Many believe the current political “opening” is just superficial—meaning only releasing prisoners and allowing exiles back into the country. And that’s all. The “opening” will be seen as finished once they are free to move around and are celebrated and praised by the media.
Based on this idea, the “opening” is not a benefit to the country but only for those who attacked it at a certain point or behaved in a way that raised suspicion of doing so.
Someone with a broader perspective might rightly argue that the promoters of the political “opening up” aimed for much more than that. Viewing democracy as the participation of the entire population in the country’s governance, its full realization involves, for each citizen, the effective expansion of their share of decision-making power in line with democratic principles. To democratize is to open up.
The corollary of this is that every citizen has the right to say, write, and do whatever they want, with only two exceptions. One is the law, which is omnipresent, nosy, and harsh. The other is good manners, a fragile barrier that is in decline. In fact, today, nothing is more fragile and deteriorates as quickly as good manners.
I am not evaluating here whether, and to what degree, such “openness” is advantageous. The matter is entirely incidental.
I do wonder, however, whether “openness” completely fits within this broader idea. For now, I will focus only on one truly fundamental aspect of the problem.
No matter how much we celebrate the freedom to speak and act, we must recognize that it relies on another freedom: the freedom to think. If I am not free to think as I want, I cannot truly be free to say or do anything. In the end, I will be doing—or not doing—what others want. For each person, the first of these freedoms exists within the walls of his mind, as sacred as a sanctuary. I ask, then, whether “openness” also involves the complete liberation of each person’s mind from the obstacles or interferences that limit it.
But how can anyone interfere in the inviolable realm of another person’s ego? This question is outdated. In this age of psychological warfare, sleight of hand, advertising tricks, and parapsychological interference, many argue that it’s just as easy to influence a person’s mind as it is to open a safe. All you need to do is know the secret and turn the key.
Now, it seems to me that, so far, the mentors of Brazil’s political “opening” have overlooked this aspect and, therefore, its premise.
These thoughts occurred to me regarding the trip that the Moscow government is inviting President Figueiredo to undertake. Using the “opening,” I state that this prospect could not be more unwelcome. Since our government takes seriously the principles on which Christian civilization is built, consistency prevents its leader from visiting a country whose political and socio-economic system is based on entirely opposite principles. At the very least, such a visit would be seen as a declaration of indifference to the ongoing scandalous and systematic violation in that country of all the commandments of the Decalogue, which underpin the rights of individuals, families, and nations.
Admitting this thesis, it is reasonable to hypothesize that serious political or economic reasons, directly related to Brazilian “salus publica,” necessitate this visit. Is this true? I reflect on this and conclude that I cannot determine anything definitively, simply because I lack data. For example, in economic matters, I need to know whether Russia actually pays for what it purchases from us. Since Russia tends to bluff in this area, I want data, statistics, and documents.
Where are they? They just don’t exist.
Another issue I cannot fully analyze or conclude is: given all the agitation promoted by the left-wing clergy in São Paulo, I wonder if, aside from wage issues, there are other factors that could be addressed straightforwardly to reduce inflation’s effects, boost the economy and national finances, and diminish some of the reasons and excuses behind the subversive actions of the Basic Ecclesial Communities. I seriously suspect that the government’s absorption of about 50% of our industrial capacity places a heavy burden on the nation. Privatization might ease this burden. I try to explore the subject further, but can’t because I lack the necessary data.
And so forth.
From the sofa where I am dictating this article, I seem to hear an expert shouting indignantly: “Well, you should know that Ministry ‘X’ published a very thorough technical study on this subject by author ‘Z’ in the ‘Y’ collection.” Or that such and such a specialized magazine, or the economic section of another newspaper, published statistical tables on several of these points exactly four months and 25 days ago.
I respond that, as a simple Brazilian citizen, even though I am not familiar with economic matters, I should have clear and easy access to all these elements so I can form an opinion on the issues. Because if, for each of these topics, a Brazilian like me has to read monumental and highly specialized works published in dull collections that must be sought out in public offices, he will be forced to spend his life researching and studying. The result of this is starvation. Since citizens do not want to die, they have to give up on informing themselves. And when they are prevented from informing themselves, they are prevented from thinking.
Therefore, I suggest that public authorities, political parties, universities, and the media explore ways to keep millions of my fellow citizens and me easily and reliably informed about all of this.
Without this, we can’t think. So, what good are the freedoms of speech, writing, and action to us then?
An idea crosses my mind. To promote widespread awareness, we should create a political party. Its name comes from the theme “Party of Those Who Cannot Think” (POTWCT). Anyone interested in joining should start by helping to organize it. They might even become its president. It will be the most essential and urgent of all parties.
