The new Council under the long shadow of the past – 09/05/2023 – Market

“The Council is back!”, announced minister Alexandre Padilha at the first meeting of the forum that brings together businessmen, workers and civil society to advise the president on development policies.

However, this is not the first time that the Council for Economic, Social and (now also) Sustainable Development has returned. The current government remembered its deconstitution by Bolsonaro, but forgot that Dilma Rousseff left the body. It was Temer, the mortal enemy of the PT, who launched the trend to revive it.

Ironies aside, Padilha’s animation contrasts with a past that also hovers over the equally revived National Council for Industrial Development: repeatedly reconstituted in almost every government since Vargas, our bodies of public-private deliberation on the economy never consolidate.

Despite the recurrent rhetoric of dialogue, councils have rarely transcended the role of platforms for the authorities of the day to announce and seek adherence to their policies. It was no different with Conselhão when it was created in 2003.

Unfortunately, instrumentalizing them for marketing is a recipe for self-defeat: participants, especially business participants, gradually stop attending if they feel that they are only referencing ready-made decisions. When governments finally abandon these bodies, they are already showcases without an audience.

Interest will only persist when councils are mobilized towards their most worthy vocation: incorporating the experiences of “front line” actors into economic policies.

For the government, holding periodic meetings that sometimes lead to nothing is certainly a headache. However, the effort would not be in vain. This is because durable institutionalized dialogues lead to policies that are better connected with reality and with which their targets can identify.

We have already had glimpses of success, such as the creation of laws to encourage innovation in the genesis of the National Council for Industrial Development, led by then Minister Luiz Furlan. However, these glimpses always depended on the individual commitment of high-ranking leaders who rarely remain in their positions in the long term. The “new” boards need to make their operations less dependent on such personalities.

One way out would be to establish rules that make it possible for the represented segments to conduct economic councils in a relatively autonomous way. This would mean distributing internal prerogatives traditionally exclusive to the Public Power, such as setting the agenda, scheduling meetings and chairing discussions.

At least some of these rules would need to be enshrined in ordinary law, so that governments cannot change them by decree, as Bolsonaro did with participatory bodies in so many areas.

With this combination, participants could maintain dialogues even without authority’s encouragement. Such arrangements already exist in the participatory councils that best resisted the onslaught of the previous government, such as the National Council for Human Rights.

In the absence of binding decision-making power, this would not lead to undue interference in public policies. On the contrary, prestigious official spaces create alternatives to informal channels that favor better organized interests.

No legal arrangement can satisfy the will to dialogue. However, rules that value participants’ agency lead to greater long-term commitment, which, in turn, maintains conditions for reinvigorating dialogue after government lapses.

This is what happened to the South African National Economic Development and Labor Council which, after the administration of Jacob Zuma (2009-2018), was rejuvenated and played an internationally recognized role during the Covid-19 crisis.

The new Conselhão has not yet shown signs that it will go beyond marketing, including the strange inclusion of influencers. The onus remains on the government to demonstrate that its commitment to economic dialogue goes beyond lip service.