Site Title

UTOPIA AND DYSTOPIA IN CONFRONTATION TROUGHOUT THE HISTORY

Fernando Alcoforado*

Utopia and dystopia are two concepts that encourage discussion about the future. Utopia can be understood as the idea of an ideal, imaginary, perfect, and therefore unreachable society. The word utopia was created from the Greek terms “u” (prefix employed with negative connotation) and “topos” (place), meaning “no place” or “place that does not exist”. The term appeared for the first time in the book “Utopia” of the English writer Thomas More, around 1516. In his work, More criticizes the real society in which he lives and proposes an island that he idealized where society would abolish private property, intolerance religious and everyone would live happily in a fair and egalitarian environment. Dystopia is generally characterized as a place where one lives under conditions of extreme oppression, despair or deprivation. The word dystopia or anti-utopia is the antithesis of utopia, presenting a negative view of the future, usually characterized by totalitarianism, authoritarianism and oppressive control of society.

In dystopia, passing or going to a better world is not possible. On the contrary, the negative characteristics of reality are reinforced. By reinforcing the negative characteristics of the world, dystopian literary works are critical or satirical, serving as a warning to humanity, starting with a pessimistic discourse. In works of fiction, the authors portray the future in a negative way with the catastrophic evolution of society that is opposed to the utopian. A rather famous example of dystopia is Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” (1932). This book tells a hypothetical future where individuals are biologically preconditioned and live in a society organized by caste. Another dystopic classic is “1984,” by British author George Orwell. Published in 1949, the work portrays the daily life of a totalitarian and repressive political regime.

Utopia and dystopia in the history of mankind

The history of humanity is full of examples of utopias and dystopias. Excellent examples of utopia concern the Enlightenment, Marxism and Modernity. With the Enlightenment, it was expected that society to evolve into tolerance, humanism and respect for nature, and would affirm the right to freedom and equality between men. It should be noted that the purpose of the Enlightenment was to correct the inequalities of society and guarantee the natural rights of the individual, such as freedom and free possession of goods. Enlightenment humanism of the eighteenth century already proposed that human beings and their dignity should be the center and fundamental value of all sciences, thus imposing also that it was the maximum concern of any legal order, of any legal system.

The Enlightenment provided the motto of the French Revolution (Freedom, Equality and Fraternity) and fecundated it inasmuch as his followers opposed injustices, religious intolerance and the privileges of absolutism. However, since the French Revolution until the present moment, the political promises of the Enlightenment have been abandoned throughout the world with the adoption of inhuman practices increasingly sophisticated by governments and imperialists by the great capitalist powers, the unleashing of 3 world wars (World War I, World War II and the Cold War), the advent of fascism and Nazism, military intervention and coup d’état in various countries around the world, as well as the escalation of neofascism in the contemporary era in the United States, in Europe and also in Brazil.

The political theses of the Enlightenment failed since the English Revolution (1640), the American Revolution (1776) and the French Revolution (1789). This failure paved the way for the advent of Marxist ideology in the nineteenth century throughout the world, which proposed to take a step forward in relation to the Enlightenment, seeking the end of the exploitation of man by man with the reduction of economic inequalities between social classes and, in the future, its complete abolition. The facts of history demonstrate that the Enlightenment theses that guided the bourgeois revolutions in the eighteenth century and the Marxist theses on which the socialist revolutions of the twentieth century were held failed to fulfill their historical promises to conquer human happiness.

As an example of the failure of the Enlightenment and its promises, one can consider the failure of liberal capitalism not only in the political-institutional field, but also in the field of the economy which, driven by the free market, was responsible for the occurrence of two great economic depressions in the world capitalist system in 1873 and 1929, the escalation of colonialism and imperialism in all quarters of the Earth and the advent of two world wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), as well as neo-liberal capitalism, which in the era of economic and financial globalization was responsible for the global crisis of 2008 and gave birth to modern totalitarianism that, encompassing the entire planet, imposes the neoliberal ideology that occupies all space and all sectors of life at the same time and represses in any way the will to transform man and the world.

As an example of the failure of Marxism and its promises, one can consider the failure to build socialism in the Soviet Union and in the countries of Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc. which demonstrate that the old socialist project is no longer feasible and a new project of socialist society will have to be worked out. It should be stressed that the utopia based on the old socialist project as it was constructed in the Soviet Union and in other countries became its opposite, dystopia, state capitalism, with political power exercised despotically and corruptly by a new type of bourgeoisie (state bourgeoisie or nomenclature). The proletariat on behalf of which the socialist revolution was carried out did not exercise power and the population did not participate in the decisions of governments. Real socialism has come to an end and there has been no popular reaction to fight in its defense and to maintain it which demonstrates the immense frustration of the people by not meeting their expectations.

The Advances of Utopia in Scandinavia and Dystopia in Brazil

In a world in which dystopia is dominant in confrontation with utopia, the model of society adopted in Scandinavia seems to be an exception. In this region of the planet, it seems that utopia overlaps with dystopia. The Nordic or Scandinavian model of social democracy could best be described as a kind of middle ground between capitalism and socialism. It is neither wholly capitalist nor wholly socialist, being the attempt to fuse the most desirable elements of both into a “hybrid” system. The success of this model was due to the combination of a broad welfare state with rigid mechanisms of regulation of market forces, capable of putting the economy in a dynamic trajectory, at the same time that it reaches the best indicators of well-being among the countries of the world.

It is not by chance that the Scandinavian countries are the ones with the highest rates of economic and social progress and are leaders in HDI (Human Development Index) in the world. Unlike liberalism, real socialism and neoliberalism, in the Scandinavian countries despite their differences, they all share some common traits: a universalist welfare state that is geared towards improving individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and the stabilization of the economy. They are also distinguished by their emphasis on labor force participation, promoting gender equality, reducing social inequality, extensive levels of benefits to the population, and great magnitude of wealth redistribution.

In Brazil, dystopia overcame attempts to construct utopia throughout its history, that is, to build a society that contributes to the happiness of the Brazilian population. The revolutionary nativism, under the influence of the ideals of liberalism and the great purposes of revolutions of the eighteenth century gave way in Brazil the logic of to change preserving the privileges that prevails today, while D. Pedro I, Crown Prince of the Royal House Portuguese, took the initiative and not the Brazilian people to execute the political act that culminated with the Independence. The Independence of Brazil was therefore a “revolution without revolution” because there were no changes in the economic base and in the political and legal superstructures of the nation. The State that is born of the Independence of Brazil maintains the execrable latifundia and intensifies the not less execrable slavery making of this the support of the restoration that realizes as to the economic structures inherited of the Colony. Brazil was the last country in the world to end slavery in the nineteenth century, agrarian reform is still to be achieved because the ill-fated agrarian structure based on latifundia continues to exist in Brazil, modernized nowadays with agribusiness, and the industrialization process was introduced late in Brazil, 200 years after the Industrial Revolution in England. This explains the economic backwardness of Brazil in relation to the more developed countries.

The dystopia won the utopia of building a society in Brazil that correspond to the interests of the vast majority of the population with the attempted coup d´État that led to President Getulio Vargas suicide in 1954, the 1964 coup d´État that overthrew the government João Goulart and deployed a civilian dictatorship and military 21 years and with the adoption of neoliberal economic model from 1990 to the present time which contributed to the increase in financial and technological dependence of Brazil from the outside, the de-industrialization of the country, the denationalization of the Brazilian economy and, as from 2014, for the insolvency of the federal, state and municipal governments, the general bankruptcy of about half of the small, medium and large companies of the Country and the underutilization of the labor force in more than 27 millions of workers as a result of the overwhelming current economic recession that undermines Brazil’s economic future and the social conditions of the great majority of the Brazilian population.

The country’s economic debacle after 2014 and the systemic corruption of the PT (Workers Party) governments revealed through the processes of the “Mensalão” and “Lava Jato” Operation contributed decisively to the advent of a serious dystopia in Brazil that meant the victory of Jair Bolsonaro in the last presidential elections in the face of its clearly fascist position whose discourse is based on the explicit cult of order, state violence, authoritarian government practices, social disregard for vulnerable and fragile groups, and exacerbated anti-communism. Political conflicts in Brazil tend to grow during the Bolsonaro administration.

