Author: Gaudêncio Torquato

Source: The State of S. Paulo - São Paulo / SP - OPINION - 30/05/2010

The debate with the presidential candidates promoted by the National Confederation of Industry (CNI), in Brasília, despite references to blackouts made by the three main candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, was very heated. And despite small thrusts and the use of different approaches between them to express the same body of ideas, which is part of the apparatus for reinforcing identity, healthy convergences were registered. The common view, for example, on the need for a shock of planning and management in the federal administration (José Serra), the adoption of meritocracy and professionalism in the public service (Dilma Rousseff) and the argument that the blackout of human resources experienced across the country is demanding the expansion of the knowledge and technology base (Marina Silva). The close relationship between the three suggestions indicates concern with the efficiency of the Brazilian State, whose performance over the past governments has been out of step with the scope of modernization that can be distinguished in many sectors of productive life.

Whoever takes up the exercise of contemplating the national physiognomy will encounter immense contrasts. There are islands of excellence in the midst of feudal territories; there are advances in cutting-edge technology alongside walls of the past; in the very field of public administration, a highly professionalized bureaucracy coexists with large slices of political mandonism, denoting the effort of some to look ahead under the jolt of others who insist on looking back. Therefore, if there is a reform that can be called the mother of all others, even before the political area, as it has usually been propagated, it is the reform of the State's model of operation. Resizing the structure of the State, giving it an adequate dimension for obtaining effectiveness, means changing traditional behaviors, rationalizing the authority structure, reformulating methods and, still, substituting subjective and anchored criteria in physiologism with performance systems.

Meritocracy is the appropriate instrument to oxygenate, qualify and expand productivity in the administration. This concept has been recurrent in the speech of toucans like Serra and Aécio Neves, but PT itself, in the guidelines of its candidate's government program, defends the quality public service, “submitted to meritocratic processes of selection and promotion”. This reference is healthy, since it is known of the practice adopted for filling public positions. The waves of party nominations end up contributing to swell structures, expand inertia and the web of vested interests. The proposal begins with the replacement of thousands of commissioned positions with a career in the State, similar to what exists in parliamentary systems, in which permanent, qualified and motivated staff are immune to political crises. The directors change, but the teams continue to command public management.

The ills of public administration stem from the erratic mentality of its occupants, for whom the modus operandi must mirror the vision (one-eyed or physiological), and not social needs. They consider themselves to be the owners of the piece that belonged to them in the sharing of power, not being subject to the market order or the laws of free competition, as occurs in the private initiative. Bureaucracy committed to merit should be charged for results within pre-established goals, recognizing the qualities of each profile and implementing a reward and promotion model to motivate teams. Changing the face of public administration will not be an easy task. The current allotment system is part of the old patrimonialist culture, which permeates the three federative instances. It is assumed that the governor, when coming to power, as a way to guarantee the conditions of governability, will have to allocate spaces of Ministries and autarchies among the parties, according to the size and influence of each entity. How to change such a system without hurting pride and losing support in Congress? How to end the political allotment of positions, as defended by José Serra?

The answer to this question involves a hypothesis raised by Marina Silva, which can be translated into the lack of adequate human resources to make the State efficient. This seems to be at the heart of the problem. Without cadres, any reform will die. The strengthening of the areas of training, recycling and improvement of human resources, focused on the operation of the State, should be a priority. These ideas seem consensual not only among the three pre-candidates, but among common sense groups in the public administration itself. And why don't they apply? Asymmetric to the logic of the organization of power in Brazil. As is well known, the patrimonialist orchestra sets the tone, where the members are appointed by the lords of the mand. The vicious circle of politics revolves around changing figures and mandates, but not the system. There are few gaps to move forward. But it is possible, under intense pressure from society, to flow new oxygen. When ideas transformed into projects arrive at Congress under the social thrust, they gain repercussions and end up on the agenda.

That is how it happened with situations that characterize Brazil's entry into modernity: research with stem cells, the approval of the Clean Record Project and the Maria da Penha Law, of domestic and family violence against women, among others. It turns out that arid issues like state, tax and political reforms only go ahead if they receive the attention of the center of power. Or mobilize the parties. Only in this way can the vicious wheel of politics put the reform of the State on the table of the president. In any case, there is already reason for the first rejoicing: the commitment assumed on the electoral stage by the pre-candidates beckons with the feasibility of moving in the structure of the State. Alive!

JOURNALIST, HE IS A PROFESSOR OF USP AND A POLITICAL AND COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT