Way, Style, Approach – Folha de S. Paulo, January 18, 1980

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

Inconsistency is the conflict between truth and error within the same mindset or text. Or, even worse, it’s the conflict among multiple errors.

I start with this useful and healthy truth, as it is always good to call out incoherence wherever it appears. For example, in the democratic experiment Brazil is carrying out. Such an experiment will only be genuine if the democracy tested is itself genuine.

That said, the media carry significant responsibilities in this era of partisan shifts. Their role is even greater than that of politicians. The influence politicians have on public opinion largely depends on how much notoriety the media choose to give them. If politicians want to preserve their prestige, they must consistently say what the Fourth Estate—meaning newspapers, TV, and radio—want them to say. In summary, the Fourth Estate has a policy that guides politicians’ actions.

I am pleased to acknowledge the noble freedom that Folha de S. Paulo grants me to write whatever my conscience, as a traditional Brazilian Catholic, inspires me to say for the good of the country and Christian civilization. Often, this runs counter to the newspaper’s general stance. This behavior in São Paulo’s largest daily is highly consistent with its core principles.

Having said that, I return to my reflections. In my opinion, there is a lack of consistency in various aspects of the democratization process. This weakens the persuasive power of the positive or negative outcomes that the democratic experiment may produce.

Let me point out a few:

1. I see our public opinion as largely uninformed in this time of crisis, when complex domestic economic issues coexist with serious international problems.

I understand how difficult it is to get the average person interested in the dry details of economics and state finances. However, those who support the political ‘opening’ cannot see this challenge as insurmountable. Otherwise, they might argue it’s unrealistic to educate the public about the country’s main issues. If democracy is defined as a government of the people, for the people, by the people, then it would be a government of the uninformed, for the uninformed, by the uninformed. In other words, nonsense.

Therefore, it is essential for the media to produce compelling works, masterpieces, and marvels, providing the public with an accessible, clear, and engaging understanding of the key economic and financial issues of the day.

They have plenty of talent. Additionally, they possess the well-known national “jeitinho” (a street-smart way of handling things).

2. This topic raises another issue. We are emotional beings. A kind gesture, a favor, or even a simple smile can open our hearts. Conversely, a refusal, an oversight, or a vague, distant greeting can hurt our feelings. By the very nature of democracy, a politician must unite people’s sympathies. The task is complex, demanding, and exhausting for grassroots politicians, who are solely focused on bringing their voters together. How much more difficult it is for top politicians, who, in addition to forming, maintaining, and expanding their personal electorate, also have to reconcile the unifiers of other sectors of the population! Add to this the increasingly demanding nature of political positions, whether in the executive or legislative branches, and you’ll get a general idea of what life was like for a Brazilian politician in 1980.

How can we expect someone in these circumstances to be both a man of learning and deeply involved in the country’s multiple economic and financial problems (to mention only these)? How can we expect him to also take on the educational mission of making these ideas accessible to the public?

But on the other hand, with politicians lacking information and education, what can the “res publica” expect?

3. I see only one solution to this problem: close collaboration among politicians, scientists, and technicians. This would produce valuable results, specifically well-informed politicians and practically sensible scientists. Politicians would gain from scientists a solid foundation of knowledge essential for governance. Meanwhile, scientists would benefit from politicians’ real-world experience.

4. But… barriers still exist. In Brazil, politicians and scientists form groups that seldom meet. When they do meet, they rarely understand each other.

The scientist’s disposition, temperament, and lifestyle are usually completely different from those of the politician. Additionally, every area of specialization today is as extensive as the universe. In this universe, the scientist’s main concern is to ignore anything new published in his field. If that happens, the scientist will have missed an important goal in the true intellectual competition that defines today’s scientific career.

If the scientist and the politician meet to talk, both might think they’re wasting time. The politician will keep an eye on the voters who are “drifting away” as he talks to the scientist. The scientist, in turn, will regret the time wasted, while his colleagues calmly and thoroughly learn what he will later have no time to study except hurriedly, so as not to lose the race.

5. All this has resulted in the reformulation of our party system, which now lacks ideological content. The public shows little interest in this issue because they do not feel a genuine connection between this political restructuring and the issues that truly matter to them.

6. These are some truths everyone recognizes, but few have the courage to express.

Someone will ask me, “What is the solution?” I am under no obligation to provide one. In other countries like England, France, Italy, Germany, or the United States, if these problems aren’t solved, they’re at least less severe than among us.

Experts should study this for inspiration. But please, I beg you: don’t copy. The country is saturated with copies. We need learned and experienced originality—in our own way, style, and little tricks.