In the neoliberal era in which we live, there is no space for the advancement of social rights in Brazil. On the contrary, dystopia advances with the elimination of such rights and the deconstruction and denial of reforms already conquered by the subaltern classes. The so-called “reforms” of social security, labor, privatization of public enterprises, etc. – “reforms” that are currently present in the political agenda of the future president of the Republic – are aimed at the pure and simple restoration of the conditions of a “savage” capitalism, in which the laws of the market must be vigorously enforced. Dystopia therefore overlaps with the utopia of building a society that contributes to the collective happiness of the Brazilian nation.

Modernity and dystopia

Modernity was born with the 1st Industrial Revolution in England. Since the 1st Industrial Revolution, science and technology have acquired a fundamental importance for human progress, through continuous technological innovations. With Modernity, one sought to use the accumulation of knowledge generated in search of human emancipation and the enrichment of daily life. Modernity is identified with the belief in the progress and ideals of the Enlightenment. With Modernity it was hoped that society would attain the utopia of uninterrupted progress for the benefit of humanity through the development of science and technology. Like the Enlightenment and Marxism, Modernity failed to fulfill its promises.

The evolution of modernity was marked by events that negatively marked society from the twentieth century. Chief among them was undoubtedly the catastrophes of the 1st and 2nd World War. In fact, science and technology have contributed to the barbarism of two world wars with the invention of powerful and destructive war weapons. Science and technology have come to be used on an unprecedented scale for both good and evil. Add to all this the fact that science has lost its value as a result of the disillusionment with the benefits that technology has brought to mankind. All of this scientific and technological development culminated in the current era with a global ecological crisis that could result in a catastrophic global climate change that could threaten the survival of mankind. In this sense one can doubt the real benefits brought by scientific and technological progress with the advent of Modernity.

Everything that has just been described shows the prevalence of dystopia over utopia in the history of humanity. An example of dystopia is what is presented in The End of Progress – How modern economics has failed us, published by John Wiley & Sons in 2011. Graeme Maxton states that humanity is moving backward. Humanity is destroying more than building. In each year, the world economy grows approximately US$ 1.5 trillion. But every year, humanity devastates the planet at a cost of US$ 4.5 trillion. Humanity is moving in the opposite direction, generating losses greater than the wealth it creates. Maxton states that mankind experienced rapid economic growth but also created an unstable world. According to Maxton, in many countries, for the first time in centuries, we are faced with declining of life expectancy and the prospect of declining food production and water supply, as well as the depletion of natural resources such as oil.

Another example of dystopia is presented in John Casti’s book O Colapso de Tudo – Os Eventos Extremos que Podem Destruir a Civilização a Qualquer Momento (The Collapse of Everything – The Extreme Events that Can Destroy Civilization Any Time) (Rio: Editora Intrínseca Ltda., 2012). In his book, John Casti states that our society is becoming so intertwined and complex that collapse is almost inevitable. Casti traced the scenarios of a widespread and enduring interruption of the internet, the depletion of the global food supply system, a continental electromagnetic pulse that destroys all electronic devices, the collapse of globalization, the destruction of the Earth by the creation of exotic particles, the destabilization of the nuclear situation, the end of the global oil supply, a global pandemic, the lack of electricity and drinking water, intelligent robots that surpass humanity and global deflation and the collapse of global financial markets.

Edgar Morin also presents an example of dystopia in his book Vers l’abîme? (Towards the abyss?) (Paris: Cahiers de L’Herne, 2007). Edgar Morin considers the inevitability of the disaster that threatens humanity in which, he says, the improbable becomes possible. The title of the book in the form of interrogation deals with the certainty of the abyss. “Will humanity avoid this disaster or start again from disaster? Does the global crisis that opens and expand lead to disaster or overcoming?” Edgar Morin proves that the world crisis has worsened and that dominant political thinking is incapable of formulating a policy of civilization and humanity. The world is at the beginning of chaos, and the only perspective is a metamorphosis, with the emergence of forces of transformation and regeneration.

Morin states that Modernity created three myths: of to control the Universe, of the progress and of the conquest of happiness. The enormous development of science, technology, economics, capitalism, has unprecedentedly increased the invention, but also the capacity for destruction. . Reason inherited from the Enlightenment imposed the idea of a fully intelligible Universe. Scientific and technical progress allowed human emancipation as always, but collective death has also become possible as never before. Technological, scientific, medical, social progress is manifested in the form of biosphere destruction, cultural destruction, creation of new inequalities and new easements. Morin defends the thesis that world society is not civilized, on the contrary, it is barbaric. Morin states that we are facing the sinking of the Enlightenment and its promises.

Conclusion

What has just been described makes evident the imperative necessity of building a new utopia and its feasibility that contributes to the conquest of human happiness in all quarters of the Earth. One fact is indisputable: without the overthrow of modern totalitarianism on a national and global scale, represented by the dystopia imposed by neoliberal globalization, the problems affecting the human being will not be overcome in each country in isolation. Faced with the failure of the Enlightenment, Marxism and Modernity in the construction of human happiness, it is an immense challenge for contemporary thinkers to establish new paradigms and new values of rational behavior to be formulated for society in the present era. Contemporary thinkers need to mobilize in the reinvention of a new Enlightenment project of society as did eighteenth-century thinkers in order to construct the utopia of a new world that will bring to an end the ordeal of humanity.

* Fernando Alcoforado, 78, holder of the CONFEA / CREA System Medal of Merit, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development by the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of 14 books addressing issues such as Globalization and Development, Brazilian Economy, Global Warming and Climate Change, The Factors that Condition Economic and Social Development, Energy in the world and The Great Scientific, Economic, and Social Revolutions that Changed the World.

BOLSONARO E A PAZ SOCIAL NO BRASIL

Fernando Alcoforado*

Em nosso último artigo Em defesa da paz social no Brasil, escrito antes do resultado das eleições de 28 de outubro passado, afirmamos que “o vencedor das eleições presidenciais do Brasil tem que entender que só terá condições de exercer a governabilidade se construir a paz social que é um estado de equilíbrio e entendimento entre os habitantes de um mesmo país, onde o respeito entre eles é adquirido pela aceitação das diferenças e os conflitos são resolvidos através do diálogo, os direitos das pessoas são respeitados e suas vozes são ouvidas, e todos estão em seu ponto mais alto de serenidade sem tensão social”. Isto significa dizer que o futuro governo Bolsonaro teria que exercer um governo democrático em função do bem comum. O gesto de paz social a ser dirigido por Jair Bolsonaro para amplos setores da população, que votaram no adversário, seria o ponto de partida para iniciar o diálogo com a grande maioria da população na construção de um programa de governo que atendesse os interesses da sociedade brasileira. Sem a paz social com o País profundamente dividido, nenhum governo terá condições de superar a gigantesca crise política, econômica e social do Brasil, mesmo que implante um governo de exceção.

No seu discurso após sua vitória, Bolsonaro afirmou que seu governo será defensor da Constituição, da democracia e da liberdade. Bolsonaro afirmou que “liberdade é um princípio fundamental. Liberdade de andar nas ruas. Liberdade de ir e vir em todos os lugares. Liberdade de empreender. Liberdade política e religiosa. Liberdade de informar e ter opinião. Liberdade de fazer escolhas e ser respeitado por elas. Este é um país de todos nós, brasileiros natos e de coração. Brasil de diversas opiniões, cores e orientações”. Esta manifestação visou naturalmente atenuar seus pronunciamentos anteriores antidemocráticos que geraram a oposição de muitos brasileiros que não comungam com seu pensamento. No seu discurso, Bolsonaro afirmou que “não existem brasileiros do Norte nem brasileiros do Sul. Somos todos uma só nação. Uma nação democrática”. Esta manifestação teve o propósito certamente de atenuar comentários seus negativos contra nordestinos que votaram maciçamente em Fernando Haddad.

