The New Civil Code Draft: A Dictatorship in the ‘Political Opening’? – Folha de S. Paulo, May 16, 1984

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

We still live—and increasingly so—under the banner of openness. Therefore, comments on current Brazilian affairs often mention this.

‘Openness’ here means the freedom for everyone to think, speak, act, move freely, and do more or less whatever they want; a freedom that constantly expands and therefore has no clear limits.

Many believed that once this freedom was established, everything in the country would be heading toward resolution. They overlooked that liberalizations without clear boundaries neither create nor strengthen true freedom. Since they tend to allow everyone to do whatever they want, these liberalizations can actually lead to chaos, and eventually to an even worse dictatorship.

In fact, undefined liberalization inevitably turns chaotic, and gradually, a terrible enemy emerges before them. This enemy is an unwritten law, not created through legislation, but painfully real, howling, originating from the very essence of reality. It rules over mindsets and customs, then all human interactions. It is the law of the jungle. As long as the open chokepoint of indefinite liberalization remains unchecked, everyone must submit to this primary, crude, simple, and savage law, which is inherently anarchic.

The need for an “anti-jungle” law thus arises. But once they accept it, experience shows that, in our time, we tend to fall again into a kind of dictatorship that also becomes anarchic in its own way. It is the dictatorship of the strongest, in Velasco Alvarado’s style. It matters little whether the dictatorship is technical, bureaucratic, civil, or military. In the name of the principle of authority, the law of force enforces the same reforms that the spirit of disorder and revolt had failed to impose.

* * *

I thought of this after reading the news that, after nine long years of deliberation, the House of Representatives approved the bill for the new Civil Code in just 3 minutes with a symbolic vote from the leadership and only 34 congressmen present in the plenary (Folha de S. Paulo, May 10, 1984). Many of the 1,063 amendments were not even debated. And off went the future Civil Code, to sail calmer seas in the Senate, naturally expecting a surprisingly quick approval.

Reforming the Civil Code can greatly affect many citizens’ lives. This code governs most aspects of daily life. It addresses topics like people, property, obligations, succession, and other areas.

But the people—kept unaware of what is happening—will be forced to accept this enormous change without ever participating in the debates that created it. They will have been, in this case, the great blind ones, because the lack of news prevented them from seeing where they were being led. And when they finally open their eyes, they will find that the old and familiar Bevilacqua Code has been taken away from them, and that they have been pushed into a straitjacket—the new Code—in which they will soon feel painfully uncomfortable.

So, the legislative institution is being manipulated dictatorially on a matter of the utmost gravity, in this ‘political opening’ that was supposed to be entirely different.

Is this a genuine opening? Or just trickery to make people accept what a minority desires, while falsely believing they are in control?

And the naive, well-meaning people keep repeating mechanically: freedom! freedom! freedom!

In this maze of inconsistencies, the question will inevitably cross every serious person’s mind: how can I escape it?

Right now, everyone with a voice and a role on the national stage needs to review the draft Civil Code. Each person should read it and engage in widespread, open debate with others about every point where opinions differ. They should become more passionate than fans at a soccer game—strong advocates for or against this change, which the public is unaware of. Then the entire nation should decide. This is what the principle of openness requires.

Will this align with the much more confused and convoluted logic of so many politicians, clergymen, businessmen, and socialites? I fear not. All these notable figures, whether consciously or not, keep doing everything they can to bring about their own downfall, and the new Code will be a powerful tool for that.

Lack of space prevents me from continuing. Here I stand, observing all these signs of self-destruction. I plan to analyze them in a future article. I will use Engels, Marx’s sinister friend, and Cardinal Avelar Brandão, the pompous archbishop-primate of Salvador, as my tools of analysis.

My readers, who are so generous with their praise and patient in reading my work, will not be disappointed.