The Inauthenticity of a Constituent Assembly Without a Plebiscite – Folha de S. Paulo, June 20, 1986

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

It has occurred to me more than once that there is a connection—often overlooked by Brazilians—between two very current issues: Agrarian Reform and the Constituent Assembly. When I mention this link to Folha’s readers, I do so mainly with the upcoming Constituent Assembly in mind. My goal is to help preserve what is most essential and noble about it: its authenticity. Let me explain.

1. Representation in Today’s Democracy – From the perspective of representative democracy inherent in the “Opening,” electing a Constituent Assembly must be viewed as the act through which the nation designates its legitimate spokespeople for its ideas and intentions regarding the direction to be taken, as well as the solutions to major national problems.

This electoral choice’s representativeness is essential for the system to be considered representative, a title that the vast majority takes pride in.

Just as inherent in all forms of representation—such as a power of attorney that one individual grants to another—this collective and fundamentally political representation of the electorate is valid specifically because of its authenticity. An inauthentic power of attorney can only be described as erroneous, false, or fraudulent. Similarly, an inauthentic Constituent Assembly can only be called false, null, or usurping.

This statement might sound blunt, but that’s where logic clearly leads.

2. An Inauthentic Constituent Assembly and Constitution? The Electoral Debate – For an election to be genuine (and thus for the Constituent Assembly and the Constitution to be authentic as well), the views expressed by voters must also be genuine. That is, each vote must reflect the sincere and deeply held beliefs of the person who cast it.

In other words, the electorate must have had every opportunity to understand all aspects of the issues that the electoral debate will highlight. And the judgments and intentions formed by voters, based on this information, must genuinely reflect the deep feelings and thoughts of the nation.

Could this not happen? How?

3. An inauthentic electoral debate leads to inauthentic elections, an inauthentic Constituent Assembly, and an inauthentic Constitution in many ways. For example, it distorts public debates before the election.

Such debates are crucial for voters to make informed and genuine choices. On the one hand, they let voters broaden their perspectives by comparing their beliefs and arguments with those of people with different views. This helps them better understand the issues they need to take a stand on.

This highlights the overused phrases “freedom of thought” and “freedom of opinion.” These related principles have, been linked to mistaken meanings throughout history. Examples include Luther’s free inquiry and the unchecked liberalism of the French Revolution. However, when understood in a way that aligns with Christian prudence, they are clearly essential for genuine pre-election discussions and, therefore, for the true representativeness of election results.

4. Agrarian Reform and the Constituent Assembly – These varied and carefully laid preliminary steps enable us to thoroughly analyze the connections between Agrarian Reform and the Constituent Assembly.

A quick word about the former.

Considering that the Agrarian Reform project involves a nearly complete overhaul of the country’s rural land distribution and paves the way for a fully egalitarian society in the countryside, I believe that, since Independence, Brazil has never faced a transformation of such profound socioeconomic impact. Not even the Abolition, the Proclamation of the Republic, the 1930 Revolution—with the subsequent political decline of the rural aristocracy—nor the industrial revolution, which moved forward so rapidly under the Getúlio Vargas administration, caused an upheaval of this scale. Nor, for that matter, did the 1964 coup.

I therefore find it completely incompatible with the spirit of the Opening that the Executive should undertake such a major reform when we are only a few months away from electing the Constituent Assembly. It would be natural, on such a significant issue, for decisions to be made directly by the people, not by a Legislature that merely represents them, with the flaws and shortcomings inherent in all human endeavors, especially in politics. How can one fail to consult the Nation on Agrarian Reform directly and beforehand when such a natural opportunity arises for this?

5. Is the “Opening” continuing Jango’s legacy? On the contrary, the government is acting tyrannically by trying to impose the Agrarian Reform enacted by the military regime ex auctoritate propria just before a major election.

Because the military regime’s Land Statute was influenced by Jango’s pro-land reform plans, the Agrarian Reform of the Opening is Jangoist. Which, positively speaking, was not what was expected of it.

6. Agrarian Reform: A “Gun Barrel” Pointed at the Farmer’s Forehead – I just discussed the pre-election debate and the essential freedom for its genuine success. Now, I will connect this to the theme of agrarian reform.

Throughout the pre-election period, Brazil’s farmers—whether directly or indirectly exposed to the fear of confiscation—have found themselves, by default, with the psychological “gun barrel” of expropriation for a pittance pressed against their foreheads.

Therefore, those opposing the Agrarian Reform plan face a higher risk of confiscatory expropriation than anyone else.

So, what is left for them in terms of free participation in the electoral debate? The question would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

7. Land invasions — a referendum in favor of the farmers. It turns out that this group holds much greater electoral influence than just the total number of votes cast by all farmers and their families. In reality, taken together, the land invasions have served as a clear referendum against Agrarian Reform. Most, if not all, of the invasions reported by the press originate from actions by outside agitators — almost never from the revolt of settlers or day laborers working on the farms. This fact demonstrates, with striking clarity, that harmony generally exists between these workers and the farmers. Therefore, the natural and traditional influence of the latter remains strong.

It is only natural that large numbers of Brazilian farmers would feel constrained, stifled, and threatened if, during the electoral debate, they are not free to propose and advocate for the abolition by the Constituent Assembly of Agrarian Reform, the Land Statute, and the National Agrarian Reform Program.

Now, Agrarian Reform—the inevitable precursor to Urban and Corporate Reforms—is the main issue in Brazil today. If it remains on the sidelines of the electoral debate, or if, when it is discussed, rural Brazil cannot speak freely without the threat of confiscation hanging over it, how genuine will the upcoming election be and what will the resulting Constitution look like?

8. A Request to President Sarney – To prevent this shadow from threatening the future Constitution, I request that, in a liberal gesture (in the word’s somewhat archaic but clear and positive sense), President Sarney:

a) Immediately suspend the confiscations authorized by the military regime’s Land Statute and in the National Agrarian Reform Plan approved by Your Excellency, allowing both farmers and rural workers to engage in open debate on Agrarian Reform. This suspension should remain in effect until the Constituent Assembly discusses the issue.

b) To further ensure the popular legitimacy of whatever the Constituent Assembly decides regarding Agrarian Reform, immediately after such a decision (and while the Constituent Assembly continues to analyze other issues), the Government should call a plebiscite to directly ask the nation whether it agrees with what has been decided by its representatives.

A referendum held right after passing important laws is a measure supported by many constitutional scholars and used by countries with political systems similar to Brazil’s “Opening,” such as Switzerland.

Under these circumstances, if the confiscatory Agrarian Reform plan is approved by referendum — in violation of the Seventh and Tenth Commandments of God’s Law, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods” — and if it causes irreparable social and economic damage to our homeland, then at least President Sarney will not face History alone bearing the terrible responsibility for this catastrophe. And his stance will be met with admiration, at least by those who believe that the will of the people outweighs even the Law of God.