Apesar de afirmar que assumiria o compromisso de respeitar a Constituição e de fazer um governo democrático, o discurso de Bolsonaro à nação após o resultado das eleições não acenou com um gesto de paz para seus opositores de esquerda quando afirmou que os brasileiros passaram a integrar “um grande Exército que sabia para onde o País estava marchando” e que “não poderíamos mais continuar flertando com o socialismo, com o comunismo, com o populismo e com o extremismo da esquerda”. Bolsonaro informou em seu discurso após a vitória para quais cidadãos será direcionada sua futura administração federal. Ele disse: “vou guiar um governo que defenda e proteja os direitos do cidadão que cumpre seus deveres e respeita as leis”. Bolsonaro destacou ainda sua defesa da propriedade privada afirmando que como “o Estado democrático de direito tem como um dos seus pilares o direito de propriedade, reafirmamos aqui o respeito e a defesa desse principio constitucional”. Este recado seria direcionado para todos aqueles e organizações da sociedade civil que não respeitarem as leis e o princípio da propriedade privada.

A paz social será assegurada por um governo democrático, não apenas quando os direitos das pessoas são respeitados, mas quando suas vozes são ouvidas. É pouco provável que seja respeitada esta última condição, sobretudo no atendimento das demandas econômicas, sociais e ambientais da grande maioria da população. As vozes da grande maioria da população não serão ouvidas porque o governo Bolsonaro privilegiará os interesses das elites empresariais ligadas à indústria, ao agronegócio e às finanças, sobretudo dos bancos. Seu futuro ministro da economia, Paulo Guedes, é um fundamentalista do neoliberalismo que, partidário da não intervenção do Estado na atividade econômica, aventou a possibilidade de vender o patrimônio público para reduzir o tamanho da dívida pública e adotar todo o receituário estabelecido pelo Consenso de Washington na década de 1990 que já levou vários países à bancarrota, entre eles o Brasil em 2014. Paulo Guedes admitiu a possibilidade de privatização da Petrobras e da Eletrobras que está enfrentando resistência até mesmo em setores do “staff” de Bolsonaro.

Pode-se afirmar que Bolsonaro só assegurará a paz social no Brasil se seu governo exercer democraticamente seu mandato respeitando a Constituição e as leis, se os poderes constituídos (Executivo, Legislativo e Judiciário) atuarem de forma independente de acordo com a Constituição, se existir liberdade de opinião dos cidadãos e dos meios de comunicação, se existir liberdade religiosa e de associação independente, se existir o exercício transparente da justiça nos processos civis, penais ou de qualquer natureza, se os cidadãos gozarem de direitos e liberdades, se existir a garantia do livre direito do cidadão ao exercício político sem discriminação de credo, raça, religião ou sexualidade, se são respeitados os direitos humanos fundamentais, como o direito à vida, à educação, à habitação e à alimentação para que haja pacífica convivência entre os seres humanos e se são atendidas as demandas econômicas, sociais e ambientais da grande maioria da população.

Não basta o discurso de que será respeitada a Constituição e as leis para que Bolsonaro venha a exercer democraticamente seu governo. O discurso é importante, mas a prática é fundamental. É importante o respeito à Constituição e às leis, mas é fundamental que sejam atendidas, também, as demandas econômicas, sociais e ambientais da sociedade para que a paz social seja alcançada. Vamos aguardar os passos a serem dados pelo futuro governo Bolsonaro para avaliar se ele atenderá ou não as condições apresentadas no parágrafo anterior para viabilizar a construção da paz social no Brasil e evitar que o conflito político dominante na campanha eleitoral não se aprofunde durante o governo Bolsonaro cujas consequências seriam danosas para o futuro do País. Bolsonaro precisa entender que a superação da crise política, econômica e social só ocorrerá desde que haja um diálogo democrático com a grande maioria da sociedade brasileira. Não basta o apoio de 55% do eleitorado obtido nas últimas eleições para Bolsonaro exercer a governabilidade. É preciso o consentimento da grande maioria da população para os atos de seu governo.

*Fernando Alcoforado, 78, detentor da Medalha do Mérito do Sistema CONFEA/CREA, membro da Academia Baiana de Educação, Sócio Benemérito da AEPET- Associação dos Engenheiros da Petrobras, engenheiro e doutor em Planejamento Territorial e Desenvolvimento Regional pela Universidade de Barcelona, professor universitário e consultor nas áreas de planejamento estratégico, planejamento empresarial, planejamento regional e planejamento de sistemas energéticos, é autor dos livros Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017) e Esquerda x Direita e a sua convergência (Associação Bahiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018, em co-autoria).

BOLSONARO AND SOCIAL PEACE IN BRAZIL

Fernando Alcoforado*

In our last article Em defesa da paz social no Brasil (In defense of social peace in Brazil), written before the result of the elections of last October 28, we affirm that “the winner of Brazil’s presidential elections must understand that it will only be able to exercise governability if it builds social peace which is a state of balance and understanding among the inhabitants of the same country, where respect between them is gained by accepting differences and conflicts are resolved through dialogue, people’s rights are respected and their voices are heard, and all are at their highest point of serenity without social tension”. This means that the future Bolsonaro government would have to exercise a democratic government in the light of the common good. The gesture of social peace directed by Jair Bolsonaro to broad sectors of the population, who voted for the adversary, would be the starting point to begin the dialogue with the great majority of the population in the construction of a government program that would serve the interests of Brazilian society. Without social peace with the country deeply divided, no government will be able to overcome Brazil’s gigantic political, economic and social crisis, even if it implements a government of exception.

In his speech after his victory, Bolsonaro said that his government will be a defender of the Constitution, democracy and freedom. Bolsonaro said that “freedom is a fundamental principle, freedom to walk the streets, freedom to come and go everywhere, freedom to undertake, political and religious freedom, freedom to inform and have an opinion, freedom to make choices and be respected by. This is a country of us all, Brazilians born and of heart, Brazil of diverse opinions, colors and orientations”. This manifestation naturally aimed to alleviate its earlier antidemocratic pronouncements that generated the opposition of many Brazilians who do not share their thoughts. In his speech, Bolsonaro affirmed that “there are no Brazilians from the North or Brazilians from the South. We are all one nation, one democratic nation.” This manifestation was to attenuate certainly his negatives comments against Northeasterners who voted massively in Fernando Haddad.

Although he affirmed that he would make a commitment to respect the Constitution and to make a democratic government, Bolsonaro’s speech to the nation after the election results did not wave a gesture of peace to his left-wing opponents when he said that the Brazilians came to integrate “a great army that knew where the country was marching” and that “we could not continue to flirt with socialism, communism, populism and extremism on the left”. Bolsonaro informed in his speech after the victory to which citizens will be directed his future federal administration. He said: “I will lead a government that upholds and protects the rights of the citizen who does his duties and respects the laws”. Bolsonaro also highlighted his defense of private property stating that as “the democratic state of law has as one of its pillars the right to property, we reaffirm here the respect and defense of this constitutional principle”. This message would be directed to all people and organizations of civil society that do not respect the laws and the principle of private property.

Social peace will be ensured by a democratic government, not only when people’s rights are respected, but when their voices are heard. It is unlikely that the latter condition will be respected, especially in meeting the economic, social and environmental demands of the vast majority of the population. The voices of the vast majority of the population will not be heard because the Bolsonaro government will privilege the interests of business elites linked to industry, agribusiness and finance, especially the banks. His future minister of economics, Paulo Guedes, is a fundamentalist of neoliberalism who, partisan of the nonintervention of the State in the economic activity, admitted the possibility of selling public assets to reduce the size of the public debt and adopt all the prescription established by the Washington Consensus in the 1990s that has already led several countries to bankruptcy, among them Brazil in 2014. Paulo Guedes admitted the possibility of privatization of Petrobras and Eletrobras that is facing resistance even in sectors of the staff of Bolsonaro.

