The 1988 Constitution and the far right’s rise in Brazil

Pedro was going to the Bakery, when a young man holding a clipboard, approached him and said:

— Hello, Sir, How are you? Would you like participate on a poll? — asked the young man.

— About what? — answered Pedro.

— Your political opinions.

— I could. How is it?

— I will state some quotes and tell your opinion and me if you agree.

— All right. You may begin.

— What’s your name?

— Pedro dos Santos.

— Mister Santos, let’s begin. Brazil must has as fundamental objectives:  to build a free, just and solidary society; to guarantee national development; to eradicate poverty and substandard living conditions and to reduce social and regional inequalities; to promote the well-being of all, without prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age and any other forms of discrimination.

— Honestly, that is not a good start. It sounds like what a pothead human sciences student would say. And reducing regional inequalities? Enough with carrying the Northeast on our backs.

— Ok, Sir. Next one then: Brazil must has as its foundation the dignity of the human person and shall be governed by the prevalence of human rights in its international relations.

— Humans rights and dignity only for those who have dignity at the first place; not the case of criminals.

– Wrote it down. Another one: Brazil shall seek the economic, political, social and cultural integration of the peoples of Latin America, viewing the formation of a Latin-American community of nations.

— God forbid! This is Bolivarianism. They want to dominate Latin America.

— Got it. This one now: men and women must have equal rights and duties and it must exist a prohibition of any difference in wages, in the performance of duties and in hiring criteria because of sex, age, color or marital status.

— I think it is mostly fair. However, there are things that cannot be the same. Women get pregnant, you know? How can I criticize an employer who pays less to a newly wed woman? What if she gets knocked up? The boss will pay the price? Unfair.

— I see…. No one no one shall be submitted to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment

— Hard working people cannot be tortured. But thugs? Those punks must be tortured. If you are a straight up man, no one will torture you. Has that ever happen to you by any chance? Am I right or not?

— I cannot comment, Sir. Freedom of conscience and of belief must be inviolable, the free exercise of religious cults be and the protection of places of worship and their rites guaranteed.

— I agree, of course.

— All religions, Sir?

— Yes.

— What about Camdomblé?

— Oh, no, because Candombé is not a religion, but a cult. It is not from God.

— Next: no one shall be deprived of any rights because of political conviction.

— Look, all right. However, those who defend humans right, they exaggerate. Something should be done about them. Perhaps even some jail time.

— Ok. Someone’s home must be his inviolable refuge, and no one may enter therein without the consent of the dweller, except in the event of flagrante delicto or disaster, or to give help, or, during the day, by court order;

— Yes, I don’t want anyone entering my home

— Do you defend that in all cases?

— Of course, why not?

— What about cases like the “favelas” occupations in Rio? Do you think police should enter (to look for criminals, drugs and weapons) homes even without a court order?

— That is diferente. That’s war. How will the police tell who are criminals or not? They must enter every home indeed.

— Next: property shall observe its social function and rural properties, which are not performing it, should be expropriated for agrarian reform purposes.

— I disagree. Sounds like commie talk. The property is mine and I can use it as I please.

— The practice of racism must be considered a non-bailable crime, with no limitation, subject to the penalty of confinement.

— Racism is terrible indeed. But people overreact. There is not much here in Brazil, prejudice is more of a social thing, the person’s financial status is more important.

— Ok. Next: there shall be no punishment of death, life imprisonment, banishment or that which is cruel.

— No way! What about the victim? Good criminals are dead criminals. If not killing, then make them do forced labor and stay in jail until they die.

— Still on this subject: it must be ensured to prisoners respect to their physical and moral integrity.

— Again? Do prisoners even have morals?  They must suffer in the jail. It should not be Disneyland in there. Will you ever finish this? I am in a hurry.

— Just a few more, Sir. I appreciate your patience. Next one. The following are social rights: education; health; food; work; housing; leisure; security; social security; protection of motherhood and childhood; and assistance to the destitute are social rights.

— People should have most of those things indeed, but that sounds a little exaggerated. Government should not be anyone’s nanny. I don’t want them to take my money away to give as handouts to bums.

— Next: all those over 16 years old (including the illiterate) should have the right to vote.

— In my opinion, those who receive food stamps should not have the right to vote or at least have the decency to give it up. Same for the illiterate. I don’t think is fair that their vote are worth the same as mine.

— I got it. One more: State should ensure, with absolute priority, rights to children and adolescents, and to obey the principles of brevity, exceptionality and respect to the peculiar conditions of the developing person, when applying any measures that restrain freedom;

— You must be kidding me. Adolescents? If you feel sorry, adopt the teen criminal and take him home. Then you will even have the nerve to complain with people tie those punks on street poles. I hope you or and your family become victims of one of those thugs. You know what? I’m tired! Enough!

— That’s all right, Sir. However, I must say that there were still some quotes left about the environment, the prohibition of monopoly and oligopoly in media, worker’s rights, the right to strake, among others. I would like also to inform you that those quotes were taken from our Constitution, all present since its original text.

— Really? That’s why Brazil only has gotten worse since then. I miss the military regime. You can write that down. I’m not ashamed at all — Pedro, irritated, left, ending the interview.

COMMENTARY:

Important to clarify that I censure and reject “Pedro’s” opinion from the text. Nevertheless, I do not commit the injustice of putting all the “Right” on that level of reasoning. I believe that a significant part of the right still don’t agree with that kind of thinking and simply think that their ideology is the best for all Brazilians. I criticize here the views of the extreme-right that, unfortunately, has been gaining strength in Brazil. Of course, I must say that there are still in our country those with extreme left view (some even defend the North Korean regime), however, they do not have the reception on media sectors or among a considerable part of the population.

I wrote this small story, therefore, to oppose the extreme right wing view, so evil, intolerant and reactionary, that would reject most part of the constitutional text of 1988.

Pedro’s opinions might sound ludicrous or exaggerated, but, unfortunately, they are common among the thinking of several Brazilians and some famous people close to that line of reasoning have even spoken some of them.

Having said that, I hope this post helps in some way people to ponder about this theme.