Retorne ao site institucional

Arestas do Brasil / Edges of Brazil

Trivialisation of the whatever

Bruno Peron, 31 March 2017

  • Compartilhe no Twitter
  • Compartilhe no Facebook
  • Compartilhe no Google+
  • Compartilhe no LinkedIn

The floppy rope is vulnerable to breaking because each side of it pushes hard with their opposed forces, contrary opinions and antagonistic wills. The form this rope is manipulated may be a measure of democratic maturity. Ideological maladjustments threaten the integrity of political institutions in Brazil, where the debate between more State and less State has reached the highest temperature of all times. Yet, some frequently support their points of view with the defeat or disqualification of those who think differently. One may like red colour, but not without condemning those who like blue as selfish and “coxinhas”.

At this delicate moment of Brazil’s historical evolution, there is need to soften the dialogue between those who diverge in their opinions. On the contrary, Brazil would assume the risk of collapse of its political institutions, since their discredit has already reached a high level. Judges struggle with deputies, attorneys of the Republic discuss with senators. Brazilians should elevate their level of instruction to decide collectively what is best for the country. This civic stance should be adopted with willingness to hear, study and talk. Politics knocks at our doors with more intensity than in any other moment and invites us to inclusion as citizens. We have to take positions.

The antagonism between more or less State disturbs the thoughts of Brazilians of many ages: since a young person who applies for a public tender until an old person who does not know anymore how much longer it will take for him or her to retire. There is also involvement of interest conflicts in legislative power, from where a decision has emerged to oust the legitimate president Dilma Rousseff. This happened in favour of an unlawful group of politicians who differ ideologically. It shows that politics has wide possibilities for obtaining results.

What is not healthy in the progress of the Brazilian carriage is the excess of financial responsibilities of the State. My main criticism is directed to the caste of civil servants who feel they are life creditors of favours coming from the State, independently of what the relevance of their social role is. They want to soak up without any concern with the swelling of the State, which must increase its sources for collecting money to sustain those who live at the expense of Brazilian workers’ sweat. The learning in Brazil is either to suck public money with job stability or to make that “collaborators” of a private business work hard so that their bosses can live with dignity. Having its method nothing new, the State taxes each drop of sweat from those who really work. In addition, it has decided recently to charge taxes, for social security purposes, even from the waiters’ tips (the ones known as the “ten per cent” in restaurant bills).

Dear reader, my opinion is favourable to the reduction of the size of the State and of public expenditure in Brazil. Only this way the salary of proletarians (those who sell their manpower) would increase from monthly R$1300 to R$2000. Moreover, each one would have the freedom to choose how to spend their money. Today the State bytes almost half of the salary of every honest worker and deludes him by justifying that such elevated charging has positive returns in public services. That is: sick people abandoned in hospital corridors, bumpy streets and avenues, noise and visual pollution, insecurity and violence increase.

With all this, tolerance of those who think differently is a noble starting point. Thus, it is necessary to take part more intensely in the facts and the ideas that have redesigned Brazil. My suggestion is to reduce the State’s expenditure where there is no clarity that its resources are being used without deviations or waste. It is urgent to motivate Brazilians’ creativity. I do not see, for this purpose, better solution than the free and private initiative, without the State’s censorship and heavy supervision. It is much more productive to let people create and invent their businesses, as more advanced countries normally do.

The trivialisation of the whatever suffocates our potential for progress.