It can be said that Bolsonaro will only ensure social peace in Brazil if his government exercises its mandate democratically respecting the Constitution and the laws, if the constituted powers (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary) act independently according to the Constitution, if there is freedom of opinion of citizens and the media, if there is religious freedom and independent association, if there is a transparent exercise of justice in civil, criminal or other proceedings, if citizens enjoy rights and freedoms, if there is a guarantee of the citizen’s free right to political exercise without discrimination of creed, race, religion or sexuality, if fundamental human rights are respected, such as the right to life, education, housing and food for peaceful coexistence among human beings and if the economic, social and environmental demands of the vast majority of the population are met.

It is not enough to say that there will be respected the Constitution and the laws so that Bolsonaro will democratically exercise his government. Speech is important, but practice is key. It is important to respect the Constitution and laws, but it is fundamental that the economic, social and environmental demands of society are also met so that social peace can be achieved. Let us wait for the steps to be taken by the future Bolsonaro government to evaluate whether or not it will meet the conditions presented in the previous paragraph in order to make possible the construction of social peace in Brazil and avoid that the political conflict that dominates the electoral campaign does not deepen during the Bolsonaro administration whose consequences would be damaging to the country’s future. Bolsonaro needs to understand that overcoming the political, economic and social crisis will only take place provided there is a democratic dialogue with the great majority of Brazilian society. Not enough is the support of 55% of the electorate obtained in the last elections for Bolsonaro to exercise the governability. It requires the consent of the vast majority of the population for the acts of his government.

BOLSONARO ET LA PAIX SOCIALE AU BRÉSIL

Fernando Alcoforado*

Dans notre dernier article, intitulé Em defesa da paz social no Brasil (Dans la defense de la paix sociale au Brésil), rédigé avant les résultats des élections du 28 octobre, nous affirmons que« le vainqueur des elections présidentielles au Brésil doit comprendre que il seulement sera capable d’exercer la gouvernabilité si construir la paix sociale qui est un état d’équilibre et la compréhension entre les habitants du même pays, où le respect entre eux est acquis par l’acceptation des différences et les conflits sont résolus par le dialogue, les droits des personnes sont respectés et leurs voix sont entendues, et tous sont à leur plus haut point de sérénité sans tensions sociales”. Cela signifie que le futur gouvernement Bolsonaro devrait exercer un gouvernement démocratique à la lumière du bien commun. Le geste de paix sociale lancé par Jair Bolsonaro à de larges couches de la population ayant voté pour l’adversaire constituerait le point de départ du dialogue avec la grande majorité de la population pour la mise en place d’un programme gouvernemental servant les intérêts de la société brésilienne. Sans paix sociale avec le pays profondément divisé, aucun gouvernement ne sera en mesure de surmonter la gigantesque crise politique, économique et sociale du Brésil, même s’il met en œuvre un gouvernement d’exception.

Dans son discours après sa victoire, Bolsonaro a déclaré que son gouvernement serait un défenseur de la Constitution, de la démocratie et de la liberté. Bolsonaro a déclaré que “la liberté est un principe fondamental, la liberté de marcher dans la rue, la liberté d’aller et de venir partout, la liberté d’entreprendre, la liberté politique et religieuse, la liberté d’informer et d’avoir une opinion, la liberté de choisir et d’être respectée par par eux. C’est un pays de nous tous, Brésiliens nés et de coeur. Brésil de divers opinions, couleurs et orientations”. Dans son discours, Bolsonaro a affirmé qu ‘”il n’y a pas de Brésiliens du Nord ni de Brésiliens du Sud. Nous sommes tous originaires du Brésil, une nation. Une nation démocratique”. Cette manifestaion a eut avec le but de atténuer leur commentaires négatifs contre la population de Nord-Est qui ont voté massivement à Fernando Haddad..

Bien qu’il ait affirmé qu’il s’engagerait à respecter la Constitution et à former un gouvernement démocratique, le discours prononcé par Bolsonaro à la nation après les résultats des élections n’a pas fait un geste de paix aux opposants de gauche lorsqu’il a déclaré que les Brésiliens étaient venus s’intégrer ” une grande armée qui savait où le pays marchait “et qui” ne pouvait continuer à flirter avec le socialisme, le communisme, le populisme et l’extrémisme de gauche”. Bolsonaro a rapporté dans son discours après la victoire à quels citoyens seront dirigés leur future administration fédérale. Il a déclaré: “Je dirigerai un gouvernement qui défend et protège les droits du citoyen qui remplit ses devoirs et respecte les lois”. Bolsonaro a également souligné leur défense de la propriété privée en déclarant que comme “l’état de droit démocratique repose sur le droit de propriété, nous réaffirmons ici le respect et la défense de ce principe constitutionnel”. Ce message serait destiné à toutes les personnes et organisations de la société civile qui ne respectent pas les lois et le principe de la propriété privée.

La paix sociale sera assurée par un gouvernement démocratique, non seulement lorsque les droits des personnes seront respectés, mais aussi lorsque leurs voix seront entendues. Il est peu probable que cette dernière condition soit respectée, notamment pour répondre aux demandes économiques, sociales et environnementales de la grande majorité de la population. Les voix de la grande majorité de la population ne seront pas entendues car le gouvernement Bolsonaro privilégiera les intérêts des élites du monde des affaires liées à l’industrie, l’agroalimentaire et les finances, en particulier les banques. Son futur ministre des Affaires économiques, Paulo Guedes, est un fondamentaliste du néolibéralisme qui, en faveur de la non-intervention de l’État dans l’activité économique, a proposé la possibilité de vendre le patrimoine public afin de réduire la taille de la dette publique et d’adopter toute la politique économique établie par le consensus de Washington dans les années 90 qui a déjà conduit plusieurs pays à la faillite, dont le Brésil en 2014. Paulo Guedes a admis la possibilité de privatisation de Petrobras et d’Eletrobras, qui fait face à des résistances même entre les conseillers du Bolsonaro.

On peut dire que Bolsonaro ne garantira la paix sociale au Brésil que si son gouvernement exerce son mandat démocratiquement dans le respect de la Constitution et des lois, si les pouvoirs constitués (pouvoir exécutif, législatif et judiciaire) agissent de manière indépendante conformément à la Constitution, s’il existe liberté d’opinion des citoyens et des médias, s’il existe une liberté de religion et de association indépendante, s’il existe un exercice transparent de la justice dans les procédures civiles, pénales ou autres, si les citoyens jouissent des droits et des libertés, s’il existe une garantie du libre droit du citoyen à l’exercice politique sans distinction de religion, de race, de religion ou de sexualité, dans le respect des droits fondamentaux de l’homme, tels que le droit à la vie, à l’éducation, au logement et à la nourriture pour la coexistence pacifique des êtres humains et si les exigences économiques, sociales et environnementales de la grande majorité de la population sont satisfaites.

Il ne suffit pas de dire que sera respecté la Constitution et les lois afin que Bolsonaro exerce démocratiquement son gouvernement. La parole est importante, mais la pratique est la clé. Il est important de respecter la Constitution et les lois, mais il est fondamental que les exigences économiques, sociales et environnementales de la société soient également satisfaites afin que la paix sociale puisse être réalisée. Attendons que le futur gouvernement Bolsonaro prenne des mesures pour déterminer s’il répondra ou non aux conditions énoncées au paragraphe précédent afin de permettre la construction de la paix sociale au Brésil et d’éviter que le conflit politique qui a dominé la campagne électorale ne s’aggrave sous l’administration Bolsonaro dont les conséquences seront préjudiciable à l’avenir du pays. Bolsonaro doit comprendre que la crise politique, économique et sociale ne pourra être surmontée à condition qu’il y ait un dialogue démocratique avec la grande majorité de la société brésilienne. Le soutien de 55% de l’électorat obtenu lors des dernières élections pour Bolsonaro est insuffisant pour exercer la gouvernabilité. Cela nécessite le consentement de la grande majorité de la population pour les actes de leur gouvernement.

