Chapter 12
Prospects for recovery in Brazil: Deweyan democracy, the legacy of Fernando Cardoso and the obstruction of Jair Bolsonaro
Frederic R. Kellogg, George Browne Rego and Pedro Spíndola B. Alves
Introduction
Former Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, along with Enzo Faletto, wrote the classic Dependency and Development in Latin America in the 1960s, which linked both dependence and development to the bipolarity of ‘central and peripheral’ national economies (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979). This historical materialist approach became an influential paradigm for understanding Latin American economics and government for half a century. Yet today its theory and insights are too rarely recalled. The question we wish to address in this chapter is a fundamental one: how does a society, now plagued by poverty, discord and disease, move forward in the absence of a guiding theoretical vision?
The problematic administration of Jair Bolsonaro arrived amidst the failure of explanatory models in Latin America and the absence of any clear and promising roadmap for the future. Reflecting the general loss of confidence in political science and theory, Bolsonaro even called for defunding education in those disciplines. His approach points towards a non-reflective and impulsive government. Indeed, his government’s response to a severe crisis has failed in the face of growing deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic, and has resulted in the current investigation of his acts and omissions in combating it by a parliamentary commission of inquiry.
The global COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the political environment in Brazil, as it has in other Latin American countries as well as in the United States. Even before it arrived, there existed an extraordinary and unwelcome absence of thoughtful, programmatic designs for a recovery of public confidence in government. We address the question of how John Dewey’s pragmatist methodology relates to the crisis and to explanatory models in both education and the logic of legal reasoning. In this regard, the contrast between the two presidents, the former Fernando Cardoso and the current Jair Bolsonaro, should not be understood in terms of a comparison of their political profiles or personalities. Historically, the role of the president in Brazil is of absolute importance in guiding the destiny of the country through public politics and in the legislative agenda.
After Fernando Cardoso’s administration (1995–2003), Brazil experienced the problematic governments of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003–2011) and Dilma Rousseff (2011–2016), which ended with impeachment and was completed by her vice president Michel Temer. The current president, Jair Bolsonaro (2019–), was elected amidst several crises, and represents in many ways a reaction to the major national problems, which unfortunately have only been aggravated by him.
The main purpose of this chapter is not to explore the great problems faced by each government, nor to give a political analysis of their contribution to these problems, but to advance the Deweyan democracy view as a way to recover from the absence of prospective theoretical guidance. The contrast between Cardoso and Bolsonaro should be seen as a contrast in attitude which demonstrates how Brazil has moved from an attempt to apply a fruitful (although limited) explanatory model to a reckless and aggressive discourse that undermines a scientific approach to problems.
Practical issues now dominate the national scene. We suggest that the way forward may be guided by the Deweyan ideal of empirical democratic enquiry. Public philosophy must be reconstructed from the conceptual and analytical with an empirical, dynamic and therapeutic methodology. While there are many dimensions of this reform, we focus on education and law. In education, we argue in favour of the Deweyan programme of continuity and integration, and the overcoming of both dualisms and rigid, static analytical models. In law, we urge a focus, not on the conceptual nature of law, but on its operation in resolving conflict.
A brief account of Brazilian political and cultural history
Summarizing the complex political, social and educational problems of the Brazilian nation in the last sixty years would be, on its own, a Herculean task. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this chapter, a brief account is necessary.
To understand the meaning and significance of the successive political and educational crises which have occurred in Brazil, as well as their economic and social implications, it is necessary to provide an overview, starting with the military dictatorial government which ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985, the year in which the National Congress through an indirect process gave civil power to Tancredo Neves and José Sarney, respectively president and vice president of the Republic of Brazil.
In order to describe this history, it is convenient to split it into three separate historical periods. Methodologically, this strategy follows the steps already adopted by Maria D’Alva G. Kinzo (2001), professor at the São Paulo University (USP), in her article ‘Brazilian democratization: an assessment of the political process since the transition’. The first period, starting in 1964, lasted approximately seventeen years. It is characterized by absolute control by the Army, with no prospect of democratic openness. The second period can be demarcated from 1982 to 1985. During these years, although military control still persisted, one can observe a greater openness towards the participation of civilians in the political decisions of the government. In parallel to the loss of political power by the Army, another important development took place: among the military troops, a radical group expressed great dissatisfaction and resistance to the lack of democracy.
