Gabriela Lotta and Mariana Silveira
Introduction
Since Bolsonaro assumed the presidency office in 2019, the number of denouncements of institutional harassment has increased significantly compared to other periods and political regimes. In addition, reports of institutional harassment, administrative procedures against, civil servants and all sorts of threats have been reported since then. If, on the one hand, civil servants became the target of government attacks, on the other, bureaucrats also began to organize themselves to respond to these threats, trying to react and avoid these kinds of oppressions[1].
(Conflicting) relationships between politicians and bureaucrats
Since Max Weber’s work about bureaucracy and politics, continuing with other studies during the 20th century, scholars have discussed the conflicts between bureaucrats and politicians. Weber already pointed out that democracy needs a bureaucracy since bureaucrats guarantee the legality and continuity of the institutions inherent to democracy. But bureaucracy can also threaten democracy if bureaucrats interfere with democratic processes or use institutional resources for their own interests.
Although several studies have already addressed the conflictual relationships between bureaucracies and politicians (see Aberbach, Robert, and Rockman 1981, for example), many of these researches analyzed democratic contexts, in which these conflicts take place under legal institutions and as part of the democratic game.
Nonetheless, what Brazil, like other countries, are witnessing now is the emergency of populist governments and democratic backsliding that impose many new challenges to bureaucrats playing a game outside the rule of law (see, for example, Bauer et al., 2021; Peeters and Pierre, 2020; Rockmann, 2020). Within these new dynamics, politicians try to control bureaucrats changing or overpassing administrative procedures and the law. Thus, rules are modified, deconstructed, or reframed, legitimizing oppressive practices And, at the same time, bureaucrats try to impose barriers to politicians, but also face challenges for the maintenance of institutions and the democratic state.
The Brazilian case, with the emergence of the Bolsonaro government, presents some standard features observed in related contexts, characterized by democratic backsliding, such as the violation of constitutional rights (Pinzani 2013), political persecution towards scientific knowledge (Stanley 2018), actions of oppression regarding bureaucratic administration and bureaucratic routines (Gay 2020), criticisms to the notion of public good (Kalyvas 2019), stigmatization and persecution of actors critical of the government (Bauer and Becker 2020).
The Brazilian case: governmental oppression versus bureaucracy reactions
Aiming to understand the governmental oppressions toward bureaucrats in the Brazilian context, we carried out research, constituted, so far, by 125 interviews civil servants, and by online surveys with civil servants from several public organizations in the federal government. Our research enabled us to identify both government oppression and bureaucratic responses/reactions to such oppression through a relational approach.
Governmental oppression: politicians’ main strategies
Regarding the governmental oppression towards bureaucrats, we have identified different political leadership strategies used to shape or purge the bureaucracy. Among these strategies, there are practices of (i) physical oppression, (ii) oppression on procedural, administrative routines, (ii) moral and social oppression, as well as (iv) tactics of erasing or muting the bureaucrats’ voice. We present each of these practices below with some brief examples.
(i) Physical oppression: politicians attempt to control the movement of civil servants through workspaces. These attempts were carried out through changing physical spaces within organizations, enabling political leaders to have greater control over the bureaucrats’ movement and behavior. The politicians also sought to regulate telework regimes, to control schedules and timesheets down to the smallest detail, among other practices. These practices give civil servants the idea that they are being observed, supervised, and controlled in multiple ways.
(ii) Oppression on procedural, administrative routines: the prohibition of previously institutionalized work systems and tools. An example of this practice is that bureaucrats were prohibited from using the Electronic Information System (SEI) for lawsuits processing (or any type of administrative process). Some bureaucratic procedures – already institutionalized by the constitution and other complementary norms – were also questioned and often punished, as they did not align with the president’s political agenda.
(ii) Moral and social oppression: these practices include all sorts of surveillance bureaucracy, frequent threats to civil servants related to the possibility of layoffs and lawsuits. They also include practices of bashing bureaucrats in which politicians give statements threatening or harassing bureaucrats. In addition, some civil servants reported having gone through ideological persecution, either because of their political position or due to their ideas during work meetings. High-level public statements of attacking, devaluing, and discrediting the legitimacy of bureaucrats also make up numerous oppressive government actions.
(iv) Tactics of erasing or muting the bureaucrats’ voice: practices include prohibiting employees from participating in meetings or events to the improper application of administrative lawsuits and dismissals. It also includes laws of censorship imposed over bureaucrats that prohibit them from using social networks, giving interviews, or publishing any articles.
