A burocracia previdenciária e a constituição da previdência social como política pública no Brasil

Abstract

The mandatory regimes of social security in Brazil are characterized by the inequality when it comes to social protection. This inequality is constitutionally represented by two diverse regimes. The first one is called “Regime Próprio de Previdência Social” – RPPS. It is exclusively intended to the public service employee. The second one is called “Regime Geral de Previdência Social – RGPS”. It is intended to all the other categories of employees in the private initiative. There is an asymmetry in the benefit plan offered by both regimes when it comes to the payment of advantageous benefits to public service employees as well as their method of costing that socializes with the costs of such benefits. Although this asymmetry is obvious, the differentiations contained in the social protection of both regimes are unaffected by the clause of isonomy protection which is part of the federal constitution of 1988. The goal of this paper is to investigate what is behind the discourse that tries to institutionalize distinct social protections between the private and public employees. This is happening under the perspective of the action of a specific branch of the public bureaucracy: the bureaucrats of the “Instituto de Previdência dos Industriários” – IAPI. They are called “Inapiários”. We will be investigating the way of acting of this bureaucratic branch through bibliographic research. We will also investigate the condition that resulted at some point in a space of power that allowed the formation of a bureaucratic identity. From that identity, the IAPI developed an objective, auto-interested and autonomous action in the technical and political plan. The result of that was the constitutionalization of distinct social systems due to the principle of differentiation and specialty. That led to a diversification of the social protection as a public policy between those who make social policy and those who are part of it. Aside from the materialization of several regimes between different employees in the own text of the Magna Carta, we will point out that the own constitutional and social reforms keep and assure this situation of differentiation, becoming just apparent reforms. These reforms are elaborated and defended by the premise of approximation between the regimes and the end of the special treatment given to the public service employees, when it comes to social aspects. Finally, the asymmetry in the social protection between public and private employees is a discourse that became institutionalized in the constitutional plan. In spite of all the social reforms, this discourse keeps going, reinforcing the principle of the differentiation and specialty as well as the asymmetry of the public policies of social protection.