The origins of this insurgence can be traced to the third military president, General Ernesto Geisel, who took power in 1974. He announced that his government would introduce a gradual project of political distension, which represented a light at the end of the tunnel and a starting point towards the process of democratization in Brazil. Geisel suspended the censorship of the press and valorized the legislative state elections, specifically those of 1974. As a consequence, a new political party was created, the MDB, which brought together the opposition to military rule, while another political party, ARENA, represented the conservative end of the political spectrum. This opened the space for a kind of two-party system within the National Congress.
Geisel’s decisions forced him to restrain the violent actions of military groups whose practices of torture and other violations against human rights reached an intolerable level. Geisel dismissed the entire military command of São Paulo State due to deaths following the torture of journalists and political opponents of the regime.
In the final period, from 1985 to 1989, an enormous mobilization of political forces throughout the nation called for increased civil power, opposed military interventions in political decisions and opened space for civil political forces. This was supported by trade unions and other civil society institutions. It eventually led to the National Congress deciding to transfer the supreme command of the country to the civilians Tancredo Neves and José Sarney.
There is an aspect of the era of military dictatorship in Brazil which contrasts with the experience of other Latin American countries. In Brazil, there was, throughout military rule, a continuous attempt to return to institutional political normality. This began with decisions by the military itself followed by civilian demands for normalization. In other countries, such as Chile and Argentina, the harshness of the military regimes remained, characterized by cruelty and violence which only ended with the overthrow of the regimes. This was mainly due to the historical roots which underlay the foundations of those countries.
Portuguese colonization in Brazil had unique features, mainly because it allowed the country to preserve its continental dimensions, combined with a racial diversity that resulted in a type of melting pot. This understanding can be found in interpretations of Brazilian culture in such works as Casa-Grande e Senzala (Freyre 2006), Raízes do Brasil (Holanda 1995) and Os Donos do Poder (Faoro 1975). By contrast, Spanish colonization fragmented its colonies into small states, resulting in permanent conflicts among them, which cultivated racial intolerance between groups.
This brief sketch of the political and social history of Brazil sheds light on certain features of its culture and character, such as how, even in periods of social uncertainty, political instability and dictatorial regimes, the country could demonstrate perseverance in relation to certain ideals of democracy. It also helps to explain how these challenges would be confronted and managed through tolerance of resistance and reconciliation. These complex and somewhat contradictory reactions permit a clearer understanding of how Brazilian culture faces its political instabilities. They have persisted since Brazil was a colony, through the first and the second Empires, the old republican period, the dictatorial government of Getúlio Vargas and the governments that came after the period of 1964–89, led by Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula, Dilma and Michel Temer, as well as the present mandate of Jair Bolsonaro.
In order to develop the implications of this analysis, it is important and relevant to make reference to the educational problems which have arisen in Brazil, which have interacted with the political and social scene. These will be important in understanding and redressing the barriers which impede the foundation of a more stable and democratic nation.
Brazil was colonized by the Portuguese Empire in 1500. The country’s first experience of colonization was of exploitation, without any civilizing intention. Our first experience as a colony was to enrich the colonizer. Politically, socially and spiritually, Brazil was subject to the will of the colonizer. In educational terms, the stated goal was to provide education to the children of the Portuguese colonizers, as well as diffusing the Catholic creed among the natives. In the nineteenth century Napoleon Bonaparte, influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment, sought to conquer Europe and to dominate its countries. Eventually he announced the invasion of Portugal which, at that time, was under the protection of Great Britain, the arch-enemy of Napoleon. With that protection, the king of Portugal, D. João VI, decided to move to Brazil, thereby raising Brazil’s political status from a colony to part of a single kingdom with Portugal. With the return of the king of Portugal to Europe, D. Pedro I, a son of D. João VI, became the first emperor of Brazil.
In 1889 Brazil removed the monarchy and became a republic. Since then, its political, social and intellectual life could be characterized as a pendulum, swinging from periods of democratic stability to authoritarianism. In the field of education, the traditions of the Catholic doctrine persist, while progressive approaches are revived during republican periods.
Pragmatist methodology
John Dewey was the great theorist and proponent of organic democracy. Philosophical-legal pragmatism seeks continuity and interaction as indispensable for an interdisciplinary analysis of human experience. Pragmatism is grounded in the assumption that genuine experience is social, transcending individual interests. Freedom of action is genuine only when associated with the capacity to think reflectively. While preserving respect for the individual, it demands fraternal responsibility, with the corollary that meaning and strength be exercised in democracy and education. This can be connected to Fernando Cardoso’s idea of development from dependence, which implies restriction of individual freedom (Cardoso and Faletto 1979, 151–61).
