Author: Carlos Alberto Fernandes *

Source: Jornal do Dia (SE), 23/06/2009

Bureaucracy simply exists as a survival requirement for organizations. Its structure of power and survival is so remarkable that it was the object of inspiration by Max Weber as a paradigm for the formulation of the archetype of the bureaucratic model, today adopted in organizations worldwide.

Whether in Brazil, or in any corner of the planet, government officials are fully aware of the limitations of their power in the face of bureaucratic power. Their biggest challenge today is to fight the ghosts of this power, as any effort to change is always the object of many resources and a lot of energy. That is why, keeping bureaucracy up to date with the changes in the world requires time, obstinacy and perseverance.

The Senate crisis is one of those emblematic examples of excesses of bureaucratic power and its institutional and political consequences. In this crisis, the hegemony of bureaucratic power associated with political power is visible in all actions of the administrative sphere of the House. This is clear, when some senators recognize that the edges of the political groups that dispute the institution's power of command are as serious as the clashes of the bureaucratic groups that fight for their administrative control.

In the specific case, taking advantage of an emptiness left by the politicians, (a part of them unprepared for the exercise of their function) the bureaucratic power consolidated its influence and keeps control of the situation. To this end, its close articulation with political power, and the advancement of its conquests and positions, were built by contemporary situations and contemplating the political interests of senators through the mutual exchange of favors.

In practice, this association of bureaucracy with political power, preserves bureaucratic power in all decisions of the House. And, despite the seriousness of the identified facts, the influence of the group that maintains administrative control is preserved and the confrontation of its bureaucratic power is not done by any of the instances of political power.

On the other hand, in the institutional public sphere of the government, there is another example of exacerbation of bureaucratic power that can generate future problems due to excesses. The alliance of the federal bureaucracy with the affluent power of the unions is responsible for the transformation of bureaucratic power into political power in the different spheres of government. Due to this alliance of mutual interests, bureaucracy reigns supreme in the political sphere of the federal government, gradually shedding this influence on state governments.

In this area, as in the Senate, bureaucracy increasingly increases its strength as it generates an uncontrollable increase in public expenditure, particularly in personnel. Let it be said in passing, that the progressiveness of these expenditures is much more the result of bureaucratic pressure from a caste strengthened under the FHC government and consolidated under the Lula government, than, properly, a decision based on public policies.

In these two examples, whether in the legislative or in the executive, the difficulties of political decision makers in taking the reins of the administrative process are visible, since rationality in the real world has limits. Human beings, even those with divine inspiration, do not make the decisions they want, but the decisions they can. In this context, include with this profile, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula and Sarney himself; this, despite the colonel in his state, kept the helm of the Brazilian democratic process.

In situations of this nature, it is worth remembering that Saint Exüpéry said, in the Little Prince, that one of the conditions for kings to maintain their power would be to learn to give reasonable orders. In the face of the aforementioned cases, it is this parsimonious lesson in the exercise of power that leaders give us, as long as they maintain the persistence to solve the problems.

That is why, it is worth the warning, even because temporizing situations as FHC, Lula and Sarney have done may not always be sharing with naughtiness and vile interests; for dealing with the nature of these decisions and devising solutions is part of the liturgy of the role of leaders, whether intellectuals, workers, or conservatives.

* Economist and professor at UFRPE