Uniform Approach

Laurence Peter, the Canadian academic who wrote “The Peter Principle” which was published in 1969, observed in his book that, “in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence”.   Countries, however, and not just commerce, have suffered the results (often disastrous) of incompetent management and stark illustrations of this can be found in Latin America.  In Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (nicknamed Lula), has assumed the mantle of President and, so far, since he was elected last October, he has enjoyed the enthusiastic support of a large number of Brazil’s population of 76 million.  In his inaugural speech in January, he promised a radical break with the past so his vast country, which covers 8,511,965 square kilometres, can become the nation Brazilians deserve it to be.  Evidence of the folly of former leaders, however, with radical approaches can be found in Argentina and Venezuela, both neighbours of Brazil.  General Leopoldo Galtieri’s eight-month dictatorship saw Argentina humbled and forced to surrender to the British in June, 1982, after a failed attempt to seize the Falkland Islands in the south Atlantic (some 300 miles off the coast of Argentina) which had been a British possession since 1833.  More recently, monetary, rather than military, disaster befell Argentina’s former civilian president, Fernando de la Rua, whose indecisiveness played a major part in his country’s economic and social fabric tearing apart.  In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez, paratrooper and politician, is suffering from self-inflicted economic wounds which are crippling his country’s finances.

In Latin America (especially Brazil) the past has shown that men in uniforms, rather than lounge suites, have often had the right approach to social and economic issues and have been the most effective leaders which, of course, plays into the hands of the told-you-so brigade who are only too willing to typecast a continent. My own experience of living in several countries, however, suggests that accepting without question the relevance of national stereotypes can be misleading.  The results of Transparency International’s latest index of perceptions of corruption, which targets the misuse of public office for private gain, may surprise some.  Finland, ranked number 1, is believed to be the least corrupt country.  Britain is number 10 with the United States in 16^th position, one position above Chile, which itself is ranked just above Germany.  Botswana ranked higher than France, Taiwan or Malaysia and Brazil was in 45^th place.  Ethics, of course, cannot be enforced, only encouraged and unethical people everywhere will continually try and work around any system of controls.  So it all comes down to the individual, and not the country, in the end. 

Local Hero

In Venezuela electric clocks are ticking more slowly because of power shortages due to the political upheaval being experienced.  Up to the beginning of March it had been estimated that the slowdown has caused the country to loose 14˝ hours over the past year.  Even so, Chávez has been able to put the clock back without any help from Venezuela’s struggling national power grid and serves, one might say, as a timely reminder for Lula and other leaders of how things can go horribly wrong.

A local company in Brazil, which is capitalising on the market for silicon breast implants, is promoting “boobs made in Brazil”.  Businessmen reading the cosmetic sales pitch might at first think that the reference relates to the management of the country’s affairs.  Lula’s concerns are far from cosmetic and he plans to tackle the myriad of problems which he faces by consensus, firmly believing that this is the right approach to the radical reforms he intends to make.  He must also fight vested interests which are a huge stumbling block and represent Brazil’s Achilles heel.  In 1888 Brazil’s monarchy enraged the plantation owners by passing a decree which abolished slavery and the very next year saw the monarchy’s downfall.  Whatever the strategy, he must avoid becoming indecisive (which dealt a fatal blow to Fernando de la Rua in Argentina) or too autocratic (which has seen Hugo Chávez turn Venezuela upside down). 

Lula greatly admires Getulio Vargas, a Brazilian dictator in the 1930s and 1940s, who championed the creation of much of the country’s heavy industries; he, however, amid political and social chaos, shot himself.  Lula looks also to Spain for inspiration and the job done by Felipe González, the former Spanish prime minister, who played a significant political role after Spain emerged from the Franco dictatorship in 1977.  González and his Socialists joined with the country’s other main parties to right the wrongs of the past and push through essential economic reforms which González continued to do after becoming prime minister in 1982.  But Lula needs to strike while the iron is hot, particularly in the areas of pensions, taxes, labour laws and justice, before Congress begins to flex its muscles. If he can effectively reduce Brazil’s debts (around $250 billion and equivalent to about 56% of Brazil’s GDP) and also significantly diminish the pervading fear that the country could default on its debt, he will be the country’s hero.  Much rests on the shoulders of this former shoeshine boy and strike leader who still remains, to a large extent, an unknown quantity.  Laurence Peter, and others, might well ask:  what will time reveal about his competence?