Elections and the intellectual poverty: the case of Brazil

Elections and the intellectual poverty: the case of Brazil

At times, the cry for change reaches global dimensions, whether in the Asian context, Arab, European, American. A relevant consideration is that we really want change, if few actually know who is behind the changes, what are the consequences of these changes. I share a good text, written by Dr. Mary D'Araujo.
I will divide this article into two parts: the first on the banality of the criticisms of Brazilian democracy and its institutions, the second about the intellectual poverty of the debate on national issues.
Since 1945, when the country joined in a democracy expanded with extensive popular participation, there were seven direct presidential elections and competitive. In 1945 he was elected a General Eurico Gaspar Dutra. In 1950, 1955 and 1960 there was military applications: Brigadeiro Eduardo Gomes, General Tavora and general Teixeira Lott, respectively.
Then came the military dictatorship with indirect presidential elections and generals taking turns in power. In 1989, returned to the democratic consultation and since then we come to the fifth election candidates without military.
A fact of current Brazilian democracy is that politics has been demilitarized. For a country with a tradition of coups and army interference in politics this is a fact to be celebrated. Equally unprecedented are the broad terms for the party organization and electoral participation. The Electoral College now includes men and women, literate or not, from 16 years with no age limit to leave the system. In all, 70% of the population are voters. Never had so much political democracy in the country.
This nascent democracy allowed elegêssemos a supposed outsider in 1989, after an intellectual in 1994 (reelected in 1998) and a union in 2002. No stable democracy elected, in this sequence, presidents with such characteristics. With the current campaign have therefore much to celebrate in terms of political freedoms and without them none of our other problems can be solved in the long term. Beside the economic stability we have political democracy, a boon to a country that suffered for over a decade with inflation, and social indicators show significant improvements for the population as a whole.
Transparency - The heritage of democracy does not seem to be often valued by politicians and by sectors that form opinion. Allegations of corruption in Congress and the Executive have rightly fueled concern and hopelessness.
On this trail, Congress began to be exposed as a national scourge when in fact their problems primarily reflect other ills. The biggest is the lack of controls over the powers, the lack of transparency and more effective action by the internal affairs, courts and prosecutors. Today, we do not need any reform to enforce proper conduct in dealing with public affairs, we need only enforce existing laws.
Some candidates will hold the magic formula "of" political reform when, in fact, not know what they're talking about. What we want to reform, which points? As if "to" reform was a magic pass to change the political man, old totalitarian utopia.
All democratic countries that wanted to change its rules on electoral and party systems invited universities to conduct studies on the impacts of such changes in the quality of democracy.
There was discussion with society. Here, the issue is played only for the political class and even talked of a Constituent Assembly. Political reform is a topic that appeals, as is the idea that one knows exactly what to do "everything" to work well.
Political reforms at the moment involve as many points: the end of coalitions in proportional elections, lists, closed or open, mixed or pure district voting, public financing of campaigns, creation of the federation of parties, party loyalty, criteria for allocation of resources from the party fund, among other things. Each of these points shows no consensus between the parties and has serious implications on the expression of the will of the voter. "The" reform should not be presented as a panacea.
Remember that this year is effective barrier clause, or performance, which will reduce about 20 for seven or eight the number of parties represented in Congress. This measure has a profound impact, for better or for worse, on the future of our party system and little is said about it. If the problem was in the name of governance, reducing the number of parties will be much done in this direction with the news that comes into force.
An important aspect of this election is to remember that hit the Congress can vote for some candidates to the Executive, but it is not good politics to enhance democracy. Bad politicians, like bad doctors, bad journalists etc. always existed. To the extent that the country is plunged into a mass democracy, with ample opportunities for everyone, it is reasonable to assume that the quality of some candidates fall or the cleverness of some grow. The output is not to criticize Congress, but to ensure more control and greater speed in application of laws.
Responsibility - The second aspect, the approach to national problems, is bleak.
Everything is reduced to platitudes and pedestrian issues of questionable content. On the government side the emphasis is on the price of the basket as if the stomach is the only vector of policy. Hunger and poor nutrition are certainly serious, very serious, but it can not replace the responsibility in dealing with other aspects of public affairs. The poor electoral become targets, poverty became a political currency to progressive groups traditionally opposed to welfarism. Govern for the poor is the goal of some candidates. The keynote of the establishment resembles the old Marxist textbooks that taught that between food and freedom, the first was the most important. Today, the people being led to think that among the basic food basket and responsible government, is the second raffle. Times are a new economism, not on behalf of a class or revolution, but projects out of breath, on behalf of short-term election. The worth of some current trends in the near future could be a big Cuba: children fed and in school, but young people without prospects for the future.
Lack creativity to build the future. The short term is important - the hungry in a hurry - but this should only be a beginning. Experts from government institutions show the precariousness of our social policies. Expensive, slow, very efficient. We do very little. It is part of the Latin American caudillo rely in good faith of people, sell illusions and impose arbítrio.O continent lives difficult times after damage to economic and political crisis or dictatorships. The lack of perspective is midwife personality leadership and short-term solutions. The good thing is that society is organized, democracy wins more density, minorities express themselves, gain as governments in Bolivia, for example.
This sudden arrival of new actors in the policy does not, however, without costs, as in any historical moment when a new actor came to power. The bourgeoisie made their revolution cutting heads of kings and queens, the workers gained a voice and vote after much confrontation. Today, the arrival of new political actors to "power elite", ethnic minorities in other countries and trade unions in Brazil, does not mean institutional breakdowns, class struggle. It means that government must be more responsible, more Republican, that is more attentive to public affairs.
The candidates, of course, need to stop an agenda that is intelligible to the voter who wants yes food security, employment, health, education and housing. That is, demand what is called a classic public policy. The ways of solving it have varied over time, but the government's commitment to them can not change. It is their raison d'etre. Companies need to legitimate authority to resolve these issues. Since the natural law that emerged in the seventeenth century it discusses how to create a government that represents a contract between men seeking to peace, security, prosperity and freedom. From the nineteenth century that incorporated the covenant issue of democracy. This agenda continues today.
Companies need all that, but also of principles. If the example from above, our elites have been exemplary: practice, forget and forgive the unacceptable. Campaigns have prevailed and the immediacy of voluntarism. Public safety, for example, should be a fundamental part of the discussions for the future, but has so far served to a firefight between particular candidates.
The way campaigns are run is not helpful. The image goes beyond the content.
The company in Brazil has been better than the government, the institutions are strong, the country has survived many crises. However, democratic values are still fragile and the notions of right and justice. Elections are special moments for the companies update their social and political pact.
The statesmen have at these events show that they know to articulate the present and future with an eye on the public good, responsibility and ethics. These principles can not be relativized.