* Fernando Alcoforado, 78 ans, titulaire de la Médaille du Mérite du système CONFEA / CREA, membre de l’Académie de l’Education de Bahia, ingénieur et docteur en planification territoriale et développement régional pour l’Université de Barcelone, professeur universitaire et consultant dans les domaines de la planification stratégique, planification d’entreprise, planification régionale et planification énergétique, il est l’auteur de 14 ouvrages traitant de questions comme la mondialisation et le développement, l’économie brésilienne, le réchauffement climatique et les changements climatiques, les facteurs qui conditionnent le développement économique et social, l’énergie dans le monde et les grandes révolutions scientifiques, économiques et sociales.

EM DEFESA DA PAZ SOCIAL NO BRASIL

Fernando Alcoforado*

Hoje, 28 de outubro de 2018, estão sendo realizadas eleições presidenciais no Brasil. Diante do clima de confronto entre os adeptos de Jair Bolsonaro e Fernando Haddad que está dividindo a população brasileira e provocando, até mesmo, o rompimento das relações até mesmo entre familiares e amigos, trata-se de uma missão quase impossível construir a paz social no Brasil após o segundo turno das eleições presidenciais qualquer que seja seu vencedor. O vencedor das eleições presidência do Brasil tem que entender que só terá condições de exercer a governabilidade se construir a paz social que é um estado de equilíbrio e entendimento entre os habitantes de um mesmo país, onde o respeito entre eles é adquirido pela aceitação das diferenças e os conflitos são resolvidos através do diálogo, os direitos das pessoas são respeitados e suas vozes são ouvidas, e todos estão em seu ponto mais alto de serenidade sem tensão social.

Um fato é indiscutível: o Brasil é um país dividido politicamente. De um lado, estão os que apoiaram Fernando Haddad e, de outro, estão os que apoiaram Jair Bolsonaro. Sem o gesto de construir a paz social pelo vencedor destas eleições presidenciais, o futuro Presidente da República não adquirirá as condições de governabilidade. Isto significa dizer que nem Bolsonaro nem Haddad adquirirão as condições de governabilidade se não contar com o apoio da grande maioria da população haja vista que seria insuficiente o apoio do Parlamento e das classes economicamente dominantes para alcançar este objetivo. O gesto de paz social dirigido pelo Presidente eleito para amplos setores da população que votaram no adversário possibilitaria obter o respaldo da grande maioria da população. São estas as condições para um governo exercer a Governabilidade que expressa, em síntese, a possibilidade do governo de uma nação realizar políticas públicas com o respaldo do Parlamento, dos setores produtivos e da população. Não haverá governabilidade, portanto, se o futuro Presidente da República contar com o apoio apenas do Parlamento e das classes economicamente dominantes.

A existência das condições de governabilidade é essencial para que o futuro governo supere a crise econômica do Brasil que eclodiu em 2014 e gerou a quebradeira generalizada de empresas, o aumento do desemprego atualmente em um nível extremamente elevado (13 milhões de desempregados) e a piora das condições sociais da população. A paz social é a condição sem a qual o futuro Presidente da República poderá governar o Brasil e promover o progresso social. O progresso social só será levado avante no Brasil desde que exista, também, efetiva Governança que está relacionada com a capacidade financeira e administrativa do governo brasileiro e a competência de seus gestores de praticar políticas públicas. Isto significa dizer que o futuro governo terá que solucionar a crise fiscal para exercer a Governança e resolver os problemas econômicos do Brasil. Governança é a competência dos gestores do governo brasileiro de praticar as decisões tomadas ou, em outras palavras, a capacidade de o Estado brasileiro exercitar seu governo. Governança é transformar o ato governamental em ação pública, articulando as ações do governo em todos os níveis e com a Sociedade Civil. Sem condições de Governabilidade é impossível uma adequada Governança.

O progresso social só será levado avante no Brasil desde que exista efetiva Governabilidade que só será alcançada quando acontece: 1) o relacionamento o mais construtivo possível dos poderes constituídos da República (Executivo, Legislativo e Judiciário) entre si no processo de tomada de decisões; 2) o relacionamento o mais construtivo possível entre os poderes constituídos da República e os governos dos estados componentes da federação brasileira e municipais no processo de tomada de decisões; e, 3) o relacionamento o mais construtivo possível entre os poderes constituídos da República e a Sociedade Civil no processo de tomada de decisões. Governabilidade expressa, em síntese, a possibilidade do governo de uma nação realizar políticas públicas resultantes da convergência entre as várias instâncias do Estado nacional entre si e deste com as organizações da Sociedade Civil. O gesto de paz social do futuro Presidente da República criaria, sem sombra de dúvidas, as condições para a existência das condições de governabilidade. A condição para haver paz social é assegurar em um estado nacional efetiva governabilidade e governança para promover o progresso social que seja compartilhado por toda a população.

A paz social é imprescindível para que o futuro Presidente da República crie as condições para solucionar o problema do desemprego em massa haja vista que falta trabalho hoje para 27,636 milhões de brasileiros de acordo com a Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua trimestral, compilada pelo Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). A solução do desemprego no Brasil depende da reativação da economia brasileira que depende, em grande medida, da solução da crise fiscal que exige a renegociação com os credores visando o alongamento do prazo de pagamento dos encargos com a dívida pública para o governo federal dispor dos recursos necessários aos investimentos públicos, sobretudo em infraestrutura para, em seguida, adotar, de imediato, as medidas descritas a seguir:

Elaboração de programa de obras de infraestrutura econômica (energia, transporte e comunicações) e social (educação, saúde, habitação, saneamento básico e meio ambiente) que demanda recursos da ordem de R$ 2,5 trilhões.
Realização de parceria público/ privada na execução de obras de infraestrutura econômica e social.
Elaboração de programa de desenvolvimento industrial substitutivo de importações e voltado para exportações para reativar a economia brasileira.
Elevação da poupança pública com o aumento da arrecadação pública e a redução dos custos do governo para que disponha de recursos para investir na infraestrutura econômica e social.
Aumento da arrecadação pública com a taxação das grandes fortunas, dos dividendos de pessoas físicas e dos bancos.
Redução dos custos do governo com a eliminação de gastos supérfluos em todos os poderes da República e a redução de órgãos públicos e de pessoal comissionado
Redução drástica das taxas de juros bancárias para incentivar o investimento privado em obras de infraestrutura econômica e social, na indústria e na economia em geral.

Que a paz social prevaleça no Brasil para que o futuro governo adquira condições de governabilidade e possa superar os gigantescos problemas econômicos do Brasil.

IN DEFENSE OF SOCIAL PEACE IN BRAZIL

Fernando Alcoforado*

Today, October 28, 2018, presidential elections are being held in Brazil. Given the climate of confrontation between the supporters of Jair Bolsonaro and Fernando Haddad, who is dividing the Brazilian population and even provoking a rupture of relations even between family and friends, it is a mission almost impossible to build social peace in the Brazil after the second round of presidential elections, regardless of who wins. The presidential election winner of Brazil must understand that it will only be able to exercise governability if it builds the social peace that is a state of balance and understanding among the inhabitants of the same country, where the respect between them is acquired by the acceptance of the differences and conflicts are resolved through dialogue, people’s rights are respected and their voices are heard, and all are at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

One fact is indisputable: Brazil is a politically divided country. On the one hand, there are those who supported Fernando Haddad and, on the other, those who supported Jair Bolsonaro. Without the gesture of building social peace by the winner of these presidential elections, the future President of the Republic will not acquire the conditions of governability. This means that neither Bolsonaro nor Haddad will acquire the conditions of governability unless they have the support of the vast majority of the population, since there will be insufficient support from Parliament and the economically dominant classes to achieve this goal. The social peace gesture directed by the President-elect to broad sectors of the population that voted for the opponent would make it possible to obtain the support of the great majority of the population. These are the conditions for a government to exercise Governance which, in short, expresses the possibility of the government of a nation to carry out public policies with the support of Parliament, the productive sectors and the population. There will be no governability, therefore, if the future President of the Republic has the support of only the Parliament and the economically dominant classes.

