Brazzil
Opinion
June/July 2002
It is a mere coincidence that Mother's Day falls during the same week as the commemoration of Princess Isabel's 1888 signing of the Law of Abolition. But that coincidence allows us to remember that slavery and the persistence of poverty have been the result of the politics practiced by men, and that a new abolition of the essential needs will demand a change in thinking: politicians should begin caring for the people instead of merely administering their economy.
In the same week as Mother's Day and Abolition Day, four presidential candidates presented their proposals to the Brazilian industrialists. Their speeches focused upon the administration of the economy, upon how to produce in Brazil. None of them called upon the Brazilian industrialists to produce a new Brazil. None of them clarified their commitment to a new abolition: that of the entire population's essential needs. Anyone listening to the long debate could have imagined what it would be like to have been listening to the proposals of 1870s candidates who did not speak explicitly of the abolition of slavery.
Once slavery was abolished, Brazilian industry proved its ability to produce in Brazil that which earlier had been imported, but it did not discover how to, did not try to, or could not produce a Brazil in which the basic needs would be abolished, in which all Brazilians would have access to the essentials: food, education, healthcare, public transportation, and a dwelling with potable water, garbage collection and sewerage.
Although it is taking place in the 21st century, this year's electoral debate is less ethical than were those of the second half of the 19th century. At that time, people like Joaquim Nabuco, who represented Pernambuco in the Congress, used their mandate in the struggle for the abolition of slavery. Today the candidates limit themselves to proposing a return to growth; at the most, all of them defend the distribution of income that, if it occurs, will benefit those who are already included in modernity, without reaching the excluded.
In the presidential candidates' debate at the CNI (Confederação Nacional da Indústria—National Confederation of Industry), not a word was said about a radical commitment to the abolition of basic needs, a second abolition in Brazil. Nor were any clear proposals presented on this topic. The candidates forgot that we were about to celebrate the anniversary of abolition, as well as Mother's Day. If they had remembered the first occasion, perhaps they would have thought about the need for a second abolition; had they remembered the second, they would have perceived the need for a new way of thinking in which caring for Brazil is as important as administering the Brazilian economy.
Using the logic of economic administration, if there's no food in the house, the man goes out looking for a job; when he finds one, he works until he receives his first paycheck and then takes the money home; the family, therefore, goes hungry for a month. Using the logic of caring, if there's no food in the house, the woman either seeks out a relative or friend and asks for a loan, or she goes to a neighbor to ask for a little rice; in either case, that night everyone in the house has something to eat.
The persistence of poverty in Brazil stems from the fact that, instead of investing directly in satisfying the needs of society, we endeavor to administer the economy. It was surprising that during the presidential candidates' meeting at the CNI, an entrepreneur, Horacio Lafer Piva, president of FIESP (Federação das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo—São Paulo State Industry Federation), was the only person to deal explicitly with the matter of social exclusion and the need to resolve the problem of poverty in Brazil. He came the closest to using feminine logic in the matter of poverty.
In India, a state called Kerala has the same low per-capita income as the rest of the country, but the infant mortality rate, the rate of literacy and basic schooling are all close to European standards. The difference between Kerala and the rest of India is a series of social policies maintained over the decades, thanks, above all, to the power of the women living in the small communities.
It is not known if Emperor Pedro II allowed his daughter Isabel to sign the Law of Abolition in his place because he did not want to pick a quarrel with the big landowners or because he wanted to assure her place in history, but it can be imagined that feminine sensibility helped to promulgate the cause of abolition, which was centuries late in arriving.
This is not to say that women in power always bring to office a commitment to care for the people and the logic to do so. Prime Minister Thatcher of the UK is the example of how a woman in power can be even more imprisoned by the logic of economic administration than are male politicians. But, all in all, feminine logic is more committed to the urgency of finding a solution for social problems than masculine logic, imprisoned in economics.
It is a shame that the candidates do not perceive how much they can learn from mothers and abolitionists, by discovering the importance of the verb "to care" in the strategy of creating a new abolition in Brazil.
Cristovam Buarque (cristovambuarque@uol.com.br) is the President of the NGO Missão Criança and the author of the book A Segunda Abolição (Abolishing Poverty: A Proposal for Brazil). He is also the former governor of the Federal District of Brasília and ex rector of the University of Brasília.
Translated by Linda Jerome (LinJerome@cs.com)