by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
In the controversy surrounding the subject of this article, my voice naturally has a right-wing tone. I have always taken pride in identifying as a man of the right, ever since my student days in the distant 1930s. And today, as president of the TFP National Council, I continue to affirm myself as a categorical and avowed right-winger — which, of course, does not mean radicalism in the pejorative sense that the left and its disciplined “fellow travelers” in the center often associate with the term.
Readers without a clear doctrinal stance will likely see the views of Mr. Jair Meneguelli, CUT’s national president, as the most “impartial,” even though they are heavily and undeniably influenced by left-wing ideology.[1] CUT’s aggressive platform openly advocates for the expropriation of “idle” private property. Mr. Meneguelli shows no concern whatsoever for the opinions of Professors Silvio Rodrigues of the São Paulo Law School and Orlando Gomes of the Salvador Law School — opinions already circulated by the TFP to about eighty Brazilian newspapers. This distribution was carried out by the organization I lead at the request of a distinguished lawyer and farmer from Montes Claros (MG), Dr. Osmar Peres Caldeira.
In these legal opinions, both experts demonstrated that the current invasions are a clear violation of the Civil Code. As a result, they clearly stated that farmers, when abandoned by the proper law enforcement authorities, have the right to defend their properties against intruders, even with armed force.
Mr. J. Meneguelli has political ties to Lula. I’ve been told he even calls himself a disciple of the PT president. Indeed, Mr. Meneguelli stated that “the occupation of idle lands… is part of PT’s and CUT’s platform, and we will fight to achieve it at all costs” (O Estado de S. Paulo, July 11, 1986).
What did the PT president, Mr. Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, have to say about this issue? He stated that the CUT Executive Committee’s proposal for landless farmers to occupy unproductive areas is a move to be praised, “because the land must serve to meet the needs of all of society” (Folha de S. Paulo, July 8, 1986) and also, “it may serve as a wake-up call for the government to focus on its land reform policy” (Jornal da Tarde, July 8, 1986).
Therefore, the PT president advocates for the widespread use of violence anywhere in the country to unlawfully compel the government to implement agrarian policies aligned with the ideological views of the CUT and the Workers’ Party.
In this regard, I find the brilliant aside in Folha de S. Paulo (July 23, 1986), in response to the CUT’s statement: “What democratic regime, what rule of law can tolerate such behavior?” beyond reproach.
As far as we have observed, Mr. Luís Inácio Lula da Silva not only tolerates it but also endorses it.
That said, how can anyone deny that the PT is undermining the political and social institutions of the regime that arose from the political opening?
Apparently, people close to Lula are whispering that this statement, like others of its kind, was driven by internal pressures within the PT and does not genuinely reflect their leader’s thinking.
But if the PT contains within its ranks forces so powerful that they can impose a left-wing stance on the party leader, astonishingly destructive to the rule of law, what conclusion can be drawn except that the party permits itself to be tyrannized by these troublesome “fellow travelers,” who force it to serve as an instrument of agrarian disorder and general destabilization?
One reaches the same conclusion when recalling the terrorists who carried out a violent attack on a Banco do Brasil branch in Bahia and declared themselves members of a PT faction that advocates armed struggle in Brazil. Or when considering the uncomfortable position in which prominent PT members found themselves after the assault carried out by strike picketers who used force to prevent rural workers in Leme from exercising their fundamental right to work and provide for themselves and their families.
[*] PT: Workers’ Party
[1] CUT: Central Única dos Trabalhadores (Unified Workers’ Central).