|
 The legalization or ban of guns and ammunition trade is the putative matter to be decided by Brazilian voters next October 23. It's a synthesis of the debate on disarmament and the first attempt to directly engage the citizen in the battle against the violence that's plaguing the country.
For decades, rulers and legislators have been unable to find an answer to the sudden aggressiveness of a society until recently recognized as a peaceful one (or "cordial" as poet Ribeiro Couto depicted it). This popular consultation, among others merits, makes public without disguises the dimension of delinquency and crime among us. The "discordialization" of our existence.
It doesn't do any good to tergiversate, to speculate and to disguise - we are facing a daunting challenge that takes us directly to the 'Order and Progress' motto emblazoned on the national flag.
The contempt for order and the disrespect of the law prevent progress, they are at the root of our problems and "mistakes" (according to President Lula's interpretation), from the "mensalão" (big monthly allowance) in Congress to violence in the streets, from the innocent slush fund to the "seqüestro-relâmpago" (lightning-kidnapping).
In contrast to the preceding consultations, which were more abstract and remote consultations (on the kind of political regime), this one pays heed to concrete and immediate matters. It involves the everyday life of the citizen-voter, be him rich or poor. It makes him confront problems that the Executive and Congress did not have the ability and civic courage to tackle.
Whatever the result of the survey, it is essential to keep in mind that the matter of guns and ammunition is not the only one neither the most important when dealing with criminality - the change of the Penal Code legal age perhaps has precedence over it.
Authoritarian Example
Neither the "no" nor the "yes" will exhaust the subject of guns. Rulers and congressmen will need to implement a series of complementary and immediate measures. The Republic's several powers will need to face the gravity of a situation that, for the first time in our history, brought to the people the sovereign decision to decide what befits them the most. Without middlemen.
The importance of this referendum doesn't lie in its results alone; it is important for itself, for its capacity of imposing itself as a regular way of participation and manifestation of the popular will.
It is foolish and fruit of disinformation the claim that plebiscites and referendums undermine the representative system. Au contraire, they but reinforce it.
The European Union adopts popular consultations in pivotal matters, Switzerland uses them regularly. In California, on November 8, voters will be consulted on four relevant and highly-complex propositions dealing with the state budget.
Referendums, as well as any other kind of manifestation, have no meaning solely in authoritarian regimes - the classical example being the April 1938 referendum in which Germans and Austrians dominated by Nazi-Fascism approved Austria's Annexation by 99.75% of the votes.
Apathy and Skepticism
With the demoralization of the political system and the obliteration of party programs, the institution of regular consultations with the electorate might renew the credibility and the dependability of the democratic system.
Besides the names and acronyms (today almost devoid of any meaning) and besides the subjectivities reinforced by marketing in the electoral campaigns for the Executive and Legislative, the electorate will have the opportunity to discuss objective ideas and options.
The institutionalization of referendums might pull the voter out of the apathy and skepticism in which he got mired in regard to the political class. It will be a good investment for a revival of public life, a shot of enthusiasm in a demobilized and skeptical political environment.
The "yes" and the "no" are different ways of saying the same thing: society is tired of waiting, it wants to take part and, in a responsible fashion, take care of its own safety.
Originally published in Último Segundo. under the title "Beyond the 'yes' and the 'no'"
Alberto Dines, the author, is a journalist, founder and researcher at LABJOR - Laboratório de Estudos Avançados em Jornalismo (Laboratory for Advanced Studies in Journalism) at UNICAMP (University of Campinas) and editor of the Observatório da Imprensa. You can reach him by email at obsimp@ig.com.br.
Translated from the Portuguese by Arlindo Silva.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
