Ferreira Gullar doesn't know what democracy is

247 - In Brazil today, there is a certain inversion of values. For the political forces defeated at the polls, the exercise of majority rule has come to be labeled as an anti-democratic phenomenon, when it is exactly the opposite (to learn more about this, read "Since when is exercising majority power undemocratic?This Sunday, poet Fernando Gullar decided to join the debate, labeling the democratic will, as expressed by the majority, as an expression of populism. Read below:

The populist movement of the Workers' Party demonstrates a dissatisfaction with norms that prevent it from doing whatever it wants.

Not long ago, I heard a congressman say that what defines a democratic government is the election. If it was elected, it's democratic.

We all know that it's not quite like that, because, depending on the power it holds over institutions, a government can impose its will and nullify the rights of its adversaries. Elections are undoubtedly a necessary condition for the formation of a democratic government, but they are not sufficient.

I am addressing this issue here because I see in that simplification a threat to democracy, a growing phenomenon in several Latin American countries and even in Brazil. In fact, this is one of the anti-democratic manifestations of neopopulism, which is now hegemonic in some Latin American countries.

I have defined this new populism as the path taken by a certain radical left, upon realizing the unfeasibility of its so-called revolutionary aims. It is no longer a matter of pitting the working class against the bourgeoisie, but of pitting the poor against the rich.

Populism acts correctly and legitimately when it seeks to improve the living conditions of the most disadvantaged sectors of society, allowing it to gain a broad electoral base. But it becomes a threat to democracy when it uses this political power to silence the voices of opponents and, in this way, perpetuate itself in power.

An example of this was the government of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. The control of the different branches of government allowed Chavismo to remain in power even after the death of its leader, openly violating all constitutional norms. This argument that simply being elected is enough to constitute a democratic government is convenient for populism because, counting on the support of the majority of the population, it uses this support as a license to do whatever it wants.

Implicit in this attitude is a kind of sophistry, according to which, if the people own the power, then whoever opposes their will is the one who undermines democracy. And the only one who knows what the people want is the caudillo.

It so happens that the elected official, like all other citizens, is subject to the laws, which establish limits on the actions of anyone, including those in power. It is no coincidence that all of them, upon taking office after being elected, swear to obey and follow constitutional norms.

Right now in Brazil, the populist Workers' Party is demonstrating its discontent with these norms that prevent it from doing whatever it wants. The conviction of those involved in the Mensalão scandal by the Supreme Federal Court has led them to try to discredit that court, accusing it of conducting a political rather than a legal trial.

Since such allegations are unfounded and unlikely to change the decision already made, they decided to amend the Constitution to somehow nullify the autonomy of the Supreme Federal Court.

At the initiative of a Workers' Party congressman, the Constitution and Justice Committee of the Chamber of Deputies approved a constitutional amendment that would subject decisions of the Supreme Court to the approval of Congress, in a blatant violation of the autonomy of the branches of government, the basis of the democratic regime.

This initiative provoked outrage in various sectors of public opinion, and even the Presidency of the Republic, through Vice-President Michel Temer, sought to disavow it. Nevertheless, the presidents of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate expressed their discontent with alleged interference by the Supreme Federal Court in the decisions of Congress.

For the same purpose, attempts are being made to exclude from the Public Prosecutor's Office the power to investigate and prosecute those responsible for crimes in the public sphere.

The fact is that populism tolerates nothing that imposes limits on it or criticizes it. For this very reason, one of its natural enemies is the free press, which allows dissenting opinions to be heard.

In Argentina, Cristina Kirchner's populism nationalized the only company that supplies paper to the country's newspapers, which means a threat to any newspaper that dares to criticize her decisions beyond what she allows.

When it achieves its objectives, populism establishes what has become known as the dictatorship of the majority. This term, incidentally, is rather inappropriate, since in these cases, power is in fact exercised by a charismatic leader whom the majority of the people blindly follow.

Ferreira Gullar doesn't know what democracy is.

In democratic regimes, the will of the majority prevails, expressed in votes and parliamentary decisions, which represent popular sovereignty. For the poet from Maranhão, Ferreira Gullar, echoing the forces defeated at the polls, democracy has become a "dictatorship of the majority."