FHC criticizes the Science Without Borders program.

247 - In his monthly column in the newspapers Globo and Estado, former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso condemns the "grandiose projects" and "grandiose speeches" of the Workers' Party governments, citing as an example the "Science Without Borders" program, one of President Dilma Rousseff's pet projects, which aims to send 100 students abroad over four years. Read below:

Reason and common sense - FERNANDO HENRIQUE CARDOSO

Although it may seem difficult to remain optimistic and hopeful in the face of the current financial crisis and political turmoil, we must always try to build a better future.

Descartes said that common sense is the most evenly distributed thing among people. In his time, common sense was equivalent to reason. In today's language, this would correspond to saying that the intelligence quotient (IQ) is distributed among all people following a curve that remains unchanged over time, generation after generation. Is this true? It's possible and even probable. But common sense also implies emotional intelligence and prudence in decision-making. It's not enough to be intelligent; one must be reasonable and prudent to prevent passions from overriding reason. One must have good judgment.

Now, in the world we live in, at least at this moment, the risk of impulsive actions compromising what is reasonable seems great. When it was still possible to believe that there was an "economic logic" to justify acts of force – for example, during the colonial-imperial era – the revulsion at the unacceptable (the subordination of peoples to the accumulation of wealth) was followed by a "logical" explanation of why the actions were taken: the objective was to accumulate wealth and expand capitalism. But now, when North Korea boasts (and who knows what it will do) that it can devastate the South and even reach the west coast of the United States, what is the logic? And what about Dr. Bashar al-Assad, who closed his medical clinic in London to replace his father in power and has been bombing his countrymen for two years?

If only these were the only examples... But no. In tiny Cyprus, whose banking system has become a haven for capital of questionable origin, if not clearly resulting from corruption and tax evasion, we see a government that, without further ado, fearing pressure from the financial controllers of the European Union (EU), has no better idea than to expropriate depositors – whether or not they own capital of questionable origin. Although less blatantly absurd, isn't the financial and fiscal mismanagement in the EU driving people to despair, given the injustice of making the innocent pay for the folly of governments and financiers?

Thankfully, not everything is madness. Barack Obama, upon taking office for his first term, said that the US should invest more in science and technology and prepare for a productive revolution based on clean energy, combining knowledge and innovation with the possibility of economic growth without destroying the environment. Last week he renewed this belief, and it seems his country is emerging from the crisis that began in 2008 by doing what was necessary: ​​opening new areas for investment, altering the geopolitics of energy, and perhaps leaving behind the tremendous mistakes that led to the explosion of the financial markets. Will it happen? Let's hope that this time not only Cartesian reason prevails, but also common sense, and that it is understood that unregulated markets lead to irrationality.

As for us Brazilians, it seems we haven't learned much from the voluntarist mistakes of the past either. We are repeat offenders. We combine impulses driven by good intentions with a certain grandiosity that doesn't correspond to reality. In our desire to escape the threat of low economic growth at all costs, new plans and programs are announced every day. However, they only come to fruition slowly, and often not at all. Why?

Perhaps because we believe too much in grand, savior plans and less in method, routine, persistence, and innovation to accelerate progress. The government, for example, realized that the future depends on knowledge and that there is a near-blackout of qualified people for the country to face the future with greater optimism. Therefore, it was necessary to propose the "great solution": instead of having a meager 8.500 scholarship recipients abroad, we would immediately increase that to 100 in four years! The result: a profusion of scholarships, a devaluation of the already established university capacity, and the sending abroad of many who don't even know the language of the country where they will study well.

Similarly, when we discovered oil in the pre-salt layer, we abandoned ethanol, forgot that wells eventually run out, didn't invest enough in areas outside the pre-salt, and disdained what new things might have happened in the world, such as innovations in shale oil and gas extraction, as the Americans did. Of course, there is still time to make up for lost time and regain hope. But if, instead of singing praises to what is not yet tangible and dedicating so much time to fighting over future oil royalties, we had, without much fanfare, methodically discussed the best energy alternatives, including those from oil, and had supported research and innovation more, we would probably feel less anguish over missed opportunities.

This comment applies to the entire economic infrastructure. Ah, if we had prepared well-structured auctions for the bidding processes for roads, ports, airports, and so on, we could have avoided wasting part of "the largest grain harvest in history" due to the terrible conditions of transport and shipping of the products.

To remedy the situation, more and more grandiose projects are proposed, and both the government and its spokespeople get lost in grandiloquent speeches. Isn't this also what happens with measures to confront the threats of even higher inflation? Immediacy and recklessness in granting subsidies, exemptions, and favors replace the patient persistence in a coherent course of action that, less ostentatiously, could lead the country to better days.

These, however, are possible. The crux of the matter is simple to formulate, difficult to execute: how to move from quantity to quality, from empty talk to practical management; how, instead of fueling a society of spectacles (never in history...), to build a decent society, in which words correspond to actions, and not to virtual pirouettes. I continue to believe it is possible. But we need to change our guard. Let's wait for 2014.