The existence of conditions of governance is essential for the future government to overcome the economic crisis in Brazil that broke out in 2014 and generated the general breakdown of companies, the increase in unemployment currently at an extremely high level (13 million unemployed) and the worsening of the population’s social conditions. Social peace is the condition without which the future President of the Republic could govern Brazil and promote social progress. Social progress will only be carried out in Brazil since there is also effective Governance that is related to the financial and administrative capacity of the Brazilian government and the competence of its managers to practice public policies. This means that the future government will have to solve the fiscal crisis to exercise Governance and solve Brazil’s economic problems. Governance is the competence of the managers of the Brazilian government to practice the decisions taken or, in other words, the capacity of the Brazilian State to exercise its government. Governance is to transform the governmental act into public action, articulating the actions of the government at all levels and with Civil Society. Without Governability conditions, an adequate Governance is impossible.

Social progress will only be achieved in Brazil since there is effective Governability that will only be achieved when: 1) the most constructive relationship possible of the constituted powers of the Republic (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary) among each other in the decision-making process; 2) the most constructive relationship possible between the constituted powers of the Republic and the governments of the member states and municipalities of the Brazilian federation in the decision-making process; and 3) the most constructive relationship possible between the constituted powers of the Republic and Civil Society in the decision-making process. Governability expresses, in brief, the possibility of the government of a nation to carry out public policies resulting from the convergence between the various instances of the national State between itself and this with the organizations of Civil Society. The social peace gesture of the future President of the Republic would undoubtedly create the conditions for the existence of conditions of governability. The condition for social peace is to ensure in an effective national state governability and governance to promote social progress that is shared by the entire population.

Social peace is essential for the future President of the Republic to create the conditions to solve the problem of mass unemployment, since there is a lack of work today for 27.636 million Brazilians according to the Quarterly National Household Sample Survey compiled by the Institute Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). The solution to unemployment in Brazil depends on the reactivation of the Brazilian economy, which depends to a great extent on the solution of the fiscal crisis that requires renegotiation with creditors, aiming at lengthening the period of payment of public debt burden for the federal government to dispose of resources necessary for public investments, especially in infrastructure, and then immediately adopt the measures described below:

Elaboration of a program of works on economic infrastructure (energy, transport and communications) and social infrastructure (education, health, housing, basic sanitation and environment) that requires resources of around R$ 2.5 trillion.
Public / private partnership in the execution of economic and social infrastructure works.
Elaboration of an industrial development program that replaces imports and is aimed to raise exports to reactivate the Brazilian economy.
Raising public savings by increasing public revenues and reducing government costs so that it has the resources to invest in economic and social infrastructure.
Increase of the public collection with the taxation of the great fortunes, the dividends of individuals and the banks.
Reduction of government costs with the elimination of superfluous expenses in all the powers of the Republic and the reduction of public agencies and commissioned personnel.
Drastic reduction of bank interest rates to encourage private investment in economic and social infrastructure works, industry and the economy in general.

I hope that social peace prevails in Brazil so that the future government acquires conditions of governability and can overcome the gigantic economic problems of Brazil.

DANS LA DEFENSE DE LA PAIX SOCIALE AU BRESIL

Fernando Alcoforado*

Aujourd’hui, le 28 octobre 2018, les élections présidentielles se tiennent au Brésil. Compte tenu du climat de confrontation entre les partisans de Jair Bolsonaro et Fernando Haddad qui divise la population brésilienne et provoque même la rupture des relations même entre famille et amis, c’est une mission presque impossible construire la paix sociale au Brésil après le second tour de l’élection présidentielle, quel que soit le gagnant. Le vainqueur de l’élection présidentielle brésilienne doit comprendre qu’il ne pourra exercer sa gouvernabilité que s’il instaure la paix sociale qui est un état d’équilibre et de compréhension entre les habitants d’un même pays, où le respect mutuel est acquis, en acceptant les différences et les conflits sont résolus par le dialogue, les droits des personnes respectées, leurs voix entendues et tous sont au plus haut point de sérénité sans tension sociale.

Un fait est incontestable: le Brésil est un pays divisé politiquement. Il y a d’une part ceux qui ont soutenu Fernando Haddad et, d’autre part, ceux qui ont soutenu Jair Bolsonaro. Sans le geste de construction de la paix sociale pour le vainqueur de ces élections présidentielles, le futur président de la République n’acquerra pas les conditions de la gouvernabilité. Cela signifie que ni Bolsonaro ni Haddad n’acqueront les conditions de gouvernabilité s’ils ne bénéficient pas du soutien de la grande majorité de la population, car le soutien du Parlement et des classes économiquement dominantes sera insuffisant pour atteindre cet objectif. Le geste de paix sociale dirigé par le président élu aux larges couches de la population qui ont voté pour l’opposant permettrait d’obtenir le soutien de la grande majorité de la population. Ce sont les conditions nécessaires à un gouvernement pour exercer une gouvernabilité qui, en résumé, exprime la possibilité pour le gouvernement d’un pays d’appliquer des politiques publiques avec l’appui du Parlement, des secteurs productifs et de la population. La gouvernabilité ne sera donc possible que si le futur président de la République n’a que le soutien du Parlement et des classes économiquement dominantes.

L’existence de conditions de gouvernance est essentielle pour permettre au futur gouvernement de surmonter la crise économique qui a éclaté au Brésil en 2014 et qui a entraîné la faillite générale des entreprises, l’augmentation du chômage actuellement à un niveau extrêmement élevé (13 millions de chômeurs) et l’aggravation des conditions sociales de la population. La paix sociale est la condition sans laquelle le futur président de la République peut gouverner le Brésil et promouvoir le progrès social. Le progrès social ne sera réalisé qu’au Brésil car il existe également une gouvernance efficace liée à la capacité financière et administrative du gouvernement brésilien et à la compétence de ses gestionnaires pour la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques. Cela signifie que le futur gouvernement devra résoudre la crise financière pour exercer sa gouvernance et résoudre les problèmes économiques du Brésil. La gouvernance est la compétence des responsables du gouvernement brésilien pour mettre en pratique les décisions prises ou, en d’autres termes, la capacité de l’État brésilien à exercer son gouvernement. La gouvernance consiste à transformer l’acte gouvernemental en action publique, en articulant les actions du gouvernement à tous les niveaux et avec la société civile. Sans conditions de gouvernance, une gouvernance adéquate est impossible.

Le progrès social ne sera réalisé qu’au Brésil car il existe une gouvernance efficace qui ne sera réalisée que lorsque existe: 1) la relation la plus constructive possible entre les pouvoirs constitués de la République (pouvoir exécutif, législatif et judiciaire) entre eux dans le processus décisionnel; 2) la relation la plus constructive possible entre les pouvoirs de la République constitués et les gouvernements des États membres des fédérations brésiliennes et municipales dans le processus décisionnel; et 3) la relation la plus constructive possible entre les pouvoirs constitués de la République et la société civile dans le processus décisionnel. La gouvernabilité exprime, en résumé, la possibilité pour le gouvernement d’une nation de mener des politiques publiques résultant de la convergence des différentes instances de l’État national entre elle-même et celle des organisations de la société civile. Le geste de paix sociale du futur président de la République créerait sans aucun doute les conditions de l’existence de conditions de gouvernabilité. La condition de la paix sociale est d’assurer dans un État national efficace la gouvernabilité et la gouvernance afin de promouvoir le progrès social partagé par l’ensemble de la population.

