by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
At the end of their meeting in Porto Alegre a few days ago, the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB) published a list of twenty principles summarizing the party’s program. Let me highlight item #11:
“To promptly carry out a profound agrarian reform without retreats or distortions, in line with the warning of the Second Vatican Council: ‘God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.’[1]
Before analyzing this text, I must emphasize that I am not influenced in the slightest by partisan sentiment. My readers know that I represented a typically non-partisan entity in the Federal Constituent Assembly of 1934, namely the Catholic Electoral League. I have since not accepted my name’s inclusion in any political party. Therefore, I speak without any prejudice for or against the MDB.
* * *
I see in the quoted text the academicism that the Democratic Party conveyed to all its political descendants, from father to son and from son to grandson, specifically the Constitutionalist Party, the UDN, and the MDB.
In this context, I find it worthwhile to highlight the flawless and slightly aristocratic correctness of item 11 and the entire declaration of principles. I mention this gladly, especially now that vulgarity in language and attitudes is becoming more common.
Paradoxically, I was struck by the somewhat demagogic emphasis on adjectives. The MDB wants agrarian reform, and it wants it to be “immediate,” “profound,” “without retreats and without distortions.” One gets the feeling that all this overload of qualifiers is meant to compete with the government in a race to win over the pro-land reform crowds. The MDB thus demands immediate and in-depth reform, which, as it seems to imply, the government would be implementing gradually and with some restraint.
The elegance of form and the naive demagoguery of content are two traits of academicism. I mention naivety because, in this context, it is very much present. Inside their offices, academic minds see the masses as always eager for reform. And they are often mistaken. So, where are the pro-land reform crowds that the MDB is eager to attract? Our man in the countryside is disciplined and upright.
With a much more genuine and compelling drive on the left than MDB’s, former President Goulart failed to rally the rural working class to revolt, as he admitted in a speech a few days before his fall.
Archbishop Helder Camara, who is unquestionably talented, if not with eloquence then at least with theatrical skills more effective for demagoguery than the academicism of the MDB leaders, has also failed, and the TFP has proof of this. From mid-July to early September last year, one of our caravans of volunteers traveled from north to south through Pernambuco’s sugarcane-growing region, promoting our publications. They fully engaged with the local populations in cities and towns, were warmly received everywhere, and held sessions in crowded rooms. This even happened in Cabo, Father Melo’s hometown, viewed by many as an impenetrable leftist stronghold. The statements I am making here are not just empty words. The TFP possesses an audiovisual recording of this caravan, which confirms the truth of what I am asserting. This footage is available to anyone interested.
Therefore, MDB leaders are academically naive in thinking that the rural masses are rising in revolt and that well-constructed statements on land reform can mobilize them more effectively than Goulart and Dom Helder.
In my opinion, the tactical impact of the MDB’s outspoken support for land reform is quite different from what its mentors anticipate. It will likely push many farmers away from the party, and I doubt it will attract many workers. Such are the downsides of academicism…
However, item 11 highlights another important aspect that deserves praise. The MDB references the Second Vatican Council to support its pro-land reform stance. In doing so, it recognizes the significance of religious and moral considerations in the agrarian issue.
In contrast, many leaders of the productive classes discuss land reform “shrewdly,” meaning they focus solely on economic aspects as if religion and morality do not influence the matter. Nonetheless, the Brazilian people’s legal and moral conscience is rooted in the enduring Christian principle that all expropriation must be accompanied by compensation equal to the actual value of the property taken. Supporters of land reform want compensation to be set at a much lower price and to be paid with government bonds of uncertain worth. Viewed this way, land reform causes an undeniable moral and religious conflict for our deeply Catholic people, as the book Agrarian Reform, a Question of Conscience, of which I am one of the authors, has clearly shown.
Implementing land reform without confronting this trauma doesn’t solve the problem; instead, it cultivates a deep-rooted malaise within the nation. This malaise will grow worse as land is expropriated from private individuals more often (I exclude here the Union’s fair and timely expropriation of land from states or municipalities).
The MDB has experienced all of this and has tried to tackle the issue directly by examining its religious and moral facets. In this, it unquestionably did well.
However, I must also add a criticism. The text of the Second Vatican Council, cited in item 11, does not itself prove the legitimacy of land reform. Where is the evidence that the current agrarian regime in Brazil does not adequately produce an equitable distribution of the fruits of creation to everyone? And where is the evidence that agrarian reform would improve the distribution of wealth? Without such proof, nothing can be done.
* * *
Before proceeding, I must clarify that my objection to the method of calculating and paying for rural properties supported by land reform advocates is not the only one. There must be a demonstrated public or social benefit to expropriating someone’s land. What evidence exists that agrarian reform expropriations are necessary or beneficial to the country? This evidence has not been presented. No one has proven that dividing land necessarily leads to increased production. In fact, there are several arguments against it. That is why I consider land reform morally illicit.
* * *
But some readers may ask, why do these objections only apply to the land reform proposed by the MDB? What about the government’s reform plan?
I draw a distinction. I fully support the latter because it involves promoting the use of unused public lands. It is not only beneficial but also necessary and urgent. I oppose it to the extent that it involves expropriating private property without proven necessity and fair compensation equal to its real value.
I calmly disagree because I know that, unlike what Dom Helder has been saying abroad, the Brazilian government recognizes the right to respectful criticism, as long as it is done within the law, especially when it is based on religious reasons.
[1] Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, No. 69. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html.