By MAURO ZILBOVICIUS*
Everyone governs with choices, priorities and commitments to those they work with. Not everyone makes this clear, and they end up hiding their commitments to these “utopian” proposals.
In elections, especially municipal elections, candidates present “proposals.” Most of the time, any citizen agrees with them. Who would be against extending the opening hours of the UBS? Or against a women’s hospital? Or exclusive bus lanes, assistance for the elderly, full-time schools, etc.
On the other hand, “experts”, post-doctorates in public policies, and producers of “advanced studies” at the best universities in the country criticize these proposals or the set of proposals presented by this or that candidate, claiming that the proposals are nothing more than utopias, without timetables, goals, indicators and numbers to be achieved, budget, distinction between costs and capital (investments). They claim that it is a jumble of ideas — even good ones, in the sense of the general interest — but without any viability.
Much of the mainstream media, in turn, insists that the “voter” must listen to proposals and choose the candidate who has “the best proposals”.
But if the proposals are very similar, if they are not accompanied by good project management practices, they do not have “pitches"in which it is understood whether the investor — oops, voter — can have an acceptable return and risk, as in good corporate governance practices, what to do?
Demand that projects have a budget, goals, team (qualified and trained), schedule, WBS, etc.? Not vote for those who do not present this? Or demand that proposals be registered as patents, so that one “does not steal proposals from another”, as if they were a competition between the best proposals for a panel made up of voters, or sharks — “sharks”, in the new sense, the ruthless investors, or in the old sense, the political smart guys who benefit from this or that public policy using “good” practices — good for them, of course: to maximize the return on investment, through legal or not so legal means.
But if this is true, if politics is not a competition of practices, not a board meeting to discuss investment, not a technical question of demonstrating the viability of proposals, what should be done? How should one choose?
We only have suggestions, which may still be useful in the second round of the elections.
First: governing is not about following a list of proposals. Obviously, it is not about presenting a hundred proposals in no particular order. What is governing? Simple: governing is about defining priorities, defining who should pay and who should benefit from the expenditure, whether it is funding or investment, deciding between ideas and proposals that compete with each other for political resources. Governing is, almost entirely, about choosing within limitations.
Furthermore, it is essential to put into practice a popular proverb (which some say is Judeo-Christian, but as far as I know it is not in the Bible) very appropriate for making decisions in various instances of life: “Tell me who you hang out with and I’ll tell you who you are.”
Understanding who the candidate associates with and how he or she chooses is what leads to choosing the candidate who associates with those the voter knows and respects and who will make choices based on the criteria that the voter considers to be the best. Paving a record number of streets and avenues in the city means choosing not to build hospitals, polyclinics, or hire doctors and nurses with the same amount of money.
Is it possible to do both? Great. But what if it isn't possible? What will my candidate choose? How do I know? Answer: does he hang out with him? Who are his commitments? For whom should the city be better for him?
And what's more: everything costs money, someone pays, as my students at Poli heard so many times. If there are no resources, who will pay? Raise taxes for whom? For the 1% who currently own 45% of all real estate in the city? Or, on the contrary, will they lower taxes for these people who, after all, only need asphalt and free-flowing traffic for cars (not safe, the very rich do not walk or ride motorcycles; pedestrians and motorcyclists are the biggest victims of traffic; yes, it is a matter of life or death).
Who chooses priorities for whom? Who pays? Who is involved in organized crime, with the part of society that provides asphalt, builds and needs to loosen zoning rules to invest more? Who implements zero fares on Sundays, but pays per passenger transported, benefiting companies that take buses off the road and fill buses to make money per passenger on each trip?
Creating a competent technical team to implement, with maximum competence and minimum cost, the projects that are a priority for those to whom the mayor is committed, that is governing.
Who represents the vested interests in the City Hall or the State and who lives off the exploitation of the Treasury, which belongs to all of us? Who endlessly pave even the beds of streams instead of renovating all the schools (or as many as possible with the money that the very rich are able to collect), who hires without bidding and pays absurd amounts due to the lack of competition, sometimes for the right work, but the contract is to benefit... who?
There was a leader, decades ago, who had a very simple program: “invert priorities”. Asphalt or Basic Health Unit, UBS, ok, both are necessary. But if you have to choose, choose UBS, because her real commitments were to those who needed UBS. And by observing the group she hung out with, with whom she had commitments, you could see who she was. This is completed by appointing a competent team to make priorities and commitments viable — then yes, with goals, budget, WBS, agile methods, etc., and that’s enough (it’s not a little…).
The upcoming US presidential election is a clear example: good or bad proposals are not at stake. That is not the point. It is clear that what is at stake are the commitments, character and choices that one has made and will make.
Who chooses what, with what priority, truly, given the limitations of resources, of time, between asphalt or UBS? That is the real question.
Everyone governs with choices, priorities and commitments to those they support. Not everyone makes this clear, and they end up hiding their commitments to these so-called “utopian” proposals. They are not necessarily utopian or false. The “proposals” will be implemented or not, depending on the selection criteria and with whom the leader has commitments. The proposals do not lack schedules, goals and budgets. What is lacking is an evaluation of commitments and selection criteria. It is up to the voter to compare their own commitments and criteria for choosing between alternatives with those of each candidate. Are they theirs? Did they favor those who do not deserve them?
That's what it's all about.
*Mauro Zilbovicius is a senior professor in the Department of Production Engineering at USP. Author, among other books, of Models for production, production of models (annablume). [https://amzn.to/3JDTsn7]
Originally published on Journal of USP.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