A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoined communicated experience. The extension in space of individuals who participate in an interest requires that each refers their own action to that of others, to give definition and direction to their own. As Dewey emphasized, this is equivalent to the breaking down of barriers of class, race and national territory, which kept people from perceiving the full import and value of their activities.
Since a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest. These can be created only by education and legal ordering rooted in a dynamic, therapeutic philosophy. Although separated by almost a century, we find an interesting parallel between Fernando Cardoso’s formulation of dependency theory and John Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy. If, on the one hand, the Brazilian sociologist formulated a theory that attempts to explain underdevelopment beyond classic Marxist and determinist perspectives, the American philosopher tried, in the field of education, to find within experience a middle ground between traditional and progressive education.
Dependency theory tried to extrapolate a common post-war thinking, which consisted in believing that development would depend mainly on the capacity of each country. Each would be able to achieve success in a constant and linear way, not only with minimal state intervention, but also with minimal influence from foreign countries. The theory tried to move away from a sociological argument that there would be a ‘stagnationism’ among underdeveloped economies, generated by attitudes going back to the beginning of the colonial period, and that it would be impossible to disengage without institutional ruptures.
We can find in Fernando Cardoso’s version of dependency theory an attempt to consider the evolution of the social structure of each country such that a broad understanding of the most recent phenomena is possible. It thereby explains the failure of public policies and models of government that were transplanted from central to peripheral countries without any respect for continuity. The principle of integration is linked to a dynamic balance between objective and subjective factors of experience, in a constant contestation between these conditions.
With this, we can see that all aspects must be considered for the progress of education and its social, economic and political effects, avoiding the zero-sum trope of ‘all or nothing’ that evaluates evidence of one factor to the detriment of the other. In Cardoso and Faletto’s theory, this principle gains prominence through the justification that the phenomenon of the social is always multifaceted. The analysis of only one of its aspects will make it impossible for the researcher to discover truly relevant answers. In applying this insight, we suggest an integrated analysis of development, transcending the dichotomy between ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ society, in the context of more orthodox economic and sociological perspectives.
In sum, the solution to the problem situations with which human beings are constantly confronted cannot be determined through the deductive prison of binary logic, which is reduced to a confrontation, as mentioned above, between either and or. This is all the more true when it comes to the so-called social sciences, which include sociology, politics, economics and law. In this regard it is opportune to turn to the therapeutic philosophy of Dewey and an apt aphorism of the father of American legal pragmatism, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (1881): ‘The life of law is not logic, but experience.’
The theory of education
In Experience and Education (1997), Dewey provided a theory of education that sought to understand the process of learning as development from the inside out as well as a formation from the outside in. In other words, education is to be interpreted as a set of obstacles that must be surmounted by the natural gifts of the subject in overcoming their own inclinations. This dichotomy was seen in the clash between traditional and progressive education, and ended up causing serious consequences both for pedagogical growth and for the health of democracy itself. This dispute even brought pernicious influences that still persist for the development of the democratic ideals that inspired the Brazilian Constitution of 1988. For Dewey, it is not by abandoning the old that it will be possible to solve the problems of the new in education and society, much less by rejecting the new. Rather, it will be necessary to find an ideal point at which the paradigms no longer compete for space, trying to supplant one another. They must work in a complementary way, generating a balance that will enhance practical experience within education.
The point of contact between these two apparently distinct theories is the detachment from the game of ‘this or that’. In Dewey’s terminology, it is the dialectic overcoming of the antithetical confrontation between ‘either versus or’, with a view to the construction of a more tangible synthesis, which would result from the overcoming of extreme categories (Dewey 1938). Both Dewey and Cardoso make use of two important principles – continuity and integration – to overcome exclusivist paradigms. Dewey understands that the principle of continuity is linked to a necessary communication between the past and the present, and that any analysis must take this continuum into account, so that previous experiences are not discarded simply because they are old.
Cardoso came to power at a time when, even more than in earlier decades, observers questioned whether reform would be possible in Brazil. The pervasive corruption that dominated Brazilian society and politics throughout history had been reinforced by Collor’s disastrous presidency and impeachment, and unfortunately has been an endemic problem discovered in every government after Fernando Cardoso.
