Quem manda no Estado? Aula de debate em inglês: The State That Pretends It Doesn't Rule

💡 Toque em qualquer palavra para ver a tradução, ou dê play para ouvir. Os três níveis dizem a mesma coisa; o Nível 3 é o ensaio original.

Europe, the United States and Brazil make two promises. Promise one: the citizens control the government. Promise two: this makes the country rich. This text says both promises are weak.

Many powerful people are not elected. And the economy has not grown much. Some countries are different: China, Singapore, the Vatican and Switzerland. They are honest about who has the power. And someone pays when the results are bad.

The control that isn't there

In Brazil, people vote every two years. But party leaders choose the names on the list first. These leaders also control a big election fund, and the money is public money. After the election, the voter decides nothing.

In Europe, the European Commission proposes the laws. Nobody votes for the Commission directly. So the vote gives the government legitimacy, but it doesn't give the voter control.

The prosperity that never came

Since 1980, Brazil's income per person has grown about 1% a year. At this speed, Brazilians need more than seventy years to double their standard of living.

Europe stopped growing after 2008. The United States still grows, but it has many budget crises and a lot of political fighting. The promise was participation and prosperity. The result is a ceremony of participation and slow growth.

💡 Toque em qualquer palavra para ver a tradução, ou dê play para ouvir. Os três níveis dizem a mesma coisa; o Nível 3 é o ensaio original.

These four countries are clear about who has the power. And in each one, someone pays for bad results.

China

In China, the Party governs. Nobody pretends it doesn't. But the leaders need to show results. A leader works for decades: first in a small region, then in a province, then in the national government. At every step, he needs to reach clear targets. China tests new ideas in one region first. The World Bank says about 800 million Chinese people left extreme poverty.

Singapore

In Singapore, the same party has governed since 1959. There are elections, but the government doesn't change. Ministers get very high salaries, like top business executives. So good people want the job, and stealing is not worth it. A strong agency punishes corruption. About 80% of the people live in houses built by the government. Singapore doesn't promise that the people govern. It promises a good government, and it delivers.

The Vatican

The Vatican is a monarchy, but the king is elected. About 120 cardinals choose the pope. They know each other very well, for many years. The pope governs for life. The idea is simple: the people who vote know the candidate's history. It is not an election of TV and marketing.

Switzerland

Switzerland is different: it has more democracy, not less. With 50,000 signatures, citizens can vote against any new law. With 100,000, they can propose changes to the constitution. Seven people govern together, and the president changes every year. The regions control their own taxes. Politicians know the people can say no, so they talk and negotiate first. Switzerland is more democratic than Brazil, and that is why it works.

💡 Toque em qualquer palavra para ver a tradução, ou dê play para ouvir. Os três níveis dizem a mesma coisa; o Nível 3 é o ensaio original.

There are four big objections to this idea. Here they are, with answers.

1. "Singapore is too small."

Singapore has 6 million people. Brazil has 210 million. But the important things in Singapore are its rules, not its size: good salaries for leaders, a strong agency against corruption, and public jobs for the best people. China uses the same idea with 1.4 billion people. And the city of São Paulo has about 12 million people, double Singapore. Brazil can test these rules first in states and cities.

2. "China grew because of the free market, not because of the Party."

This is mostly true. Under Mao, the same Party caused a famine that killed tens of millions of people. But the Party decided to open the market. It tested the idea in Shenzhen in 1980 and continued for forty years. Russia opened its market very fast in the 1990s, and its economy fell about 40%. India opened in 1991 and grew, but less than China. The lesson: markets, leaders chosen by results and small experiments create wealth.

3. "Denmark, Sweden and Norway are democracies, and they are rich."

True. But they look like Switzerland, not like Brazil. They are small, people trust each other, and cities run many public services. Public workers are chosen by merit, and there is little corruption. So the problem is not democracy. The problem is the design. Brazil copied the elections, but not the rest.

4. "Without a free press and elections, nobody can stop a bad government."

This is the strongest objection. There has never been a big famine in a democracy with a free press. In China, when the top makes a mistake, nobody can stop it. But Brazil has had a free press and elections for almost forty years, and big problems continue: slow growth, weak schools, violence. Nobody pays for the mistakes, because the blame is divided among many people. A free press is necessary, but it is not enough.

💡 Toque em qualquer palavra para ver a tradução, ou dê play para ouvir. Os três níveis dizem a mesma coisa; o Nível 3 é o ensaio original.

China, Singapore and Switzerland are very different. But they agree on one thing: in each country, a clear person answers for the results. The official needs to hit targets. The minister with a big salary loses everything if he steals. The voter can say no to a bad law.

The Brazilian model hides who has the power. When something goes wrong, the blame is everywhere and nowhere. People nobody elected make big decisions. Citizens can speak, but they can't control.

The best design mixes two ideas: choose leaders by their results, like Singapore, and give real control to the people, like Switzerland. The question is not more or less democracy. The question is: who answers for what the state delivers?

💡 Toque em qualquer palavra para ver a tradução, ou dê play para ouvir. Os três níveis dizem a mesma coisa; o Nível 3 é o ensaio original.

The author tested his own essay with data. He used V-Dem, a big database with 174 countries from 1955 to 2019.

What held up

Merit means that the state hires people for their skills, not for their friends. Countries with more merit are richer. And when you look at merit, democracy explains less: its effect goes from 14% to 8%.

What didn't

Three ideas of the essay failed. First, democracies with little merit are not like autocracies. From 1980 to 2019, they grew 1.9% a year. Autocracies with little merit grew only 1.0%. Second, experts say China hires public workers with less merit than Brazil. Third, Brazil's big problem is not how it hires. It is how the state treats people: not always in a fair, equal way.

The future predicts the past

Then came a surprise. Merit five years in the future predicts the income of today. But a cause can't come after its effect. So maybe rich countries create merit, and not the opposite. Or maybe the experts knew which countries did well, and gave them better grades. Merit goes with income, but we don't know if it causes it.

The new conclusion: the best model is democracy plus a state that hires by merit.