PT Deputy and President Glasey Hoffmann took the floor in the House to criticize the Public Companies Act for precisely what makes it fundamental to public morality and good governance: the right to veto the appointment of politicians to run these companies. It is no coincidence that the Glazy case coincides with that of Centrão, which also seeks to restore the possibility of allocation of positions in state companies, in particular, in Petrobras.

PT is, in Anthony Garotinho’s immortal definition, a “small-mouthed party,” a characteristic that, despite obvious ideological differences, makes it very similar to the Centrão parties, which have always been guided by sinecures and prebends. The difference is that PT members are promoted to supply the state and make it work for their power project, while Centrão is content with access to monetary and electoral advantages. For the country it does not matter: in both cases, public administration is squandered in favor of private interests.

PT and Centrão’s preferred target is obviously Petrobras, which Lula da Silva and Chamber President Arthur Lira consider the devil. This group did not like the Public Companies Act at all, because it stated that Petrobras should be run by professionals in the oil sector, not the looting sector.

In his speech before the House of Representatives, Glasey Hoffmann said, if you think about it, the Public Company Act “criminalizes politics.” It was no longer the State Companies Act that criminalized politics, but the parties that took Petrobras by storm during the Lulopetista Mandarin. The State Companies Law is precisely the civilized response to the barbarism of the oilmen and the brazen political use of Petrobras for election purposes, which nearly bankrupted the company.

The purpose of PT and Centrão are articles 16 and 17 of Law 13.303/2016. Article 17 requires managers to have professional experience and prohibits ministers, party leaders, trade unionists and Legislative Assembly mandate holders from holding positions, as well as persons with a conflict of interest. For PT, the introduction of minimum parameters for the selection of directors and directors of state-owned companies is a discriminatory attitude – even after many years, the PT administration led to Petrobras admitting a write-off of 6.2 billion reais for corruption and spending 100 reais. billion fuel adjustments.

Article 16, in turn, subjects the administrator of public companies to the rules of private sector governance. By including it in the charter, Petrobras made it clear that the members of the Board of Directors and the Board of Executive Directors are individually and jointly and severally liable for the actions they take and for losses resulting from such actions. This means that managers may have to pay for reckless management out of their own pockets. It is no coincidence that it has become one of the most effective means of preventing the looting of state-owned companies: it is very easy to squander other people’s money when there is a guarantee of impunity. For this reason, the last three presidents of Petrobras, chosen by Jair Bolsonaro, when they were forced to adopt an interventionist policy in the name of his re-election, chose to resign.

The Law on State Companies is an important milestone in the history of the country. This was a moral salvation for public companies and brought undeniable results – 2015 was the last year when a group of federal state-owned companies recorded losses. Profitable companies generate taxes that can be used to improve people’s lives, increase investment, and spur growth. Poorly managed companies, by contrast, are fighting for scarce budgetary deduction space in order to survive. The reality of the facts, however, is irrelevant to those who only think about making a minimally persuasive campaign speech like Bolsonaro; for those who want to divide the state apparatus among their friends, like PT; or for those who only think about guaranteeing a piece of power, no matter who is in the presidency from 2023 onwards, like Centrão.