La paix sociale est essentielle pour que le futur président de la République crée les conditions permettant de résoudre le problème du chômage de masse étant donné qu’il manque actuellement de travail pour 27,636 millions de Brésiliens, selon l’enquête nationale par échantillon de ménage continu trimestriel, établie par l’Institut brésilien de géographie et de statistique (IBGE). La solution au chômage au Brésil dépend de la réactivation de l’économie brésilienne, qui dépend en grande partie de la solution de la crise fiscale qui nécessite une renégociation avec les créanciers, visant à allonger le délai de paiement de la dette publique pour le gouvernement fédéral dispose ressources nécessaires aux investissements publics, en particulier dans les infrastructures, et adopter immédiatement les mesures décrites ci-après:

Élaboration d’un programme de travaux sur les infrastructures économiques (énergie, transports et communications) et les infrastructures sociales (éducation, santé, logement, installations sanitaires de base et environnement) nécessitant des ressources d’environ R$ 2 500 milliards.
Partenariat public / privé dans l’exécution de travaux d’infrastructure économique et sociale.
Élaboration d’un programme de développement industriel qui remplace les importations et vise augmenter les exportations afin de réactiver l’économie brésilienne.
Augmenter l’épargne publique en augmentant les recettes publiques et en réduisant les coûts pour que le gouvernement dispose des ressources nécessaires pour investir dans les infrastructures économiques et sociales.
Augmentation de la collecte publique avec la taxation des grandes fortunes, des dividendes des particuliers et des banques.
Réduction des coûts du gouvernement avec l’élimination des dépenses superflues dans tous les pouvoirs de la République et la réduction des agences publiques et du personnel commandé.
Réduction drastique des taux d’intérêt bancaires afin d’encourager l’investissement privé dans les travaux d’infrastructure économique et sociale, l’industrie et l’économie en général.

J’espère que la paix sociale prévaut au Brésil afin que le futur gouvernement acquière les conditions de la gouvernabilité et puisse surmonter les gigantesques problèmes économiques du Brésil.

NÃO AO FASCISMO VOTANDO EM FERNANDO HADDAD

Fernando Alcoforado*

No primeiro turno das eleições presidenciais, não votei nem em Fernando Haddad, nem em Jair Bolsonaro porque nenhum dos dois teria condições de aglutinar a nação em busca do bem comum e, consequentemente, não reuniria condições de governar promovendo o desenvolvimento do Brasil. Meu voto foi destinado a Ciro Gomes que, além de ter um programa de governo capaz de reativar a economia brasileira, seria capaz de promover a paz social no Brasil. No segundo turno das eleições presidenciais, pensei seriamente em votar nulo porque Bolsonaro tem um programa de governo neoliberal (antissocial e antinacional) e Haddad tem um programa de governo que não contribui para reestruturar a economia brasileira em novas bases. Em outras palavras, nem Haddad nem Bolsonaro apresentam programas de governo capazes de reativar a economia brasileira.

Muito a contragosto, votarei em 28 de outubro em Haddad porque é a última alternativa que existe para evitar a ascensão do neofascista Bolsonaro à Presidência da República que, além de ameaçar as frágeis instituições democráticas existentes no País, acirrará o conflito entre os extremos ideológicos, esquerda e direita, que pode levar o Brasil a uma conflagração social ou a uma guerra civil sem precedentes em sua história da qual pode resultar a implantação de uma ditadura fascista de extrema direita. Votarei a contragosto em Haddad para evitar que, um governo Bolsonaro sepulte a democracia no Brasil e pratique um ato de lesa pátria ao se propor vender todo o patrimônio público com sua política de privatização, fato este que comprometeria o futuro do Brasil.

Votarei a contragosto em Haddad porque desde 2002 sempre fui crítico dos governos do PT haja vista que, nos 13 anos dos governos Lula e Dilma Rousseff, foi dada continuidade à política neoliberal, antissocial e antinacional, dos governos Fernando Collor, Itamar Franco e Fernando Henrique Cardoso seguindo o que estabeleceu o Consenso de Washington na década de 1990. Ao invés de dar continuidade ao processo de desenvolvimento econômico e social do Brasil e de emancipação nacional desencadeados pelos presidentes Getúlio Vargas e João Goulart para a superação da dependência do Brasil ao capital estrangeiro e o fortalecimento dos setores produtivos pertencentes a brasileiros, nos governos do PT, o que se verificou foi o aumento da dependência financeira e tecnológica do Brasil em relação ao exterior, a desindustrialização do País e a desnacionalização da economia brasileira.

Sempre fui crítico aos governos Lula e Dilma Roussef porque eles mantiveram a flexibilização das relações trabalhistas que passou a existir desde o governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso em prejuízo dos trabalhadores e contribuíram para a escalada da corrupção que foi revelada através dos processos do Mensalão e da Operação Lava Jato. Além disso, o desastroso governo Dilma Rousseff contribuiu para a insolvência dos governos federal, estaduais e municipais, a falência generalizada de cerca de metade das empresas de pequeno, médio e grande porte do País e a subutilização da força de trabalho em mais de 27 milhões de trabalhadores em consequência da avassaladora recessão econômica atual que compromete o futuro econômico do Brasil.

Apesar do que acabo de expor de crítica aos governos do PT, votarei em Fernando Haddad para impedir que Bolsonaro implante uma ditadura fascista no Brasil. Em seu último discurso, transmitido por telão em São Paulo, na Avenida Paulista, Bolsonaro disse que seus opositores têm duas opções: “ou vão para fora, ou vão para a cadeia”. Ou seja, ameaça expulsar ou prender aqueles que fizerem oposição ao seu hipotético governo. Ele ameaça o jornal Folha de S. Paulo veículo de imprensa que denunciou seu caixa 2 para disseminar o esquema de fakenews. Desde o início da campanha, bem como ao longo da sua trajetória política nos últimos 28 anos, Bolsonaro dissemina ideias fascistas ao estimular a violência e o ódio, pregando que quem se opõe a ele deve ser exterminado ou “banido”. Não por outro motivo, esta eleição presidencial tem sido marcada por uma agressividade nunca vista em outros períodos eleitorais. Bolsonaro ameaça fechar o Supremo Tribunal Federal conforme afirmação de seu filho parlamentar.

O discurso de Bolsonaro é baseado no culto explícito da ordem, na violência de Estado, em práticas autoritárias de governo, no desprezo social por grupos vulneráveis e fragilizados e no anticomunismo. O perigo Bolsonaro está na opressão, no machismo, na homofobia, no racismo, no ódio aos pobres. O que está em jogo no Brasil no momento atual é, antes de tudo, nosso direito à vida, nosso direito à liberdade de pensamento e de opinião, nosso direito de falar o que pensamos. Está em jogo nessas eleições a preservação da democracia com o conjunto de direitos conquistados após a ditadura militar. Por tudo isto, Bolsonaro precisa ser derrotado nas eleições de 28 de outubro próximo. NÃO AO FASCISMO VOTANDO EM FERNANDO HADDAD!

NOT TO FASCISM VOTING IN FERNANDO HADDAD

Fernando Alcoforado *

In the first round of the presidential elections, I did not vote either in Fernando Haddad or Jair Bolsonaro because neither would be able to unite the nation in search of the common good and, consequently, would not be able to govern promoting the development of Brazil. My vote went to Ciro Gomes who, besides having a government program capable of reactivating the Brazilian economy, would be able to promote social peace in Brazil. In the second round of presidential elections, I seriously thought of voting zero because Bolsonaro has a neoliberal (anti-social and anti-national) government program and Haddad has a government program that does not contribute to restructure the Brazilian economy on new bases. In other words, neither Haddad nor Bolsonaro presented government programs capable of reactivating the Brazilian economy.

Very reluctantly, I will vote on October 28 in Haddad because it is the last alternative that exists to avoid the rise of the neo-fascist Bolsonaro to the Presidency of the Republic that, in addition to threatening the fragile democratic institutions in the country, will intensify the conflict between left and right which could lead Brazil to a social conflagration or to an unprecedented civil war in its history, which could result in the establishment of a far-right fascist dictatorship. I will vote unwillingly in Haddad to prevent a Bolsonaro government from burying democracy in Brazil and committing an act of homeland injury by proposing to sell all of the public assets with its privatization policy, a fact that would compromise the future of Brazil.

