Even This Has Happened – Folha de S. Paulo, February 27, 1985

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

At the old Law School on São Francisco Square, where I graduated, it was fashionable for professors to describe themselves as eclectic. When addressing major questions, a professor would display his modernity by first parading the various juridical schools of thought, only to end by disagreeing with all of them and, in a conciliatory flourish, extracting a fragment from one and a nuance from another to construct his own position. “We are eclectic,” he would explain with a certain smugness, confident that this declaration would win the approval of the students most “in tune with the times.”

Having always been averse to solutions that are convenient yet incongruous, counterproductive, or simply bland (with rare exceptions), I was certainly never among such students.

I can testify that I have never been eclectic in any way or from any perspective when prompted to take a stand on that failed optimistic eclecticism.

I recall this to explain the surprise I recently felt after reading a news report published by Folha de S. Paulo (February 17, 1985) about a disagreement between the CNBB leadership and high-ranking prelates such as Cardinal Archbishop of São Paulo, Paulo Evaristo Arns, Most Rev. Karl Joseph Romer, auxiliary bishop of Rio de Janeiro, and others regarding the possible convening of a Constituent Assembly.

In a statement officially communicated to President‑elect Tancredo Neves, the CNBB declared its intention to convene such a Constituent Assembly without delay. The Cardinal of São Paulo, however, pointed out a serious drawback in this proposal: it would divert public attention toward political matters and thereby postpone the resolution of more urgent socioeconomic problems. For this reason, he argued, the Constituent Assembly should be deferred until after the implementation of socioeconomic reforms. Reforms which—if preceded by the long and thorough public debates required by the democratic principles of the regime, then subjected to the inherently slow legislative process in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and finally carried out across the country—would inevitably push the convening of the Constituent Assembly, so eagerly desired by the CNBB, into the mists of an indefinite future.

Furthermore, another point of disagreement arises. The CNBB’s statement discusses implementing a comprehensive voting system where influential organizations could heavily interfere in the electoral process, competing with political parties for influence. The CNBB seems to overlook that this also slows down and significantly delays the convening of the Constituent Assembly, which it strongly desires.

On this point, the Cardinal of São Paulo seems more consistent. He also supports the electoral involvement of non-partisan organizations, but he is not concerned about the potential delay of the Constituent Assembly.

Faced with all this, I felt eclectic for the first time in my life. And so I am here, pondering—just like my mentors of yesteryear—a middle-of-the-road solution!

To ensure that issues of such magnitude as these so-called reforms can be debated with the democratic legitimacy that is the core of the regime, I propose a third solution. I find the direct participation of social groups in the electoral process—employers, workers, cultural organizations, and others—alongside political parties highly appealing, and possibly even more impactful than the latter.

After a thorough, courteous, and comprehensive debate on these reforms, why shouldn’t Congress (whether it’s renewed or not, that doesn’t really matter) draft two or three alternative proposals for each reform? These proposals would reflect the most significant trends arising from the discussions. The electorate, gathered for a broad referendum, would then choose from them.

This would simplify everything and, strictly speaking, should please the most radical democrats. Could there be a more democratic solution?

This would also satisfy even the most perceptive opponents of these reforms. For they must acknowledge that, in our beloved country, socialism and communism find their strongest supporters not among the masses, but within the comfortable clubs of the so-called “toads,” in the sacristies of liberation theologians like Friar Boff, and in the small university and journalistic circles eager to adopt leftist ideology.

To satisfy the extremes from an eclectic perspective—what a unique aspect of my extensive resume.

Contemporary chaos is so complete that even this has happened.