Photo: Zakaria Abdelkafi/AFP/Getty Images
A recent interview by President Lula with a radio station in Rio Grande do Sul created an interesting debate.
When asked if he thought Venezuela was a democracy, the President replied that it was a “relative” concept.
As expected, the term sparked a heated controversy about the supposed relativity of democratic regimes.
In an editorial with the inspirational title “Lula’s Theory of Relativity,” in which the president is called “Einstein of the PT,” Estadão seems to have found a satisfying answer: “Democracy is what it is—without relativism.”
No politics professor could have expected such a reaction. And probably not even ChatGPT 5.0, whose intelligence is likely to be far superior to that of the currently most advanced version 4.0, will be capable of such a brilliant and concise formulation.
Ironies aside, let’s face it, this isn’t about the concept of democracy, which is obviously relative, like any openended political concept. Moreover, Lula was present not in the capacity of an academic specializing in “democracy theory,” but in that of a head of state urged to prank the neighboring country. And that didn’t fall, because Lula is an old monkey at these things.
Lula wants to do business with Venezuela, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and all the countries that are not normally seen as democracies (rightly or wrongly) by the Western media, and for that it will need a broad diplomatic Build structure and political relationships. It is not Lula’s job to assume the role of the political world judge.
The debate couldn’t be more empty, apart from inspiring only an insignificant number of people. But it provided an opportunity to look at some academic portfolios and demonstrate political courage by criticizing popular leadership.
Incidentally, the topic of Venezuela is not taken seriously by the Brazilian media. First of all, this is the kind of topic the media will never apply their cherished rule of “listen to the other side” on. No, not in this case.
When it comes to a geopolitically sensitive issue, the western media seems to act as a single, cohesive, monolithic bloc, and their representatives in Brazil are no exception to the rule.
Not that the debate on democracy isn’t important. Of course is! But what we see in the case of Lula’s statement is not a serious debate.
One professor even quoted Robert Dahl, a famous US democracy theorist, to refute Lula’s testimony. It will be funny. In his books, Dahl has charts showing to what extent the country is or is not democratic, and democracy is an impossible paradigm for him. What actually exists are polyarchies, i.e. regimes that come more or less close to a democratic ideal. However, this is an academic debate open to criticism, as it would be just as ridiculous to turn Dahl’s theses into sacred formulas before which we must kneel. Dahl himself refuses to make any binding judgments about the right path each country should take, nor does he claim that the path of rich democracies is the only possible or desirable path. No, every country knows where the callus hardens. Not to mention that rich democracies would do a lot to sell the concept of democracy worldwide if they stopped violently interfering in the government of others, whether through economic sanctions or the articulation of coups and regime changes. Defending democracy in New York Times editorials while supporting the replacement of democratic regimes with dictatorships, I don’t think is a good example to follow, and yet that’s exactly what the US political elite has been doing for more than a hundred years does.
Meanwhile, France is “burning”…
At least that’s what we see on TV, in newspapers and especially on social media. Yes, the unrest in France is serious. There were looted shops, fires in public buildings, burned cars. As we know, the wildfire was started by the death of Nahel Merzouk, a 17yearold young man of Arab descent, at the hands of a French police officer. The young man had stopped his car during a raid, he did not have a driver’s license, and tried to start the car to escape. He was executed in cold blood by firing at pointblank range, as can be seen in videos captured by someone nearby.
However, I’ve seen apocalyptic analyzes that, frankly, seem unrelated to reality.
There is also a cognitive problem related to the scale of things. People watch a video, see an image, and in France they begin to see it as ubiquitous, meaning it’s happening everywhere at the same time. There is a looping effect on social networks: the exact same videos and photos spread virally via different sources, so that Internet users see cars and buildings on fire everywhere. But the reality is not like that. France is a huge country. Paris is huge. As the media, enslaved by algorithms, publishes images of burnt cars, Paris’s bars and restaurants swarm with people. Groups dance and play music on the city’s historic bridges. Crowds of tourists stroll along the Seine. Absolute calm reigns in most of the city’s more proletarian neighborhoods, where Arabs and blacks are more prevalent.
Another range of analyzes are racist, such as those in which the author claims that France was “wrong” in taking in so many immigrants, or that describe a bleak future for the country due to the growing Arab and Muslim participation in the French population .
I also don’t think the French far right will benefit from the demonstrations. However, I am not interested in French political developments here, not least because what we in Brazil understand by “extreme law” tends to be quite different from what it means for the French. After Bolsonaro’s visit to the country, these authoritarian hiccups no longer worry me. If Brazilian institutions and civil society managed to survive Bolsonaro, French institutions would be equally opposed to a reactionary president.
Most people tend to have misconceptions about France. They only see the surface of things, the froth of breaking news. It’s not half a dozen burnt cars that will affect French democracy.
If the protesters started wrecking trains and subways, I’d be even more concerned.
Because that’s what it’s all about deep down. France is experiencing an accelerated process of income concentration, partly due to liberal decisions by recent governments. This is the main issue, and serious analysis of the country’s social unrest keeps coming back to it.
On the other hand, it would be unfair not to hide the fact that the French state is one of the most successful states in the world when it comes to creating social structures to combat inequality.
Building an urban mobility system like France’s is no small feat. It should also not be disregarded that this is a deeply socializing achievement. Demonstrators burn cars, but attacks on the rail network are rare. This can be explained by the fact that cars represent individual property while trains represent collective property. French workers use them every day. Young people who protest know that their relatives and friends or themselves will have to use them the next day or even the same day.
France faces protests because it is a vibrant, sensitive country, still able to feel the unbearable pain of the death of a young citizen.
I wish France and the French much wisdom and strength to face their difficulties. I hope that they emerge from this crisis stronger, more aware and more democratic than they entered it.
But honestly, I’m not worried about France. France already has infrastructure, that’s the most important thing. A physical infrastructure with one of the best urban mobility systems in the world, a scientific infrastructure with public and universal health and education systems, and an essentially democratic political infrastructure with laws, judges, associations, parties, history, press, protest culture, etc.
I’m worried about Brazil.
Brazil needs infrastructure!
It would be so nice if all this desire to demonstrate political courage and independence by criticizing such a popular President of the Republic was put to better use! Criticize Lula, that’s great! But not because of ridiculous gimmicks like the president’s effort to avoid diplomatic pranks. Criticize Lula, for example, for not yet showing pathetic signs that he’s about to take on the country’s urban mobility drama.
Democracy is a very good thing. Many of us would give our lives to defend it. But precisely because it is so good, it deserves a good transport system, fast, modern, airconditioned, comfortable!
Democrats in this country need to see democracy not just as an abstract concept, whether absolute or relative, but as a useful tool to effectively change reality for the good of the populace!
Posted in The Cafezinho
Join our WhatsApp group, click on this link
Enter our Telegram channel and click on this link
Subscribe for updates. Subscribe for updates