Bureaucrats’ reaction and their main strategies
Regarding the reactions of bureaucracies, we also involved different strategies. Among them, we highlight (i) subversive actions, (ii) resistance, (iii) survival practices, and (iv) abandonment, as described and exemplified below:
(i) Subversion – secret actions: civil servants’ secret activities aiming to sabotage high-level political agendas. An example of this practice consists of the bureaucrats’ attempts to avoid or minimize the discontinuity of public policies and institutional dismantling. Other examples are the secret information leakage to state and non-state partners – such as the media, academics, public prosecutors, actors linked to non-governmental organizations – and the secret articulation of informal partnerships with other organizations seeking to continue threatened policy agendas.
(ii) Resistance – actions to voice oppression: consists of open actions, voicing the problems and oppression experienced by governmental leaders. As voicing is a strategy that exposes employees to more significant risks and government retaliation, in general, such resistance practices tend to occur collectively and using formal actors, as unions and associations. Among these practices, we have identified the complaints and open demonstrations. Other examples of collective resistance are advocacy and articulation in the Legislative, the motion of legal proceedings, drafting letters and manifestos, holding discussion panels, and using digital platforms (media and social networks) for publicizing institutional harassment.
(iii) Survival – minimum necessary actions of fidelity to public policy: many civil servants chose to carry out the “minimum necessary” as a strategy to minimize political persecution by the government, avoiding the aforementioned oppression. This approach includes practices such as shirking, being discreet as possible, avoiding presenting critical opinions at meetings; or carrying out actions to guarantee the minimal operation/functioning of some public policies.
(iv) Abandonment / giving up: This type of reaction differs from the previous three because it is a passive action. It means that bureaucrats, exhausted with the suffered attacks, succumb to oppression and give up on offering some kind of oppositional (re)action. The abandonment practices could be requests to leave the organization or a specific sector within the federal government, ask for leaves, or even dismissal requests.
Finally, regarding the forms of reactions, many bureaucrats mentioned that, sometimes, they spend more time in their work hours trying to bypass or protect themselves from government oppression than actually getting their work done.
Conclusion
Our research shows the different mechanisms by which bureaucrats are being attacked and oppressed by governmental actors under Bolsonaro’s regime. The oppressions exerted by the government mean serious backlashes regarding not only the bureaucratic routines and their working conditions, but also the continuity of policies and the rule of law. If the understanding of democratic contexts – and their setbacks – also involves the study of public administration and bureaucrats, further research agenda should keep exploring the relations and underlying mechanisms regarding politicians and bureaucrats, their actions, and reactions.
References
Aberbach, Joel D., Putnam D. Robert, and Bert A. Rockman. 1981. Bureaucrats & Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.
Bauer, Michael W, and Stefan Becker. 2020. “Democratic Backsliding, Populism, and Public Administration.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 3 (1): 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz026.
Bauer, Michael, B. Guy Peters, Jon Pierre, Kutsal Yesikagit, and Stefan Becker, eds. 2021. Democratic Backsliding and Public Administration How Populists in Government Transform State Bureaucracies. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Gay, Paul du. 2020. “The Bureaucratic Vocation: State/Office/Ethics.” New Formations 100 (100): 77–96. https://doi.org/10.3898/neWF:100-101.06.2020.
Kalyvas, Andreas. 2019. “Whose Crisis? Which Democracy? Notes on the Current Political Conjuncture.” Constellations 26 (3): 384–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12438.
Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 2019. Populism and Public Administration: Confronting the Administrative State. Administration and Society 51 (10): 1521–45. doi:10.1177/0095399719874749.
Rockman, Bert A. 2019. Bureaucracy between Populism and Technocracy. Administration and Society 51 (10): 1546–75. doi:10.1177/0095399719874758.
Pinzani, Alessandro. 2013. “Democracia versus Tecnocracia: Apatia e Participação Em Sociedades Complexas.” Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, no. 89: 135–68. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-64452013000200006.
Stanley, Jason. 2018. Como Funciona o Fascimo: A Política Do “Nós” e “Eles.” Vol. 1. Porto Alegre: L&PM Editores.
[1] Some examples of reports of institutional harassment can be accessed at: https://arcadesenvolvimento.org/assediometro/, https://agendadeemergencia.laut.org.br/, https://afipeasindical.org.br/assedio-institucional-no-setor-publico/