I will be unwilling to vote in Haddad because since 2002 I have always been a critic of the PT governments since, in the 13 years of the Lula and Dilma Rousseff governments, the neo-liberal, anti-social and anti-national policies of the Fernando Collor, Itamar Franco and Fernando Henrique Cardoso governments were followed up according the Washington Consensus addopted in the 1990s. Instead of continuing the process of economic and social development in Brazil and of national emancipation triggered by presidents Getúlio Vargas and João Goulart to overcome Brazil’s dependence on foreign capital and the strengthening of the productive sectors belonging to Brazilians in the PT governments, what happened was the increase in Brazil’s financial and technological dependence on the outside world, the de-industrialization of the country and the denationalization of the Brazilian economy.

I have always been critical of the Lula and Dilma Roussef governments because they maintained the flexibilization of labor relations that came into being since the Fernando Henrique Cardoso administration to the detriment of the workers and contributed to the escalation of corruption that was revealed through the processes of the “Mensalão” and “Lava Jato”. In addition, the disastrous government Dilma Rousseff contributed to the insolvency of federal, state and municipal governments, the widespread bankruptcy of about half of the country’s small, medium and large companies and the underutilization of the workforce by more than 27 million of workers as a consequence of the overwhelming current economic recession that compromises Brazil’s economic future.

Despite what I have just criticized the PT governments, I will vote on Fernando Haddad to prevent Bolsonaro from implanting a fascist dictatorship in Brazil. In his last speech, broadcast on Sao Paulo, Avenida Paulista, Bolsonaro said that his opponents have two options: “either they go out of Brazil, or they go to jail.” That is, it threatens to expel or arrest those who oppose its hypothetical government. He threatens the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo press vehicle that denounced its box 2 to disseminate the fakenews scheme. Since the beginning of the campaign, as well as throughout his political trajectory in the last 28 years, Bolsonaro disseminates fascist ideas by stimulating violence and hatred, preaching that those who oppose him should be exterminated or “banished.” Not for other reasons, this presidential election has been marked by an aggression never seen in other electoral periods. Bolsonaro threatens to close the Federal Supreme Court according the assertion of his parliamentary son.

Bolsonaro’s speech is based on the explicit cult of order, state violence, authoritarian government practices, social disregard for vulnerable and fragile groups, and anti-communism. The Bolsonaro danger lies in oppression, machismo, homophobia, racism, hatred of the poor. What is at stake in Brazil at the present moment is, above all, our right to life, our right to freedom of thought and opinion, our right to speak what we think. At stake in these elections is the preservation of democracy with the set of rights conquered after the military dictatorship. For all this, Bolsonaro must be defeated in the October 28 elections. NOT TO FASCISM VOTING IN FERNANDO HADDAD.

PAS AU FASCISME VOTE À FERNANDO HADDAD

Fernando Alcoforado *

Au premier tour de l’élection présidentielle, je n’ai pas voté à Fernando Haddad ni à Jair Bolsonaro, car ils ne pourraient ni unifier la nation à la recherche du bien commun ni, par conséquent, gouverner avec la promotion du développement du Brésil. Mon vote est allé à Ciro Gomes qui, outre un programme gouvernemental capable de réactiver l’économie brésilienne, pourrait promouvoir la paix sociale au Brésil. Au deuxième tour de l’élection présidentielle, j’ai sérieusement pensé voter zéro, car Bolsonaro a un programme gouvernemental néolibéral (antisocial et antinational) et Haddad a un programme gouvernemental qui ne contribue pas à restructurer l’économie brésilienne sur de nouvelles bases. En d’autres termes, ni Haddad ni Bolsonaro n’ont présenté de programmes gouvernementaux capables de réactiver l’économie brésilienne.

À contrecœur, je voterai le 28 octobre à Haddad car c’est la dernière solution pour éviter la montée du néo-fasciste Bolsonaro à la présidence de la République qui, en plus de menacer les institutions démocratiques fragiles du pays, intensifiera le conflit entre gauche et droite qui pourrait conduire le Brésil à une conflagration sociale ou à une guerre civile sans précédent dans son histoire, ce qui pourrait aboutir à l’instauration d’une dictature fasciste d’extrême droite. Je vais voter à Haddad pour empêcher un gouvernement Bolsonaro d’enterrer la démocratie au Brésil et agir de manière préjudiciable aux intérêts nationaux quand il a été proposé de vendre tous les actifs publics avec sa politique de privatisation, un fait qui compromettrait l’avenir du Brésil.

À contrecœur, je voterai le 28 octobre à Haddad car, depuis 2002, j’ai toujours critiqué les gouvernements du PT que, pendant les treize ans des gouvernements Lula et Dilma Rousseff, ont adopté les même politiques néolibérales, antisociales et antinationales, des gouvernements Fernando Collor, Itamar Franco et Fernando Henrique Cardoso à la suite du consensus de Washington des années 1990. Au lieu de poursuivre le processus de développement économique et social au Brésil et de l’émancipation nationale déclenchés par les présidents Getúlio Vargas et João Goulart, afin de mettre un terme à la dépendance du Brésil à l’égard des capitaux étrangers et au renforcement des secteurs productifs appartenant aux Brésiliens, dans les gouvernements des PT, ce qui s’est passé était l’augmentation de la dépendance financière et technologique du Brésil à l’égard du monde extérieur, la désindustrialisation du pays et la dénationalisation de l’économie brésilienne.

J’ai toujours critiqué les gouvernements Lula et Dilma Roussef car ils ont maintenu la flexibilisation des relations de travail instaurée depuis l’administration Fernando Henrique Cardoso au détriment des travailleurs et ont contribué à l’escalade de la corruption révélée par les processus du “Mensalão” et de “Lava Jato”. En outre, le gouvernement désastreux du Dilma Rousseff a contribué à l’insolvabilité des gouvernements fédéral, étatiques et municipaux, à la faillite généralisée d’environ la moitié des petites, moyennes et grandes entreprises du pays et à la sous-utilisation de la main-d’œuvre par plus de 27 millions des travailleurs en raison de la récession économique accablante qui compromet l’avenir économique du Brésil.

Malgré ce que je viens de critiquer les gouvernements des PT, je voterai sur Fernando Haddad pour empêcher Bolsonaro d’implanter une dictature fasciste au Brésil. Dans son dernier discours, diffusé à Sao Paulo, Avenida Paulista, Bolsonaro a déclaré que ses adversaires avaient deux options: “soit ils sortent du Brésil, soit ils vont en prison”. C’est-à-dire qu’il menace d’expulser ou d’arrêter ceux qui s’opposent à son gouvernement hypothétique. Il menace le véhicule de presse, le journal Folha de S. Paulo, qui a dénoncé l’utilisation de ressources interdites par des entreprises pour financer fake news. Depuis le début de la campagne, ainsi que tout au long de sa trajectoire politique au cours des 28 dernières années, Bolsonaro a diffusé les idées fascistes en stimulant la violence et la haine, prêchant que ceux qui s’y opposent lui soient exterminés ou “bannis”. Cette élection présidentielle a été marquée par une agression jamais vue dans d’autres périodes électorales. Bolsonaro Bolsonaro menace de fermer la Cour suprême fédérale d´accord avec l’affirmation de son fils parlementaire..

Le discours de Bolsonaro est basé sur le culte explicite d’ordre, la violence de l’État, les pratiques d’un gouvernement autoritaire, le mépris social pour les groupes vulnérables et fragiles et l’anticommunisme. Le danger de Bolsonaro réside dans l’oppression, le machisme, l’homophobie, le racisme et la haine des pauvres. Au Brésil, ce qui est en jeu à l’heure actuelle, c’est avant tout notre droit à la vie, notre droit à la liberté de pensée et d’opinion, notre droit de dire ce que nous pensons. L’enjeu de ces élections est la préservation de la démocratie avec l’ensemble des droits conquis après la dictature militaire. Pour tout cela, Bolsonaro doit être battu aux élections du 28 octobre. PAS AU FASCISME VOTE À FERNANDO HADDAD.