University, collegiality and democracy
We are familiar with the history of groups manipulated or influenced by individuals or hierarchical superiors, which become profoundly unjust, although "justified" by the majority vote.
My colleague and friend from the Research Line: Critical Theory and Labor Law, in the postgraduate program in Law at UFPE, was surprised by an unfavorable judicial outcome regarding the extension of the current ADUFEPE board's term. Worse still, she was unfairly called an "opportunist" by members of that board for criticizing the delaying tactics used to hold elections to renew the entity's leadership. As a member of the council of representatives, she had every right to argue the illegitimacy of the maneuver and fight for compliance with the electoral calendar.
This unfortunate episode reminded me of a previous debate at UFPE (Federal University of Pernambuco) about the relationship between democracy and collegiality, especially regarding academic or professional matters of interest to faculty in collegiate bodies dominated by heads, directors, coordinators, etc. The collegial nature of a decision that affects the vital interests of one of its members does not always mean it is democratic, legitimate, or even legal. We know the history of collectives manipulated or influenced by individuals or hierarchical superiors, which become profoundly unjust, although "justified" by the majority vote. It must be added that there are always many interests at stake when decisions are made.
What appears to be democratic, majority-based, and representative of the will of the majority is nothing more than a mere game of mutual satisfaction of interests, a kind of rigged calculation that produces unjust decisions, seemingly democratic; decisions that are ratified by higher authorities – uncritically – simply because they have the numerical support of a potential majority. This "democratic" concept of decision-making must be seriously considered within an institution where independence and autonomy should prevail.
The rational process of forming the will of any collegiate body is far from being confused with the criterion of quantitative majority, especially in the university environment, where the victory of the best argument should prevail, after the presentation of evidence and counter-evidence, and the assumption of a rational, fair consensus between the parties in dispute. The pseudo-democracy (majoritarian) of our academic collegiate bodies is far, very far, from this argumentative, dialogical, and democratic procedure.
* This is an opinion article, the responsibility of the author, and does not reflect the opinion of Brasil 247.