Cardoso worried about this historical narrative in discussing the role of jeitinho, the Brazilian approach to obstacles (from the Portuguese jeito, meaning ‘way’). Jeitinho has a double meaning. The first is that you try to solve problems rather than putting up obstacles. It is a hopeful attitude, which might be characterized as ‘Let’s try to solve this, let’s try to help you.’ However, there is another meaning, which is the advocacy of disregard for the law and for rules; to not let them get in the way. The question, in this regard, remains whether Brazilian civic culture is strong enough in the democratic sense to respect the rule of law. According to Cardoso, although jeitinho can be an impediment, the belief that Brazil cannot change is neither productive nor universal: ‘It’s a matter of attitude; more traditional people prefer not to change anything. And they are always accusing the “reformers” of being self-serving and the poor will suffer the consequences. It’s not necessarily true, but they use this as an excuse not to change’ (Scott 20 12, 12).
The rule and theory of law
This leads us to consider the insights for the rule and theory of law which can be drawn from the pragmatic tradition and its history (see, e.g., Kellogg 2018). We look for insights to rebuild a robust view of the role of law in the courts of Brazil and Latin America.
How should the tension between the declining influence of Cardoso’s broad perspective, and the arrival of Bolsonaro’s nihilist populist rule, affect our thinking about law? At the heart of the analysis of the new nature of dependence, Cardoso and Faletto (1979, 155) stated that when a political crisis arises, ‘the only alternatives are opening the market to foreign capital or making a radical political move toward socialism’. This assumes that when in power in Brazil, President Cardoso (1995–2003) had only two alternatives. This ignores the global loss of faith in government, and the stigma now associated with the term ‘socialism’. William J. Dobson (2020), summarizes the new situation:
We find ourselves now in a very different moment ... The appeal of xenophobia, populism, and authoritarian causes has risen, not coincidentally at the same time that faith in democratic ideals has faltered. The crisis of confidence is mounting as illiberal populists propagate divisive notions that tear at democratic norms from within.
Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic has been ravaging Brazil. Brazil is deep into both a health and a governing crisis. There is a feeling of both a practical and intellectual powerlessness. Cardoso governed in an age of models. Populism has undermined progressive government programmes as ‘socialism’, even while other forces have undermined the hopes Cardoso entertained for progressive free enterprise. If there is a salient weakness in Cardoso’s 1967 analysis, it is the dualism reflected in his reference to ‘the only alternatives’, the inevitability of a unitary bipolar choice, between two ‘fundamental’ conceptions. But Cardoso was actually more prescient than that.
As we think, and act, anew in the post-model era, we should not ignore Cardoso’s keen sense of jeitinho, or disregard his awareness of the possibility of transformation, both of which are associated with John Dewey’s pragmatism. Cardoso recognized the possibility and importance of solving individual problems on their own terms, and also of ultimate transformation. For this, the contemporary challenge is now to escape ideology and respond to reality. The pandemic, dear students, is our new professor. The pandemic is the unwelcome teacher, who has arrived with a crisis that will call us, at the end of the term, to a final examination. This teacher ignores ideology.
Experience is now our textbook. The models have become irrelevant and they obscure the necessity of moving forward with a renewed empiricism, a process of thought that begins and ends with facts, rather than new dreams and old resentments. Empiricism is as crucial now to the law, as it is to science. Brazil is a country of law and many lawyers, and the legal community must reject ideology and respond to the urgent problems, one by one, until each is resolved on its own terms.
Law and science are both part of the social continuity of inquiry, and they must be integrated in a fact-based response to the situation. Dewey and Cardoso shared two important principles, continuity and integration, for overcoming exclusivist paradigms. Their shared commitment dictates a view of law as part of the continuity of inquiry.
Law and the logic of conflict resolution
The traditional attitude, still taught in law schools, reflects a deductive conception of law, a static and analytical conception, whereby judges must always find a syllogism that decides the case. Such a vision is still endemic in contemporary legal philosophy, characterized by the label ‘legal positivism’, and embedded even in attempts to correct positivist flaws through judicial recourse to ‘moral principles’. Law is generally viewed as autonomous and deductive, a static body of rules and principles. Our pragmatist alternative, by contrast, privileges flexibility and the dynamic of social enquiry.
Conflict is viewed as a problem that must be settled by law, by diktat. This view reflects the social contract theory of Thomas Hobbes, where an omnipotent state is ceded authority to resolve or remove conflict inherent in the state of nature. The American Civil War, itself a failure of law, gave rise to an alternative theory of law as an inductive system of inquiry, implying a threshold of success or failure.
