|
 At this beginning of the century, no ideological map exists, only ruins of "isms." The political terrain has been bombarded by the changes of the 1980s and 1990s. To be understood, each concept requires the use of adjectives. Snaking through each country, a "Gold Curtain" has replaced the "Iron Curtain." This curtain no longer separates ideologies or regimes but, rather, social groups: the included and the excluded; the rich and the poor.
Capitalism became the system that, in political and commercial freedom, uses the power of the organized groups to satisfy the selfish interests of their affiliates, while the poor sector is pushed towards "apartation" on a global scale. Socialism was the system that abdicated individual freedom and did not achieve economic efficiency. As the utopias created in the 19th century ended, the political parties began to look alike: the right, politically democratic; the left, socially conservative. The two equalized. Meanwhile, subtle differences emerge with the use of adjectives. The right comprises two groups. One possesses republican sentiment and, besides being politically democratic, has social concerns and defends public policies that combat the tragedy of poverty. The other exercises its beliefs in the defense of the politically democratic process and, like the aristocracy of the Empire, disdains the social problem, considering inequality and poverty as natural facts. The first group is the contemporary right; the second, the imperial right. The left also has two groups. Those who do not acknowledge globalization or the crisis of socialism and divide the world between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat without believing in either social exclusion or social policies. It is a corporative left. The other, the contemporary left, which understands the global reality and the necessity of fiscal responsibility, divides the world between the included and the excluded and has as is banner the end of "apartation," by means of public policies - especially educational policies - that will equalize the opportunities among individuals. The imperial right accepts the morally intolerable exclusion; the classist left promises equality that is democratically impossible. What unites them is their vision of the primacy of the economy and their disdain for the concepts of exclusion and public policies. For the former, the poor are plebs to be ignored; for the latter, they are the lumpen to be employed. The contemporary right and left are differentiated because the first imagines that equality of opportunities is enough, with minimal state intervention, so that history brings about their capitalist utopia; the second believes that a strong state will be necessary in the social sector and that in the future a post-capitalist utopia will emerge. For those who desire the social transformation, alongside political democracy, fiscal responsibility and fellowship with the global world, Brazil's great political challenge is a movement of the two contemporary blocs, in a republican convergence, to tear down the "Gold Curtain" that divides Brazilian society, to abolish "apartation" and social exclusion. At the end of the 19th century, a convergence of that type argued for and brought about Abolition. Now is the time to complete it, something that was not done during the secular clash between the imperial right and classist left. Twenty years after the establishment of its political democracy, Brazil has not taken any significant steps towards overcoming the social division of "apartation." The great challenge of the next decades will be overcoming the tragedy of social disintegration caused by the excluding development characterizing all Brazilian history since the time of slavery. This will be done only by means of public policies, especially those favoring education, and with the continuation of those policies by the various subsequent administrations. The area of debate between the two groups will be the elaboration of a budget that is balanced but is also just and efficient. To guarantee investments that assure, in few years, access for all to essential goods and services. Among those goods and services, K-12 education has a special role because it is the principal vector of the increase in productivity and of the conquest of equal opportunities. The adversaries will be the organized groups, insensitive to the misery and rooted in their own privileges. We will need to guarantee that K-12 education shall be a national, strategic matter - not merely a concern of the municipalities, the states, or of any political party and not limited to one administration - and that it shall receive the resources necessary and the dedication of everyone. That, in addition to more federal resource allocations, minimum standards shall be defined for all the public schools in the country, with full-day sessions, independently of the city of the school's location and the social class of its students. This demands a Federal Law of Educational Responsibility for all elected officials. Above all, it demands a national historic accord, one that will extend beyond the horizons of each administration and will be transformed into a commitment of national life: a republican convergence. If, as many believe, this is impossible, it is because Brazil is an impossible nation. Cristovam Buarque has a Ph.D. in economics. He is a PDT senator for the Federal District and was Governor of the Federal District (1995-98) and Minister of Education (2003-04). You can visit his homepage - www.cristovam.com.br - and write to him at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. Translated from the Portuguese by Linda Jerome -
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
My E-mail: \n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it