCO MONTORO FILHO, 65, PhD in economics from Yale University (USA), is a full professor at FEA-USP and president of the Brazilian Institute of Ethics in Competition - ETCO. He was secretary of Economy and Planning of the State of São Paulo (Mário Covas government) and president of BNDES (1985 to 1988).

www.etc.org.br

Articles published with a subscription do not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. Its publication follows the purpose of stimulating the debate on Brazilian and world problems and to reflect the various trends of contemporary thought. debates@uol.com.br