The debate on Sunday (28) and the interview in Jornal Nacional only confirmed the low level of the current president of the Republic, incapable of dealing with truths and adversities. We may even be close to overcoming a crude and primary government at the polls, which caused much suffering for the majority of the Brazilian population and international shame, but have we learned as a society?
Such degradation was only possible due to a combination of factors that involved, simultaneously, alignment and omission of economic and political powers, of Justice, of the media and of some segments of society.
Therefore, it is less a case of harping on the absurd figure of the president, who will pass, but rather of recognizing and identifying the weaknesses of our democracy, which will remain. Only by understanding what led us to this madness and excrescence will we be able to avoid future disappointments.
Bolsonaro offends opponents, disdains the dramas of the population, is violent towards women, disrespects presidents of neighboring countries and uses lying data, concerned only with creating facts for his social networks, in a clear disrespect for society as a whole. He’s just thinking about his bubble and how to generate lying content for his fake news.
Bolsonaro offends reason and emotion, making us question: what is it to be human? It’s not possible that it took 200,000 years of sapiens evolution to get there!
But if we reached this point of degradation in Brazil, it was due to a combination of factors and multidisciplinary disrespect. It is natural for a person to delude himself with some ideas or proposals, but it is unacceptable for a group of responsible people to do so. Collective intelligence tends to weighting and realigning decision-making. This is not what happened to Brazilian institutions in recent years, which, colluding, contributed to reach this regrettable moment, which denotes the great challenges to be faced in the search for a more stable, inclusive and fair country.
Bolsonaro highlighted the weaknesses of democracy. In his eagerness to protect himself at any cost, he shamelessly exploited every loophole that existed, even if immoral. By electing the PGR and the mayor, he shielded himself, being free to commit the atrocities he committed in the pandemic and, among other things, attack the institutions. With two strokes he ended the counterweights that support democracy: it is necessary to rethink these processes.
The Judiciary played a central role in this institutional fraying, especially from its blind support to the Lava Jato operation. The fact that there was partial reparation in the courts does not hide the fragility of the decisions that supported the operation. How could the STF not be able to understand what was happening if it had all the tools to do so? How can we protect ourselves from future groups that want to disrupt the country? What precautionary policies, from the election of new members to the STF to the impartial analysis of the facts, can be adopted so that history does not repeat itself?
The Legislature, long dominated by representatives of large economic groups, favored the defense of private interests to the detriment of the public. The rapporteur’s amendments only confirm the business bank into which the House of Representatives of the People has become. There is an urgent need for a change that starts with the vote, but which also depends on the leadership and republican negotiations in the interests of society.
The Attorney General’s Office, an important counterweight in the democratic game, was reduced to a defender of the president’s interests, relegating society to the background. Who should elect the PGR and with what criteria, so that they can exercise their functions impartially?
The Armed Forces, by putting pressure on the STF through General Villas Bôas, abandoned their constitutional position of neutrality. And by occupying a huge number of executive positions, they are confused with politics, which does not contribute to democracy.
The fact that the mainstream press has repositioned itself in the face of such a wild project does not hide the blind eye they turned to a figure who was already known for his ravings. They did not act in an investigative manner and were not critical enough to identify the turmoil that was forming.
No less important is the continuous process of devaluation of politics in society, which leads to a distance and superficiality in the analyses. Political representation is dominated, directly or indirectly, by the interests of the wealthiest social class and alienates the vast majority of the population. Politics is exercised by the few and for the few.
Hence the importance of encouraging the participation of society, with the creation of institutional spaces. Politics must, increasingly, be part of people’s education, being valued and not demonized. It’s great when young people are willing to participate, regardless of political line. Encouraging participation is the best antidote against adventurers and opportunists, who take advantage of the low level of political training to manipulate and lie, using fake news to defend their interests.
Preferences aside, Ciro, D’Ávila, Lula, Soraya and Tebet acted in the field of democratic debate, maintaining respect. Bolsonaro was dissonant, aggressive, violent and without composure. A country with the quality of the Brazilian people does not deserve to have him as president. The alternatives are in place, but let’s not be fooled, we have a lot to go forward to prevent experiences like this from being repeated.
To this end, institutions play a key role and cannot miss the opportunity to learn from the lesson. Transformations and enhancements are needed. So far there has been no structuring change in any of the institutions. We are therefore subject to new institutional hiccups. An eventual overcoming of this moment with the presidential and legislative elections should only be seen as the beginning of a process of necessary improvement of our institutions.
