It is not by chance that the Portuguese spoken in Brazil always prefers the conditional to the present tense. He can? Not. Could… Choose? Not. Would you choose… Win? Not. would lose.
At a time when the world is reinventing itself — post-pandemic, war in Europe, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, global connectivity, gender equality, sustainability or death — Brazil bursts into a painful journey into the past. All summed up in a poor rhyme: Lula against Bolsonaro.
What’s happening on the international scene today — record inflation in the US and Europe, rising interest rates, energy crisis across the West (added to a declining demographics), Russia’s war against Ukraine, a poorly cured pandemic in China and deregulation consistent in the logistics and distribution chains of world trade— would represent a golden opportunity for the Brazilian economy, but, everything leads to believe, it will not be properly used.
When the future offers a unique opportunity to create an advantage on the international stage, we soon strive, dedicatedly, powerfully, and compulsively to miss it. It would be expected that, in a boiling world, these very advantageous conditions would be a factor of national union, but, suddenly, the opposite (always expected) soon happens.
Glory could even be in the past, but if only that would give us peace in the future. But this poem —which in 1909 Joaquim Osório Duque-Estrada composed and serves as lyrics to the melody of Francisco Manuel da Silva, and the two of them as the national anthem to Brazil— has, unfortunately, little premonitory.
And our energy is wasted in a huge effort of national disunity. Hatred and its apology prevail. Someone argues whether the expression “to shoot the guns” is just rude or hate speech and Bebel Gilberto steps on the flag. And over such insanities runs responsible and, unfortunately, visible ink.
Insensatez is the word to define the Brazilian political debate. A true desert, with cacti and peaks. Dangerous, dry and monotonous. In it, under the pretext of saving Brazil, some throw themselves like wolves against each other, promising to flee abroad — and forever — if the opponent wins. Only Brazil loses with this. Perhaps Portugal will win.
Today, the political argument is to make the most atavistic choice possible. It is necessary to choose a side from which to throw stones and look for the easiest advantage there. To find it in any weakness, ignorance or misfortune that may come to the adversary. Loving the bug. Killing the deceived. Nor does Freud explain.
It’s a pity to see. The missed opportunity is huge, generational. Congrats to us —a round anniversary, 200 years, independence, opportunity to think and reflect—, we let atavism reign and not even the most literate elite escapes dumb and unfounded Manicheism.
The debate revolves around hatred, the explanation of hatred, the dissection of the explanation of hatred. The menu is intense. Violent but harmless. Fervent, but useless. Passionate but sterile. And always shallow like an army corporal or a barracks joke.
Because not all freedom of expression prevails over this first truth — it is better to remain silent than to just talk nonsense.