Conflicts are endemic in society. Some level of disagreement or dialectic is normal, and reflects how knowledge grows. But conflicts are either resolved through convergence of opposing practices and precedents, or lead to non-legal resolution, including violence. Our view emphasizes law’s social and historical grounding, conceiving conflict resolution as an adaptive process of knowledge development and social order. Influenced by the experimentalism of natural science, it implies an extended continuum of inquiry, and a pragmatist logic as articulated by Dewey (1938).
Rather than defunding philosophical education in Brazil, as proposed by President Bolsonaro, the philosophy of law must be reformed to become less analytical and more therapeutic. Applied to law, pragmatism seeks understanding not of the conceptual nature of law, but of the operations that determine its success or failure in resolving conflict.
Conventional legal logic has focused on the operation of judges deciding the immediate case. Pragmatism, from analogies with natural science, came to understand law as an extended process of inquiry into recurring social problems. The role of the legal profession is thereby recast to recognize the importance of input from outside the law – the importance of the social dimension of legal and logical induction. Lawyers and judges perform an important but often largely ancillary role, one that must nevertheless be evaluated from the standpoint of a logical method prioritizing experience over general propositions or axioms. Lawyers must respect facts, above all legal authorities.
Conclusion
While the long-term effects of Cardoso’s policies may never become fully evident, it is already clear that he was able to effect significant changes in Brazil. His greatest reforms remain his wide-reaching social initiatives. He knew how to operate successfully within Brazilian society and within the Brazilian political process. Cardoso took major strides in helping Brazil to realize its potential as a ‘country of tomorrow’ and helped to transform the country into the emerging world power that it is today.
However, Cardoso’s formative model has proved insufficient to address the complexity of contemporary Latin America. What is needed now is a path forward beyond unitary modelling, a problem-solving path addressing the many individual needs of society, engaging insights from across the educational spectrum: science, law, communication, engineering and reconstructed philosophy. The history of pragmatism illustrates key characteristics of therapeutically deconstructing the barrier that has been serving to create frontiers that separate and dualize knowledge, whether it be scientific or social and humanistic.
By establishing the bases that sustain dualism, gaps are naturally created. At the same time that these gaps separate different areas of knowledge, they also contribute to the devaluation of many theoretically and functionally relevant fields of human enquiry. Sociological and logical-scientific positivism and the theories of linear evolutionary currents clearly illustrate this.
Unfortunately, the obstructions and the absence of prospective thought of Bolsonaro’s government became even more evident in the tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic. Putting aside political issues, it is necessary to refer to the work of the parliamentary commission of inquiry (CPI: Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito), constituted to investigate the actions of the federal government during the pandemics. It was concluded on 26 October 2021.
In Brazil, the CPI has investigative powers, but it is not a judicial court. Thus, it cannot prosecute, but only send a report to the judicial system. Nevertheless, it is an important legislative commission of investigation, and it found several errors (and even crimes) perpetrated by Bolsonaro: for example, actions and omissions which caused unnecessary deaths, infractions against sanitary measures, improper use of public money, inciting the commission of crime and the promotion of quackery.
Recovery in Brazil will only be possible, then, if prospective and pragmatic thought can be implemented at all state levels, starting in the constitutive powers and including the presidency. The pandemic has shown that the absence of this is a major problem, because the risks and injuries will always increase, and, lamentably, carry the Brazilian people to the worst scenario – perhaps irreversibly.
Based on these considerations, we hope to establish the assumptions that will support the objectives that guide this study, whose purpose was to examine to what extent it is possible to shed more light on the relevance of broader socioeconomic and political interpretations through the light of John Dewey’s conceptions of democracy and education as applied to Brazil’s recovery.
References
Cardoso, F. and E. Faletto (1979) Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dewey, J. (1938) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Dewey, J. (1997) Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.
Dobson, W. J. (2020) ‘A glimpse of the way forward’ 31(3) Journal of Democracy 5–7 https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0041.
Faoro, R. (1975) Os Donos do Poder. Porto Alegre: Globo.
Freyre, G. (2006) Casa-Grande e Senzala. São Paulo: Global.
Holanda, S. B. (1995) Raízes do Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Holmes, O. W. Jr (1881) The Common Law. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co.
Kellogg, F. R. (2018) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr and Legal Logic. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kinzo, M. D. G. (2001) ‘A democratização brasileira: um balanço do processo político desde a transição’ 15(4) Dez. São Paulo: São Paulo Perspec https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-88392001000400002.
Scott, C. P. (2012) ‘The Accidental President of Brazil: An Interview
with Fernando Henrique Cardoso’ (Llilas Portal) http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/etext/llilas/portal/portal079/cardoso.pdf.