Bolsonaro's arrest clashes with an unfortunate anti-republican tradition: the invisible force.

"Sit down, you fool; wherever I sit, that's where the head of the bed will be." CERVANTES. Don Quixote, Part Two, 1615.

There is an old belief that reality hides from our sight. The images, characters, dialogue, and actions we see are thought to be merely a spectacle, the script of which has been decided, written, and directed by those who, although they do not appear, hold the true power.

Two weeks ago, the media, represented by people of indisputable seriousness, knowledge, experience, and recognition in the fields of sociology and journalism, brought us two examples of this belief. The first, an interview conducted with a bank executive by sociologist Jessé de Souza, was once again published on the website of the Movement in Defense of National Sovereignty (https://mdsn.com.br/2023/02/06/executivo-de-banco-conta-como-se-compram-politicos-juizes-e-jornalistas-em-entrevista-a-jesse-souza/), reproducing material originally published in Diário do Centro do Mundo, on August 25, 2019 (https://www.diariodocentrodomundo.com.br/executivo-de-banco-conta-como-se-compram-politicos-juizes-e-jornalistas-em-entrevista-a-jesse-souza/), reporting on the corrupt environment in politics, the justice system, and journalism, specifying, albeit anonymously, not only the methods employed but, above all, some cases that occurred in this widespread practice of buying votes, decisions, and news reports. The other, a report by Mônica Bergamo, published in Folha/UOL (https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/monicabergamo/2023/02/bolsonaro-ficara-inelegivel-mas-nao-deve-ser-preso-dizem-ministros-do-stf-e-do-stj.shtml), providing an assessment by judges of the Supreme Federal Court and the Superior Court of Justice regarding the procedural fate of the former president of the Republic, including a judgment on the inappropriateness of his conviction and the sufficiency of his ineligibility.

These are examples of that behind-the-scenes belief. They give the impression, or perhaps the conviction, that everything institutional and legal is nothing more than mere appearance, and that, on the contrary, it is the sovereign will of a few – holders of economic and political power – that has the final say, even if it clashes head-on with institutions and norms, which serve only as mere formality, easy to circumvent or use according to the convenience of that invisible will.

I do not intend, in this article, to suggest that this unofficial expression of what becomes official – overlooking the ignorance of most of the Brazilian population, who lack the time and resources to inform themselves and form opinions in the face of the extremely difficult struggle for survival – should be corrected by mechanisms already foreseen and mandated by the Constitution. I leave that to the authorities who, faced with the publicity of these facts through media outlets of unquestionable credibility, should take action. In the case of the sociologist's interview, this involves identifying the individuals and organizations mentioned in the collected testimony; in the case of the journalist's report, it involves the action of the constitutional, institutional, and democratic control bodies, which should see in the norms the prohibition of a purely opportunistic political judgment in the face of serious facts that would determine processes and punishments more consistent with the legal order. I even note that there is an intrinsic flaw in the anonymous pronouncements of the aforementioned members of the higher courts: how can one compare the previous unlawful undertaking, carried out by the Lava Jato operation against the current President, to the normal and adequate performance now belatedly demanded in relation to the unconstitutional acts of the previous administration, considering the need to curb abuses, when even the normal use of control mechanisms was not attempted by a power that proved incapable of enforcing the Constitution against criminal acts that were repeated daily? In simple terms, they advocate that the law not be used. This is to avoid errors caused by the inadequate use of the law. Perhaps worse, they consider, without any embarrassment whatsoever, not even of an ethical nature, that the omissions – which allowed the end of a mandate that constantly violated the Constitution, and the election in a state of abuse of political and economic power, amidst the spread of fakenews...by members of the same unconstitutional regime – may they perpetuate themselves.

However, I will leave these issues aside, however relevant they may be, in order to address another topic: the question of the possible relationship between the two texts. 

When a text appears and tells us facts in a way that prevents the sources from being discovered, especially if it brings very compelling revelations, as is the case here, the communication ends up falling more into the category of verisimilitude than truth. You have no way of verifying whether what is said is true or not; you cannot confront the text with its sources and its context. This is because only the text comes to the public, who interpret it only as probable or improbable, without having any proof in hand. There may be truth in the details, but the general feeling is that we are facing a work of fiction. To know the truth, it is necessary to go further, precisely, to seek evidence. Citizens cannot do what is the duty – not just the right – of administrative and judicial authorities to act.

Jessé de Souza's interviewee speaks of a gray area between the legal and the illegal, constantly threatened and invaded by the illegal, in which the buying and selling of political, legal, and journalistic work has become natural: everyone has their price, only the way these acts are perpetrated matters. Direct negotiations of values, sponsorship of events (in this sense, it is important to highlight the work of another important journalist from Folha/UOL, Frederico Vasconcelos, who has been following, in a series of reports, the holding of events in Brazil and abroad, by or for members of public legal functions), payments for lectures, creation of networks of complicity and exchange of privileged information, reports directed at specific interests, commissioned and censored news, bills to protect exclusively private interests—in short, a deep machine that manufactures the political-legal-social fabric and pretends to be determined by what is on the surface of the authorities' rhetoric.

Mônica Bergamo's text, with its authentic and always commendable journalistic insight, points to the dictates of a cultural bias among members of the Judiciary, at its highest level, who seem to distrust the law and its effectiveness, even while citing non-legal criteria of legitimacy for the constant issuance of opinions that never materialize in the real and required sphere of judicial activity. In other words, the same old rhetoric is juxtaposed with an invisible force that always hinders the effective application of the law, or finds pretexts for applying the law differently than stipulated, or for not applying it at all. Similarly, there is a logical problem. If laws exist to establish a desirable discipline desired by the people (its architects, through elected representatives), there is a refusal to apply them, under the justification that applying the law will bring indiscipline.

Both texts refer to this behind-the-scenes action – real or fictitious, but extremely effective – of opposing or containing legal and constitutional action.

This comparison and interpretation that I have undertaken here, even if briefly, demonstrates that, ultimately, the unconstitutional regime carried out by the previous government was nothing more than an exaggeration of a situation that explains many of the historical ills of the Brazilian people, subjected to authorities who enjoy standing out from society, positioning themselves – against the Constitution, I must remind you – as moderators of the law and the order of things, at the very least, or as lords and ladies of that same order, by employing the effectiveness of legal action as mere fallacy, a disguise for the exchange of favors and values.

As the writer Miguel de Cervantes demonstrated, social convention is not always expressed in a way that facilitates interpretation. There is a prominent place that corresponds to the head of the table, but the powerful can yield this seat to the powerless without abandoning their hierarchical position. The head of the table is not a visible and tangible place. It follows a different logic, one that precedes the act of sitting down. It is the logic of domination, naked and raw, that has determined the mode of politics and culture in Brazil.

To transform this state of affairs, a firm and politically sustainable decision is needed, which I believe the current Democratic Government is capable of making. The people want it and deserve it.