by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
In my recent book, Draft Constitution Anguishes the Country (Vera Cruz Publishers, São Paulo, 1987, 209 pp.), I highlighted the deeply non‑ideological and even non‑programmatic nature of nearly all the candidates who sought the electorate’s support in the November 15, 1986, election. This lack of guidance deprived our Constituent Assembly of any clear direction, whether doctrinal or practical. And, ipso facto, it deprived it of the capacity to furnish the country with a coherent, clear, and succinct Magna Carta capable of effectively addressing national issues.
A Constituent Assembly bereft of principles and direction can do nothing but grope blindly amid the sinister whirlwind of moral, cultural, political, social, and economic problems that beset us in the sooty gloom of the contemporary national environment.
Such an assembly, elected based on personal preferences often driven by nothing more than a candidate’s appearance on a flashy poster or their entertainment skills as actors, dancers, or other performers, inevitably stumbles like a blind person across the slippery terrain of poorly framed problems, debated in haste and resolved even more poorly.
Many constituents are not lacking in culture, experience, or even boldness. But what good is this to them if they find themselves minorities among colleagues — often friendly and well-meaning — who remain ignorant of everything that only political practice can teach?
Our Lord Jesus Christ said: “If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit” (Mt. 15:14).
This is largely the cause of the uncertainties Brazil currently faces. In fact, it’s not only the Constituent Assembly but the entire nation that is caught up in this confusion. When we look at the economic and financial issues, the lack of thoroughly documented and clearly analyzed data is obvious — and without such data, the “man on the street” in this struggling democracy cannot even determine what he wants or does not want.
Thus, the news reports on the successive alternatives proposed to solve these problems give the “man on the street” — myself included, for I count myself among them in economic and financial matters — the impression that the debates, or the shenanigans unfolding behind the scenes of our public life, are nothing more than sleight-of-hand sessions.
In other words, a general tension develops as experience dismisses various suggestions touted as “miraculous.” And from this tension, one, two, or three “geniuses” emerge with new solutions — as far-fetched and implausible as pulling a rabbit out of a hat, or an egg out of a mechanical pencil.
This is what happens, for example, with state-owned enterprises. Occasionally, a rumor emerges that the government is considering vaguely defined measures on the issue, with a promised implementation date that is equally unclear. Then, a scandal or crisis related to something entirely different suddenly erupts on the public stage as a shocking revelation. Immediately, everyone forgets about the state-owned enterprises, and they continue to suffer for a little longer — even though almost everyone wants them privatized. As a result, the public waits, caught somewhere between anxiety and indifference, for a magician to fix the problem.
All this considered, it is clear that the problem is not limited to Brazil. It arises from a powerful and entirely relativistic trend that now influences public opinion across the West.
Indeed, the threat of a new world war has become even more ominous than previous ones, due to the tragic progress made in the art of killing. This has had a devastating impact on humanity. Instead of viewing debates over ideas as a skillful and open-minded contest of knowledge and culture — where parties seek to discover the truth — cultural or technical debates are now seen, in our times, as dangerous sparks that could ignite passionate conflicts. These conflicts, in turn, may lead to international confrontations, potentially resulting in war. Out of fear, today’s unwavering pacifists harshly criticize polemicists with broad condemnation: “Do you not remember the intransigence of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin?”
In this view, all controversy must be silenced. When someone responds to a pacifist by saying, “And do you not remember men even more responsible for the wars — for they were symbols of capitulation and failure — such as Chamberlain and Daladier?”, the pacifist quickly changes the subject. However, it is clear that, deep down, this duo of failure aligns with his ideal. And he does not even consider the memory of men like Churchill and De Gaulle — who were strong polemicists without fanaticism.
Relativism is the magic formula of contemporary “neo‑Chamberlainism” or “neo‑Daladierism.” For its supporters, all truths and errors are relative; any absolute statement is dismissed as fanaticism. Truth lies always and only in the middle ground — that is, in a compromise among all opinions, no matter how diverse or contradictory they may seem.
When certainties disappear, intellectual activity loses its natural purpose, and lethargy takes over public opinion — the lethargy of pacifists at any cost, which Churchill described as: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
Let’s revisit the Constituent Assembly. Isn’t this the mindset that explains the collapse of our heavily concessive Centrão?[1]
[1] The term Centrão was coined during the drafting of the 1988 Constitution. The Centrão is not an ideological current, nor a centrist movement, but a fluid bloc of parties and parliamentarians whose primary objective is proximity to the Executive in exchange for patronage, positions, and control of budgetary resources (Wikipedia).