Opinion – Marcos Mendes: Is it possible to reunite the country?

Political polarization and institutional tension need to be overcome, as a necessary condition for the country to regain stability, predictability and the ability to negotiate, essential for resuming growth and overcoming social needs. It will be possible?

The starting point of the new government must be the recognition that it was elected by a tiny margin of votes, and that a significant part of the vote obtained came from people who reject Bolsonaro, but do not endorse the PT’s banners. There is no carte blanche to make the public deficit they want, distribute subsidies to companies, recreate PAC and use the public budget as the supposed engine of the economy. Possible allies in Congress will like and profit from this agenda, but the gap in relation to society will widen.

It will also be necessary to extract what is positive in the position of those who voted against. There are legitimate demands for a less bureaucratic and more efficient state, a lower and less dysfunctional tax burden, respect for private property, an improvement in the business environment. You cannot disregard them, wrapping them up with herd behavior, with a coup stamp and sprinkled with “fake news”. Anyone who wants to reunite the country needs to hear the claims that make sense.

One cannot want to revoke everything that the last two governments created. It is true that it will be necessary to rebuild many public policies that were abandoned. But it is also true that there have been significant advances that must be preserved: infrastructure concessions; regulatory frameworks for railways, cabotage and sanitation; the replacement of TJLP by TLP and the repositioning of BNDES; advances in digital government and de-bureaucratization; among others.

A promising path would be to govern based on explicit quantitative targets. The government’s focus would be to achieve them in at least four fundamental public policies: education, health, poverty reduction and the environment. Goals for the grades to be achieved in Ideb, the reduction of morbidity and mortality rates from specific diseases, deforestation, poverty reduction. A clear framework of goals for each area, which would be easily followed by the population and submitted to subsequent technical evaluations.

As obvious as it may seem, a government focused on clear and quantifiable goals could generate some “revolutions” in public management.

Currently, each industry is pushing for more money, on the assumption that more spending brings more results. However, inefficiency and corporate, electoral or hidden interests often consume money without delivering results.

Focusing on quantitative targets that represent a concrete improvement in people’s lives will reverse the political debate. In each periodic evaluation, an attempt will be made to understand why a goal was not achieved. And more money will only be put in if, in fact, the tight budget is the main problem.

Parish and corporate interests or operational bottlenecks would appear as obstacles to achieving the goals, encouraging a coalition to overcome them.

To achieve the goals, states and municipalities could be encouraged to cooperate in policies that require coordination between governments, such as the sharing of health networks. Or competing, as in the case of student performance on standardized tests. This is the beauty of a federalism that works: the coexistence of competition and cooperation. Goals and priorities would help in both directions.

The search for relevant collective results could work as an instrument to unite and reduce tensions. The federal government should position itself as a central manager of the collective effort, not as a kind father who distributes free gifts to anyone. Successes and failures would be the collective responsibility, not just the government.