A Warning to the Indolent – Folha de S. Paulo, May 8, 1989

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

I frequently receive feedback from across the country about the well-loved — and sometimes much-hated — organization whose National Council I have the honor of presiding over: the TFP.

Indeed, the TFP is constantly in the spotlight: sometimes in many media outlets eager to mention it to discredit it at the slightest pretext; other times, catching the attention of the general public, drawn in by one of our major campaigns or publications.

A recent event aptly illustrates the TFP’s perennial relevance. In 1987, as the work of the Constituent Assembly reached its climax, the TFP published the book Draft Constitution Anguishes the Country (Vera Cruz Publishing, 209 pp.), which I authored. In nineteen days, public sales averaged 1,083 copies per day. I am unaware of any work of this nature achieving such rapid sales in the São Paulo metropolitan area. The public of our city thus showed itself eager to learn the TFP’s views on the future Constitution. As for total sales nationwide, the book reached 73,000 copies across three editions.

The eagerness to know the TFP’s opinion is evident even in the present political imbroglio, at a moment when yet another great unknown looms before the eyes of the nation. From all quarters, we are asked — with touching confidence — who would be the most desirable candidate in the next presidential election, or rather, who is the least undesirable. At times, the same question is turned against us with an intimidating tone: “What acceptable candidate does the TFP propose?” And if it has none, what solution does it envision to pull the country out of the dangerous chaos into which it seems to be sinking?

Yesterday’s hopeful political ‘opening’ has led us to today’s serious turn of events. What actions should be taken now?

To answer this, I will immediately highlight several aspects of the current situation.

In Draft Constitution Anguishes the Country, I noted (pp. 23 and 45) the profound lack of national representativeness among our political leaders. This deficiency became even more evident throughout 1987 and 1988, during the constitutional debates that culminated in this sad Constitution. Almost everything in it caused distress across Brazil. I say almost to exclude one or two measures that satisfied the vast majority of the nation. One example was the repeal of the ‘entrenched clause,’ which, since the 1891 Constitution, had absurdly prohibited pro‑monarchy campaigns while granting complete freedom to communist propaganda. This repeal followed a moving letter addressed to the members of the Constituent Assembly by the head of the Brazilian Imperial House, Prince Luiz of Orleans‑Braganza.

In the same vein, Representative Cunha Bueno’s initiative to call for a plebiscite — which, in 1993, will allow the country to vote for or against the monarchy, as well as the parliamentary system — was a notable victory.

In view of the upcoming presidential election, the first three major candidates to emerge were notoriously — and even shockingly — left‑wing.

This explains why countless Brazilians are grimacing, or even looking grim, at the idea of having strictly partisan teams, under the strong influence of the left, choose party leaders as candidates.

This situation has persisted for a long time and was already discussed in the aforementioned TFP book (pp. 23 and 45). That work also pointed out that Brazil would find no solution (pp. 23–25) unless an elite, non-partisan leadership emerges from the country’s non-political sectors, selecting similarly non-political figures to fill many government roles, with the Presidency at the top.

Thus, the crucial November 15 nears, without an apolitical Brazil seizing the chance to organize itself and refresh the stifling atmosphere of our civic life.

What solution, then, does the TFP propose? Should the country turn to the leadership of the major professional associations? The TFP will not make such a proposal. During the debates of the Constituent Assembly, the professional leaders who spoke largely did so in ways that supported the left-leaning tendencies of the plenary — tendencies that were already growing more extreme. When they did not do so, they distinguished themselves by practicing the disastrous policy of ‘yielding some so as not to lose all,’ that is, giving up too much in the hope of avoiding total defeat. And when they did neither, they stayed silent.

The TFP sees only one way to resolve the current deadlock. It is for all Brazilians who understand the serious situation to come together without delay, initially by organizing in small groups of like-minded citizens to develop solutions for the country’s civic issues. These groups should then unite into larger coalitions based on a clear program and specific, actionable steps.

Within such ranks, it is only natural for the most distinguished individuals to rise to prominence because of their intellectual and moral qualities and the influence they have over those walking with them along the same path. From these quarters, at last, will emerge broad, strong, and well-balanced candidates—men capable of embodying the hopes of genuine Brazil. And then, instead of the inglorious ritual of choosing “the least bad,” we may finally select the best.

Some will argue that the remedy proposed by the TFP is very good, but that the country has fallen into an insurmountable sleep. Therefore, such a solution is nothing more than a utopia.

The TFP firmly rejects labeling the only viable option it sees for the current situation as utopian. To call this path a utopia would be to give up the hope that any solution might still be found amid the chaos of the most severe economic, political, social, and ideological crisis in our history.

But—some will object—what if the roadmap laid out by the TFP fails to spark real action from those who, in theory, agree with it, and only ends up provoking hostility from those who oppose it? In that case, they ask, how will Brazil free itself from this predicament?

As we mentioned, we refuse to consider that possibility. However, if we were to entertain it for the sake of argument, how would the TFP save Brazil?

There is only one answer to this question.

If the large and beloved population of a country of 140 million people, facing a serious and obvious crisis, remains apathetic and silent, completely unwilling to take action to save itself, who in this world would have the ingenuity to save this nation? Not even God will save those who do not wish to save themselves, as St. Augustine warned: “Qui creavit te sine te, non salvabit te sine te” (He who created you without your cooperation will not save you unless you act to bring it about).

I now shift my focus from this bleak scene to make an offer. If the TFP’s mediation can help unify capable but apolitical Brazilians, it offers its services for that purpose.

If anyone objects that they do not want to use our services because we are too firm in our thinking and actions, our answer is simple: then keep sleeping. Or, if you prefer, surrender to those whose goal is indecision and whose constant habit is sleep. When election day comes, pick once more the “lesser evil.” And after that, your candidate—if he wins—will ultimately hand you over, tied up and helpless, to communism. Then let it consume you.

But do not accuse the TFP of failing to provide your beloved homeland with a calm, peaceful, and very sensible solution.

Have you lost your way despite everything?

The blame, O indolent one, will fall on you alone…