Modern politics (or postmodern, as some want) its main channels of existence are the mass media. A government can only show that it did something when it uses newspapers and television, otherwise, falls into oblivion.
The quest to make news soon becomes the objective, ceasing to be a mere consequence. Thus, major political projects – that resulted in national projects – disappeared. Say one thing, doing something else becomes a rule in political life since elections (when the voter's heart must be won) and the mandate (moment when only the rules of this media policy are valid) become separate moments with almost zero interdependence.
Those people who seek to maintain a critical position (something undoubtedly exhausting in Brazil) must remain doubly attentive. On the one hand, they have to identify when a ruler is governing and when he is acting. On the other hand, need to constantly question the approach of the media. This difficult task is fundamental because by completing it we will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff..
To illustrate, let's take a recent example: on the occasion of the visit of the English Prime Minister, Tony Blair, two important protagonists of Brazilian political life did not hesitate to make comments that could attract the attention of the media. At the same time, esta não perdeu a oportunidade para ecoar esses "efeitos especiais" of media politics.
While President Fernando Henrique tried to show the importance of the visit, presidential candidate Lula defended the idea that everything was just a bluff. Ideologies and pragmatisms aside, neither do they, not the media, managed to capture the depth of what was at stake: the issue of agriculture and social structure.
Perhaps what best summarizes this discussion is the position adopted by President Fernando Henrique. For him, Blair will support Brazil because it is very expensive and, therefore, socially costly to maintain closed agriculture in Europe. It is, which was one of the axes of the visit, bypassed journalistic coverage and public debate. Perhaps this happened precisely because it touches on an issue that cannot be resolved with the speed and simplicity that media politics demands..
Let’s look a little closer at this issue. An economy (or sector) closed reduces competition. Less competition means that the price-quality relationship does not necessarily tend to the optimum point from the consumer's perspective. Thereby, the consumer will pay more for a lower quality product – compared to the rest of the world. This seems to be the logic that prevails for President Fernando Henrique, hence his defense of the opening of European agriculture. This reasoning is so logical and perfect that it becomes unquestionable..
However, We must avoid this tendency to isolate what we analyze. If we seek to add other elements to this analysis, we may reach conclusions opposite to those presented above. In addition to producing food, European agriculture supports one of the cultural and, therefore, Europe's social. Like this, if they produce more expensive products, they also produce cultural references that are fundamental for the organization of different communities. We need to break with this tendency to view society through monetary values and think about general well-being.
Before more hasty readers come and say that I am defending agricultural protectionism, I would like to say that I defend a position that takes into account, Always, general well-being and the solidification of public space. That's why I repeat: Be careful not to be deceived by well-constructed sentences or well-written newspapers – ugly content is better than a beautiful form!
Originally published in:
magazine Author
Yes I – N. 2 – August of 2001
No Responses