Anarkismo.net: Brazil, Limits of Social Participation Policy

Arrived late the National Policy for Social Participation (PNPS) established on May 26 by
President Dilma Rousseff. I am not referring to the fact that more formalized channels of
participation arises after the protests of 2013, but after a decade of disorganization of
the structures of the Brazilian popular movement. Here the contrast. ---- The country has
increased the formal channels to participate in decisions of government and therefore
public policies needed to reduce inequality. Have forms of pressure become diluted with
the inability of accumulation of forces at the base of the social pyramid. ---- The
Federal Constitution of 1988 paved the way for our synthetic example in disputes between
public interest and private appropriation of resources. The Health System would be the
model to be followed in related areas if the resolutions of their boards were accompanied
by appropriate budget allocation, without having this feature for contingencies. The same
applies to education, right to the enjoyment of towns and cities, solid waste, ethnic,
racial equality, gender, children and adolescents, the environment, social security and
family farming.

These fronts of society, we have excellence in law enforcement and the reprobate. Thus,
rather than budget as constitutional precept, Brazilians live with the infamous cruelties
as security factor, Untying Resource (DRU) and the infamous rollover debt that consumes
42% of the budget approved for 2014!

Given these numbers, any political participation collaborative type is a placebo for the
cumulative fury of finance capital and their bosom buddies, operating within the state
apparatus. A PNPS taken to its ultimate consequences should have representatives of civil
society (and not associations of economic agents) present in organs such as the Monetary
Policy Committee (Monetary Policy Committee), whose eight components decide on the
parameters of our lives.

The further discussion is the quality of this representation. If it was good and committed
to the rights of majorities, union representation on boards such as FAT and Welfare would
not admit that these funds would be diverted from their core activity.

Every initiative that approximates the will of the majority with the ability to execute is
positive for direct democracy. But the story of the picture proves that popular pressure
is much more effective than the subordinated interests.