That’s democracy, or no?
A US Navy pilot once told me that landing a jet on an aircraft carrier has very little in common with what we call a “landing”. He said that putting a jet on the deck of a ship in the middle of the ocean while the ship is bobbing up and down and heaving from side to side is a “controlled crash”.
I see a certain similarity between his comment and the politics of a democracy. A lot of things have to go right when putting a plane on the deck of an aircraft carrier. One serious mistake and the plane simply goes off the other end of the boat! Everyone on the carrier knows his job and the collective effort brings the pilot and the aircraft to the deck safely.
While in the lull of Dilma Rousseff’s possible impeachment, I looked back over the PT’s reign in power in the context of creating a “New Economic Framework” (i.e. the Nova Matriz Economica). One requirement rarely stated openly but always in the background was that the PT would remain in power in perpetuity – i.e. be the only party in power.
My experience in politics is that every party elected to office would like to remain in power forever. Every party that runs for office surely believes it has the answers to the country’s problems. Otherwise, why even bother to run?
The PT frequently announced that it was defending democracy and that any attempt to unseat it was an attempt to undermine democracy. Millions of protestors took to the streets in 2013 and afterward to demand an end to the PT’s policies and shenanigans.
The answer from the administration was always “That’s democracy!” accompanied by what seemed like a grammar school explanation of what democracy is. Immediately following the explanation, the PT then returned to its work to remain in power in perpetuity! So we are faced with what seems to me to be a rather unique definition of the concept “democracy”.
Democracy has been defined in various ways. One is the will of the majority tempered by the rights of the minority. It’s also been defined as a form of government “by the people, for the people, and of the people.” If we look back to the 18thCentury Enlightenment we find an even simpler definition: “the right of the individual to make and own his/her own choices”.
The Enlightenment ended the rule of absolute, divine right monarchs and opened the door to individual freedom and the right of individuals to pursue their own interests, subject to a governance framework that was a combination of feedback from the “market” and basic agreed-upon values.
The monarch was no longer “the boss”. Now that view conflicts with a desire to rule in perpetuity, so mechanisms have to be in place to ensure that “the boss” could no longer call the shots alone and forever.
In pre-Enlightenment monarchies, conspiracies were common. Court societies were serpents’ nests of nasty little sycophants each seeking advantage and the attention of the monarch. So when self-interest was basically universalized, human nature did not suddenly change and politics became the means by which conspiracies were hatched.
Political parties conspired to unseat those in power via elections. You no longer needed villagers with torches and pitchforks to bring about change.
It’s an unruly process but it has worked better than others that have been tried. Dilma Rousseff is, in essence, correct when she claims there is a “conspiracy” afoot to get her out of office. However, the “conspiracy”, like the jet on an aircraft carrier, is a “controlled crash”. There are mechanisms to protect the system from failing.
Parliamentary systems of democracy use the no-confidence vote. Presidential systems use impeachment. Both are designed to avoid the “aircraft” from simply flying off the other end of the ship. For an aircraft carrier to be an effective instrument of conflict, every plane that takes off cannot wind up “in the drink”.
In the case of Brazil, one group of politicians is seeking to unseat another group. It’s natural that they “conspire” – i.e. develop plans and strategies to unseat their foes. The mechanisms and rules for “conspiring” are laid out in the governance framework of the society.
Therein lies the fundamental error in Dilma’s thinking. The “conspiracy” she talks about is not designed to be an authoritarian replacement of the current regime. It is contained in and by the governance framework.
It doesn’t matter that those “conspiring” against her are not such an attractive cast of characters or are traditional kleptocrats (as I have argued in this blog). It is sufficient that the “system” works to allow for a “controlled crash” that allows it to survive each and every time a plane takes off.
As I have argued, as long as the “crew” does its tasks correctly, the aircraft carrier can perform the tasks for which it was designed. It may even be necessary to continue to “conspire” until the system works the way it’s supposed to. In this case, it means the continuation of Lava-Jato to ferret out and sanction kleptocratic behavior and corruption.
Politics has often been described as the “art of the possible”. It is the means by which a society manages differences of belief and opinion to ensure its survival. By its very nature it is “conspiratorial”. As Brazilian playwright Nelson Rodrigues observed, “Unanimity is stupid!”
I don’t agree with everyone I talk to, neither do you! But if I choose to express my disagreement by punching someone in the nose, I have placed the system in danger. If I happen to disagree with someone, I have the choice of continuing to “conspire” in order to prevail, seek to convince the other of the wisdom of my approach, or to concede. But punching the person in the nose is beyond the rules of the system (unless of course the person punches me first!).
That brings me to my final consideration. It at least appears at this point that the PT is seriously considering “punching its opponents in the nose”. The rhetoric of the party is that if the governance rules do not ensure an institutional solution, violence might.
For the time being, the administration continues to grasp at straws as well as employ strategies that are clearly outside the rules (e.g. buying votes in the legislature to block impeachment). That virtually ensures that planes will continue to fly off the deck when coming down from a mission. The ship will quickly run out of planes and the aircraft carrier will prove useless. It will become little more than a floating platform and unable to do its job.
It’s going to be a long haul to bring Brazil back to a set of governance rules that match its stated objective of creating sustainable growth and prosperity. As I observed in a previous post, the Brazilian Titanic is likely to be scuttled and a new ship built – smaller, more agile (perhaps) and fit for sailing in blue water.
You will need to figure this into your scenario planning for the long-term. The world economy is growing, albeit relatively slowly and with a high degree of volatility and explosive issues. But it is growing nevertheless. Your role is crucial to correctly and efficiently guide the enterprise through the “water”.
No comments:
Post a Comment